Doesn't federer and Nadal losing to guys ranked outside the top 100 shattter the myth that the tour lacks depth?

First topic message reminder :

We hear it all the time on these boards, the top 4 are great but the guys behind them are soft and lacking in ability. Some even take it further and state that the top 4 are simply flattered by how weak the rest of the tour is and wouldn't be winning as much if they faced tougher competition. Now granted Federer is past it, Nadal is fighting leg injuries, but frankly I can't remember two legends of this caliber being bounced out in the first and second round by players outside the top 100. I mean you would expect even a 32 year old Federer of being able to beat the world 116th or whatever ranked player at wimbeldon, despite his age. Lets remember Agassi was one year older when he reached world #1 for the last time. And Nadal is the current points leader and has been rampaging on the tour. Stakhovsky and Darcis proved that this myth of lack of depth on tour is just that a myth. Both guys played brilliant high level matches against somewhat off color opponents. Stak in particular looked like the second coming of Edberg, Federer served 70 plus percent and hit way, way more winners than errors. And it just didn't matter. Nadal pulled up a little lame in the third set against Darcis but he was moving pretty well up till the third set when noticeably he did something to his leg. Despite the diminished capacity you would expect the 7 time wimby champ and 8 time RG champ to do better than exactly one set won between the two of them against players ranked outside the top 100. Stakhovsky and Darcis beat Federer and Nadal 6 sets to 1.

Now many will come in and say these two are past it, for Federer that isn't debatable but he played well enough to win a grass court title last week in Halle. He won this tournament last year and was in the WTF championship match less than 7 months ago. He still has a lot of ability, while not nearly the player he was at his peak. Nadal is clearly not passed it as he has a lead in the points race and just got caught trying to adjust to grass with no warmup, also pulled up a bit lame once the match had already turned in favor of his opponent.

The tour outside the top 4 is not weak, and this is a prime example of the fact. It is probably deeper and more professional than it ever has been. This is another reason we are seeing how hard it is for young players to break through. There are a lot of big sharks in the sea young man you better sharpen your teeth young man.

socal1976 wrