Nadal's H2H Against Top 20

by hawkeye Tue 11 Jun 2013, 9:53 pm

First topic message reminder :

Saw this elsewhere and presume it's correct.

Djokovic 20-15

Murray 13-5

Federer 20-10

Ferrer 20-4

Berdych 14-3

Tsonga 8-3

Del Potro 8-3

Gasquet 10-0

Wawrinka 10-0

Haas 5-0

Cilic 2-1

Nishikori 5-0

Tipsarevic 3-0

Raonic 3-0

Almagro 10-0

Simon 5-1

Kholshreiber 9-1

Querry 3-0

Monaco 4-1

Outstanding! I wonder how this compares with Federer?

by bogbrush Wed 12 Jun 2013, 9:57 am

Red wrote:
At which point did I compare 2007 to 2005/6??
My post had nothing to do with that.

At 9:11 bantroban wrote, replying to a post by mthierry that 2007 was peak Federer.

Sorry but that is nonsense. During 2004/5 Federer played Tennis that no-one has ever played before or since.

Part of the reason, IMHO, is because he was so far ahead of his available rivals (no Haas, Hewitt injured, Safin on walkabouts etc) he gained an amazing confidence and just played Tennis from another stratosphere

He was still pretty good in 2007, far better than most other slam winning players peaks - but he was losing to the likes of Andy Murray, i.e. not quite 'god like' Tennis

At 9:22 you replied

Hmmm. Perhaps the reason it looked liked he was playing in another stratosphere was precisely that... all his rivals were in a lower stratosphere Whistle

So, yeah, I think it pretty much reflects exactly what you wrote.

What I've shown you is that EXCLUDING Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, he lost THREE matches against everyone else in 2005 & 2006 combined, and SEVEN in 2007 alone. Obviously bantroban is right.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 9:59 am

bogbrush wrote:
Red wrote:
At which point did I compare 2007 to 2005/6??
My post had nothing to do with that.
At 9:11 bantroban wrote, replying to a post by mthierry that 2007 was peak Federer.

Sorry but that is nonsense. During 2004/5 Federer played Tennis that no-one has ever played before or since.

Part of the reason, IMHO, is because he was so far ahead of his available rivals (no Haas, Hewitt injured, Safin on walkabouts etc) he gained an amazing confidence and just played Tennis from another stratosphere

He was still pretty good in 2007, far better than most other slam winning players peaks - but he was losing to the likes of Andy Murray, i.e. not quite 'god like' Tennis
At 9:22 you replied

Hmmm. Perhaps the reason it looked liked he was playing in another stratosphere was precisely that... all his rivals were in a lower stratosphere Whistle

So, yeah, I think it pretty much reflects exactly what you wrote.

What I've shown you is that EXCLUDING Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, he lost THREE matches against everyone else in 2005 & 2006 combined, and SEVEN in 2007 alone. Obviously bantroban is right.

Oh for crying out loud BB, you're better than this.
I was not talking about Banb's whole post, I only quoted a bit of it and replied to that. Now you've quoted all of the two posts you make it seem like my reply was addressed to the whole post, when it wasn't. I only quoted the bit I was replying to.
My post had nothing to do with a comparison between 2006-2007.
For the record, I believe Federer's best level was probably 2006- but that's nothing to do with what I was arguing earlier.

by Guest Wed 12 Jun 2013, 10:06 am

Red wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
Red wrote:
At which point did I compare 2007 to 2005/6??
My post had nothing to do with that.
At 9:11 bantroban wrote, replying to a post by mthierry that 2007 was peak Federer.

Sorry but that is nonsense. During 2004/5 Federer played Tennis that no-one has ever played before or since.

Part of the reason, IMHO, is because he was so far ahead of his available rivals (no Haas, Hewitt injured, Safin on walkabouts etc) he gained an amazing confidence and just played Tennis from another stratosphere

He was still pretty good in 2007, far better than most other slam winning players peaks - but he was losing to the likes of Andy Murray, i.e. not quite 'god like' Tennis
At 9:22 you replied

Hmmm. Perhaps the reason it looked liked he was playing in another stratosphere was precisely that... all his rivals were in a lower stratosphere Whistle

So, yeah, I think it pretty much reflects exactly what you wrote.

What I've shown you is that EXCLUDING Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, he lost THREE matches against everyone else in 2005 & 2006 combined, and SEVEN in 2007 alone. Obviously bantroban is right.
Oh for crying out loud BB, you're better than this.
I was not talking about Banb's whole post, I only quoted a bit of it and replied to that. Now you've quoted all of the two posts you make it seem like my reply was addressed to the whole post, when it wasn't. I only quoted the bit I was replying to.
My post had nothing to do with a comparison between 2006-2007.
For the record, I believe Federer's best level was probably 2006- but that's nothing to do with what I was arguing earlier.

The stratosphere part of Banbro's post which you quoted was clearly referring to 04/05.

Surely this isn't another one of your attempts at using semantics (incorrectly) to dig yourself out of a hole that you've created?

I think a lot of people are tired of this kind of debating. Making statements and then claiming not to have made them and then endlessly arguing pointless nuances.

I know I certainly am.

Anyway BB has more than adequately dealt with this already.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 10:09 am

By 'stratosphere' I was not talking about his rivals just in 2005-2006, I was talking about the rivals his age in general.
At no point did I mention any specific years.

I've already said that I think Federer's best year was in 2006, so on that point I agree with Banbro.
I believe you know exactly what I'm trying to say, and are just misrepresenting me for the sake of it.

Even if I didn't make myself clear the first time, I think around 3-4 times after that I have emphasised- my post was not meant to be part of the comparison between 2006 and 2007.

by banbrotam Wed 12 Jun 2013, 10:10 am

bogbrush wrote:[See, the nice things about injuries for fans is that it allows them to imagine their hero would otherwise have won it all

Exactly. And this is my argument against the current 'Rafa rules' comments - you'd think it's pointless that Fed or Murray turn up at Wimbledon picard

Rafa, more than any other of his rivals, chooses to only play when fully fit. I actually admire him for it - it takes a certain kind of mental strength to risk losing ground to your rivals

This then makes fans / admirers assume that if he's been at that event, he's have won it, i.e. they assume that just because Rafa has been winning recently, he would have won Wimby/OLympics/US Open/O2 etc last year!!

We all do it. For me one of my biggest regrets for Murray was that he got that bug around the Verdasco match as Aus09', as I think he could have beaten Rafa and Roger - such was his form. But we have to accept realities.

by barrystar Wed 12 Jun 2013, 10:11 am

The H2H stats are very impressive.

I agree with others that it's titles first and foremost with Slams the most important (and Nadal's got a good whack of slams and titles). For me that is followed by ranking achievements, and in particular weeks at #1 - all the real greats (Nadal included) have achieved 3 figures of weeks at #1.

Nadal is a bit like Borg in that he has a high win/loss % but a relatively low count of weeks at #1 compared to the number of slams he's won (look at Sampras, Connors, and Lendl, even McEnroe for comparison). Djoko is already on 85 weeks at #1 so he'll make 100 for certain, in fact he has every chance of overhauling Nadal's current total of 102 weeks at #1 before his current stint at #1 ends.

Personally I see it as a bit of a mark against Nadal in terms of legacy and overall achievement against other greats that he seems to have been so uncomfortable with being at the top of the men's game and has relatively seldom achieved it. I do think that sustained periods at #1 is a very significant measure of greatness. Perhaps this is also related to the fact that at heart Nadal is a dirt-baller who has managed to adapt his game away from clay (with the help of the surfaces moving towards him) rather than a true all-court player.

As far as injuries are concerned, I think it's a bit like climbing Everest - just as you haven't made a successful ascent if you don't come back, since tennis is a game of fitness every pro faces the same essential challenge and has to do his best to strike the right balance between extracting the maximum from himself and having something left for the next tournament.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 10:14 am

Emanci,
In 2007 he lost to Canas a few times and Volandro- obviously they are not in a higher 'stratosphere'- I'm not an idiot to argue something like that.
As I've made clear many times, I agree with the sentiment 2006 was Fed's best year, and my post was not addressing this. Perhaps my initial post was unclear, but I have tried to clarify myself numerous times.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 10:15 am

banbrotam wrote:
This then makes fans / admirers assume that if he's been at that event, he's have won it, i.e. they assume that just because Rafa has been winning recently, he would have won Wimby/OLympics/US Open/O2 etc last year!!

Who said that?
Certainly not me.

Olympics and USO he had a shot, I highly highly doubt he would win in the O2. Where has someone said he would definitely win??

by break_in_the_fifth Wed 12 Jun 2013, 10:22 am

banbrotam wrote:
bogbrush wrote:[See, the nice things about injuries for fans is that it allows them to imagine their hero would otherwise have won it all

Exactly. And this is my argument against the current 'Rafa rules' comments - you'd think it's pointless that Fed or Murray turn up at Wimbledon

Rafa, more than any other of his rivals, chooses to only play when fully fit. I actually admire him for it - it takes a certain kind of mental strength to risk losing ground to your rivals

This then makes fans / admirers assume that if he's been at that event, he's have won it, i.e. they assume that just because Rafa has been winning recently, he would have won Wimby/OLympics/US Open/O2 etc last year!!

We all do it. For me one of my biggest regrets for Murray was that he got that bug around the Verdasco match as Aus09', as I think he could have beaten Rafa and Roger - such was his form. But we have to accept realities.

I lost £10 on Murray that AO, he was amazing around that time. Thankfully I didn't back my bet up with Fed Laugh

by Johnyjeep Wed 12 Jun 2013, 10:25 am

I’ve done some research into how many tournaments are played on each surface to try and add a little more context. Think of this as you will:

Clay = 21 (32.3%)
Hard = 20 (30.7%)
Indoor Hard = 17 (26.1%)
Grass = 6 (9.2%)
Indoor Clay = 1 (1.5%)

So I did hear correctly when it came to clay being the most prolific classification regarding surface on the ATP Tour.

Before the “ahh but look at Indoor Hard as well” brigade start up. Yes, clearly putting the two together means there are more hard surfaces than clay. However I believe this can be answered in a fairly logical fashion (aside from the fact that playing indoor and outdoor are two completely different environments!!)

Tennis is a summer sport. Therefore it is a sucker for seasonality. A cursory glance at a map will show that the vast majority of land mass is in the northern hemisphere. This is also where the vast majority of interest is (in terms of population and commercial). It simply isn’t viable, due to lack of interest (and room!!) to hold tournaments in the summer months in the southern hemisphere in any great quantity. As a consequence, unless we want to hold a tennis season which lasts the northern hemisphere summer months, we simply have to have indoor tournaments.

So what about indoor clay then? I will need help here. There is 1 indoor clay event. I would assume that a cost benefit analysis would show that an indoor clay court is both expensive to lay down and maintain. Therefore increasing its hire cost to the point where it becomes unsustainable. Ergo, this for me is why indoor hard court surface is the preferred option. Especially as I assume the cost of infrastructure to build a venue for indoor clay tournament (of any size) would be astronomical.

The point of this is to show that Rafa is not hard done by the lack of clay events available to him. This notion that all these HC events are somehow impeding him is just not true. There are 5 HC Masters and 3 Clay Masters. Not exactly a massive difference. And before people say “ahh but Paris is hard”. Well, try and hold a clay tournament in Paris in November. Or try and squeeze it into the summer months so it can be on clay? It just doesn’t fit.

I have shown that outdoor clay is in fact the most prevalent surface for ATP tournaments and hopefully explained why indoor tournaments exist, and why they have to be on hard. It is not in fact a choice but a necessity. The alternative is we attempt to hold tournaments events in the northern hemisphere’s spring, autumn and winter months. And let’s face it….we have enough problem in the summer!! As shown by Wimbledon’s (and RG eventually) desire to build roofs!

The alternative is to cut the length of the season and tournaments. Not sure this is the answer either (though no doubt would please Nadal fans). By cutting tournaments and season length you risk the idea of weakening the tour. Because of less money available and less tournaments, fewer players will be able to sustain a living. The lower ranked players already struggle I understand. This gives a smaller window of opportunity to any player. You certainly don't hear any complaints about the length of the tour from anyone outside the top 10. Or from the top 10 when they were trying to become successful. Its a case of "I'm here now - lets try and make it even easier for me stay here".

by Johnyjeep Wed 12 Jun 2013, 10:29 am

This also shows that Clay specialists will always have a statistical advantage over Grass specialists when it comes to h2h. Simply because of the disparity between tournaments held on clay and grass.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 10:34 am

No one is saying we have to cut the length of tournaments.

We could easily have a few clay Masters in the South Americas in the first part of the year, the weather is perfect at that time of year for tennis.
That would mean that there was balance between the number of hard court and clay tournaments- however it doesn't address the grass problem.
That's why I'm also in favour of making Indian Wells and Miami grass.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 10:34 am

Johnyjeep wrote:This also shows that Clay specialists will always have a statistical advantage over Grass specialists when it comes to h2h. Simply because of the disparity between tournaments held on clay and grass.

I could argue the same for hard court compared to clay, and hard court compared to grass.

by Johnyjeep Wed 12 Jun 2013, 10:56 am

The point being Red there is no inbalance to redress between clay and outdoor hard court. For the reason's I have highlighted.

Regarding your few clay masters in South America. Yes, not a bad shout. However is there the appetite there (from players, sponsors, public, tournament directors and so on)for it? Federer went to Brazil didn't he with a Gillette Tour to try and drum up exposure for tennis. This tells me its still in its infancy with regards capturing the public imagination. Is there the infrastructure for it as well? It's not as simple as saying the weather is OK.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 11:07 am

No but there is an imbalance between clay and hard courts.

Hard courts are hard courts, irrelevant of whether there is a roof. Weather should not be a problem, as the tournaments should be scheduled when it is a favourable time of the year for those tournaments.
I've been to South America, tennis is big there- did you see the reception Nadal got earlier this year? There are many tournament already there- in the main countries, but they do need expanding.
I'd say help the balance by:
-Changing Indian Wells and Miami to grass Masters 1000.
-Paris Masters to become a ATP 500- downgraded. The French have enough major tournaments.
-Acapulco to be upgraded from a ATP500 to Masters 1000.
-After the o2's contract with the World Tour Final expires, I believe the World Tour Finals should take place in the Parque Roca complex in Argentina

by Johnyjeep Wed 12 Jun 2013, 11:44 am

So there is an imbalance? Even though I stated facts which shows there are more Outdoor Clay events than Outdoor Hard Court events.

Your evidence of this imbalance? "No but there is an imbalance between clay and hard courts". Ah well, that is irefutable. Just keep repeating this line. People may start to believe you.

As for your 'weather shoud not be a problem'. I have explained (quite clearly I thought) why we have an indoor season. And why that is on hard court. Are you choosing to ignore this? Weather/climate is a problem whether you like it or not. Clay swings are already held in parts of the world when the weather is most appropriate. The only thing extra you could do is hold a masters there as you say (if feasible). It does not change the fact there has to be an indoor season. And that indoor season has to be on hard court.

Do you live in the real world? All your suggestions. Are they even feasible? The comment that the French have enough major tournaments and downgrading Paris Masters. That doesn't even address the surface its played on. And do they have enough? They have 1 GS. What other major tournament do they have?

Nadal would get that reception in any country, especially latin american country, on the planet. Regardless of whether they were a tennis mad nation. He is a megastar that transcends tennis.

Plus they should switch the WTF to clay. Have a wild guess why that doesn't happen?? Every player highlights the difficulty in switching between surface. And the transition they have to go through. At the end of the indoor season you propose having a one off tourny on a completely different surface they have just spent the last 2 months playing on? That's just insane. That's why the season is split into sections played on the same surface.

by bogbrush Wed 12 Jun 2013, 11:44 am

It's interesting that Roger and Rafa have very similar, but opposite, records on clay and grass.

Rafa has 8 RG's, Roger has 7 W's

Rafa has 3 losing finals at W, Roger has 4 at RG

It's away from these two events that their achievement diverge radically.

Rafa has 1 USO and 1 losing final, Roger has 5 titles and 1 final loss.

Rafa has 1 AO and 1 losing final, Roger has 4 titles and 1 final loss.

Grass and Clay aren't the difference at Slam level, it's the other two.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 12:02 pm

JohnyJeep wrote:So there is an imbalance? Even though I stated facts which shows there are more Outdoor Clay events than Outdoor Hard Court events.

Your evidence of this imbalance? "No but there is an imbalance between clay and hard courts". Ah well, that is irefutable. Just keep repeating this line. People may start to believe you.

There are more hard court events than there are clay court events- if that's not an imbalance than what is?
It doesn't matter whether there's a roof or not, it's still a hard court.

I am happy with having indoor hard at the end of the season- there's nothing wrong with that.
If we downgrade Paris Bercy to a ATP500 and upgrade Acapulco to a Masters 1000, that would mean equal number of Masters 1000 on clay and hard court. The timings can stay the same, so the weather won't be a problem.

As for the WTF, I believe Paris should be played 2 weeks earlier, and WTF one week later; so that there is a bit of a gap. The current scheduling of playing o2 right after Paris is ridiculous imo. The gap would also give time for transition.

by barrystar Wed 12 Jun 2013, 12:23 pm

Perhaps, Red, you should have a chat with the groundsmen at Indian Wells and Miami - they might tell you that maintaining a grass-court facility suitable for staging a Masters standard tournament at those two venues would be incredibly impracticable and fiendishly expensive (weather, or perhaps just climate, could be a huge problem at both venues - the sort of grass that makes northern European grass courts so good does not easily grow in places like Miami or Indian Wells, nor does it sustain the level of play throughout the year which no doubt makes such venues pay for themselves).

You might find that the TV income for your newly scheduled tour collapses. You might also find that the need to change to clay at the end of an HC season in December would give rise to (a) a wealth of no-shows and (b) substantial injuries on tired bodies because tennis on clay asks different questions of different parts of the body to tennis on HC.

There are a myriad of different reasons for the current structure of the Tour, not all of them good I accept. Tennis on HC is here to stay, it accommodates the widest array of different styles (all-court players) and requires the least costs and expertise for maintenance - it means that tennis is available to a wider potential array of participants throughout the world than if clay or grass predominated.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 12:28 pm

Red, the best thing would be to wait a few years, choose a HC player to support, then you'll want more HC tournies Wink

by Guest Wed 12 Jun 2013, 12:28 pm

If Eastbourne had the facilities they could be upgraded to a Masters event status given the recent introduction of male participation. A pipe dream I know, but it would be amazing.

by **laverfan** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 12:29 pm

hawkeye wrote:Outstanding! I wonder how this compares with Federer?

Wonderful. Yet another GOAT thread. A complete lack of understanding of the sport leads to such threads popping every day.

Whose dad is bigger, HE?

by **laverfan** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 12:31 pm

@HE.. where did Mr. Davydenko go in this list? Laugh

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 12:34 pm

laverfan wrote:@HE.. where did Mr. Davydenko go in this list?

Honestly Laverfan, is that your only reaction to this thread.
Nadal here has a fantastic H2H here against the current top 20 (although without clay Djokovic would be ahead, and the others would be a bit closer), and your only observation is citing the player who has played Nadal more than 1 time and still has a positive H2H against him in an order to somehow discredit him?
That's disappointing.

To answer your question btw, I don't believe he is a top 20 player.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 12:38 pm

Barrystar- interesting points ie feasability.
How expensive do you think maintaining grass courts would be? I don't think there would be a drop in demand, in-fact there may even be an increase in demand as there is not many grass tournaments already.
I know Newport is in the USA, and that is currently played on grass.

In terms of the WTF, it has been hit by some extent to injury. Clay tends to be a more forgiving surface for the body, although I agree the transition is a problem. There was also talk of moving the WTF, I think Simon Reed wrote an article saying he wanted a move to January for WTF.

by mthierry Wed 12 Jun 2013, 12:40 pm

An indoor HC is a HC. It's clutching at straws to seperate them just to suit an agenda looking to demonstrate that there's no imbalance with clay. The courts are pretty much the same - just slightly different atmospheric conditions. A wet clay surface and a dry, baking one are even more different - it doesn't mean they are 2 different surfaces.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 12:41 pm

mthierry wrote:An indoor HC is a HC. It's clutching at straws to seperate them just to suit an agenda looking to demonstrate that there's no imbalance with clay. The courts are pretty much the same - just slightly different atmospheric conditions. A wet clay surface and a dry, baking one are even more different - it doesn't mean they are 2 different surfaces.

Exactly.

by bogbrush Wed 12 Jun 2013, 12:48 pm

Red wrote:Barrystar- interesting points ie feasability.
How expensive do you think maintaining grass courts would be? I don't think there would be a drop in demand, in-fact there may even be an increase in demand as there is not many grass tournaments already.
I know Newport is in the USA, and that is currently played on grass.

In terms of the WTF, it has been hit by some extent to injury. Clay tends to be a more forgiving surface for the body, although I agree the transition is a problem. There was also talk of moving the WTF, I think Simon Reed wrote an article saying he wanted a move to January for WTF.

Simon Reed Laugh

by HM Murdock Wed 12 Jun 2013, 12:56 pm

Red wrote: There was also talk of moving the WTF, I think Simon Reed wrote an article saying he wanted a move to January for WTF.

Thereby having the end-of-season championship at the start of the new season?

And I'm sure the top 8 would love a week long tournament in London in the same month as a slam in Australia!

That's an odd suggestion.

by Johnyjeep Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:02 pm

It's not clutching at straws and I have no agenda. The indoor hard-court exists because of seasonality issues that are well and truly beyond the control of any human being. It doesn't exist at the expense of clay. It exists in addition.

The alternative, as I've already stated, is to have barely any tennis in the northern hemisphere (definately none in Europe) beyond September up until endish of March. There is no clay alternative. Taking out the indoor season, outdoor clay exceeds outdoor hard courts in tournament prevalence.

The suggestions you make Red (such as downgrading Paris and upgrading Acalpulco) do not alter the amount of tournaments on either surface either. Just the importance.

As has already been very well pointed out by Barrystar (and being a committee member at a cricket club myself) I can highlight how hard (and expensive) it is to maintain grass playing surfaces. Even in a wet maritime climate that the UK finds itself in. To do so in a desert and tropical climate would be so expensive and difficult that, quite rightly, they are (Indian Wells and Miami) not a grass event. Nor do I understand they are even considering it.

Not to mention the lead-in events on grass you would need before that (in March) to prepare?. Who is providing these tournaments?

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:06 pm

Red wrote:
mthierry wrote:An indoor HC is a HC. It's clutching at straws to seperate them just to suit an agenda looking to demonstrate that there's no imbalance with clay. The courts are pretty much the same - just slightly different atmospheric conditions. A wet clay surface and a dry, baking one are even more different - it doesn't mean they are 2 different surfaces.

Exactly.

Rafa fans are very fond of separating indoor/outdoor HC when it suits their agenda. E.g. Fed can't beat Rafa on a HC slam - only on indoor HC where conditions are different, they say.

by **laverfan** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:06 pm

Red wrote:
laverfan wrote:@HE.. where did Mr. Davydenko go in this list?

Honestly Laverfan, is that your only reaction to this thread.

Yes, and even this is wasted energy.

Red wrote:Nadal here has a fantastic H2H here against the current top 20 (although without clay Djokovic would be ahead, and the others would be a bit closer), and your only observation is citing the player who has played Nadal more than 1 time and still has a positive H2H against him in an order to somehow discredit him?
That's disappointing.

I am disappointed in this thread being written. It shows the lack of creativity and the ability to appreciate different styles.

This Nadal-is-the-GOAT discussion is a tedious old debate, and brings nothing to this forum. It just brings out trench warfare and splitting hairs. The last three pages are full of it.

The fallacy of a h2h, positive or negative is lost on you. There is nothing new here. Posters will split it across surfaces, speeds, environmental conditions, drug charges, time-wasting etc.

What is this adding to the forum? Nothing. This is documented on Wikipedia. What value is this article adding to 606v2?

Red wrote:To answer your question btw, I don't believe he is a top 20 player.

You should visit the ATP web site and look at ranking history, once in a while, it dispels myths.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:07 pm

There is an imbalance between hard courts and clay in terms of number of tournaments, and number of important tournaments- that's a fact.
You may argue that this is due to feasibility reasons- but it doesn't mean the imbalance doesn't exist.

How much do you think it would cost for Indian Wells for example to run a grass tournament instead of clay. Surely if ATP Newport 250 can maintain quite a few courts on grass throughout the year, so can Indian Wells and their billionaire owner.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:11 pm

laverfan wrote:I am disappointed in this thread being written. It shows the lack of creativity and the ability to appreciate different styles.

Laverfan, you yourself have done many statistical article like these- there's nothing wrong with it.
Clearly it's an impressive stat- irrelevant of whether Nadal is the best on clay or not.

laverfan wrote:You should visit the ATP web site and look at ranking history, once in a while, it dispels myths.

Good news, I just visited the ATP website, and Davydenko is not in the top 20.

by HM Murdock Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:22 pm

Help me out here.

Is the clay-HC imbalance linked to the original H2H discussion?

Or is this a new debate.

I'm lost.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:23 pm

Red wrote:There is an imbalance between hard courts and clay in terms of number of tournaments, and number of important tournaments- that's a fact.
You may argue that this is due to feasibility reasons- but it doesn't mean the imbalance doesn't exist.

How much do you think it would cost for Indian Wells for example to run a grass tournament instead of clay. Surely if ATP Newport 250 can maintain quite a few courts on grass throughout the year, so can Indian Wells and their billionaire owner.

The owner of Indian Wells would have to check with Rafa first what type of surface he wants.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:24 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:Help me out here.

Is the clay-HC imbalance linked to the original H2H discussion?

Or is this a new debate.

I'm lost.

You're better off lost Smile

by Silver Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:24 pm

What an infuriating thread.

by Johnyjeep Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:25 pm

Red, I can't decide whether you are just a WUM or just intentially being provactive (and I'm being generous there with that comment).

Davydenko is not in the top 20. Well done. But has he been? Yes. That's why the notion of a positive h2h against the top 20 means bugger all. The top 20 is a dynamic thing that is forever changing and means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Its a measure of nothing.

As for your comment about Grass and Newport, Indian Wells and Miami. Take a look at a map and look at their locations. Then do a degree in Geography. You will learn all about climate and its implications on vegetation. No billionaire on Earth can do much about that. Or the lead in events required for a grass tournament. Or the logistics in organising a world-wide professional sporting tour.

Just switch this, just change the weather here, just make this a grass event, this will increase demand (even though it won't because switching a venue from HC to Grass would significatly reduce the availability of court time due to courts needing to be rested/put to bed so the grass can grow back - this in turn means fewer courts meaning fewer people can play meaning lost return on investment).

This seems to be completely and utterly lost on you. It's all so simple to you. Maybe you should run for ATP Chairman or whoever organises the tour.

by Born Slippy Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:27 pm

Without checking, excluding the top 4, doesn't Fed also have +ve H2Hs against these guys - most substantially?

by Johnyjeep Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:28 pm

Apologies HM.

I added the surface type to show that clay is actually far more common than people are making out.

And that's why its possible that Rafa h2h vs the top 20 is so healthy. Because he is so much better on clay then everyone else.

I will sign off from this debate here.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:29 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:There is an imbalance between hard courts and clay in terms of number of tournaments, and number of important tournaments- that's a fact.
You may argue that this is due to feasibility reasons- but it doesn't mean the imbalance doesn't exist.

How much do you think it would cost for Indian Wells for example to run a grass tournament instead of clay. Surely if ATP Newport 250 can maintain quite a few courts on grass throughout the year, so can Indian Wells and their billionaire owner.

The owner of Indian Wells would have to check with Rafa first what type of surface he wants.

Larry is totally unbiased warning

by barrystar Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:30 pm

Red wrote:
How much do you think it would cost for Indian Wells for example to run a grass tournament instead of clay. Surely if ATP Newport 250 can maintain quite a few courts on grass throughout the year, so can Indian Wells and their billionaire owner.

I have no idea, but Indian Wells has no parallel whatsoever in Newport - at the latter it's a bit like Queen's Club. They set up a pretty small series of viewing stands at the "Hall of Fame" tennis club in Newport, which is on the north eastern seaboard. This is done for a week's ATP tournament when the field is 32, doubles field is 16, and the qualifying tournament takes 4 qualifiers out of a field of 32. I assume that they play tennis on the grass for most of the rest of the season (which will be comparable in length to the UK).

Indian Wells is a huge facility with a 10,000 plus seater arena which is in the desert in California and hosts a 2-week tournament for men and women which, with qualifying, is only marginally smaller than a grand slam in terms of the fields and spectators. Billionaire or not, to play around with a grass surface there using Newport as a precedent is just not realistic. I imagine that for anyone wanting to make the facility pay conditions at Indian Wells would allow play for most of the year. Wimbledon has almost no play during the rest of the year (a) because of the weather (b) to give the grass a rest and (c) because it can afford to do so. I can't imagine Indian Wells operating on that basis - can you? And nor can I imagine a billionaire flushing a whole load of cash down the swanee to give it a go beign taken seriously by the ATP, the WTA, or indeed anyone.

by **laverfan** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:32 pm

Red wrote:
laverfan wrote:I am disappointed in this thread being written. It shows the lack of creativity and the ability to appreciate different styles.

Laverfan, you yourself have done many statistical article like these- there's nothing wrong with it.
Clearly it's an impressive stat- irrelevant of whether Nadal is the best on clay or not.

You are equating this drivel with my stats articles? Laugh

I guess you want me to write my statistical articles to prove GOATness. Apologies, I am not interested in such debates.

Red wrote:
laverfan wrote:You should visit the ATP web site and look at ranking history, once in a while, it dispels myths.

Good news, I just visited the ATP website, and Davydenko is not in the top 20.

Ah wonderful, He must have retired while I was not looking. Wonderful player.

Carry on, Red! You have this article in good hands. Ok!

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:38 pm

I am not saying that financially it will be beneficial to turn Indian Wells into a grass court, I am aware that maintaining it will be significantly more expensive than with hard courts.
I think the ATP can subsidise it though, because currently we have a ridiculously low number of grass courts. Either that, or we choose another location to have Masters1000 tournament, and downgrade some of the other Masters (I think there has to be 9 in total).

Jeez... it's just a suggestion to try and have more grass Masters, there's no need to be so rude (and what's with the name-calling?).
And no Johnny, I'm not going to get a geography degree.

by User 774433 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:44 pm

laverfan wrote:You are equating this drivel with my stats articles?

There's no need to be so mean. HE has done some research and found out some stats which she then posted on the forum. You're a mod here, why take the aggressive stance against her like this.
I do agree that these stats are boosted by the fact Nadal is good on clay, as the likes of Emancipator and Bogbrush have said. Considering clay is Nadal's favourite surface, and he is so good on it, it was always likely.

laverfan wrote:Ah wonderful, He must have retired while I was not looking.

I didn't say he had retired, I said he wasn't part of the current top 20? I agree he was a fantastic player, a brilliant shotmaker.
This article though is comparing the current top 20, and as far as I'm aware he's not in that. I don't see why you're getting so angry.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:46 pm

What name-calling?

by debaters1 Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:47 pm

mthierry wrote:As for the weak competition on clay, if Nadal didn't exist, Federer would have initially dominated the surface like Borg and we wouldn't be calling it his weakest surface; he'd be one of the clay GOATs. Nole would have won it the last 2 times just like his HC dominance and we won't be calling it his weakest surface. These guys grew up on this surface. It appears to be their weakest surface and clay appears to have the weakest competition because of one man. It makes that one man a once-in-a-lifetime freak and a great. It doesn't mean the surface competition is weak.

This right here. Fed would have about 20/21 Majors and have done the RG/Wimby double several times over. And Novak would likel be on 8 Majors, and a career slam, too.

by HM Murdock Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:52 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:What name-calling?

I called you a sanity clause.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 12 Jun 2013, 1:57 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:What name-calling?

I called you a sanity clause.

Ha ha, you no fool me, there ain't-a no Santy Claus

by Sponsored content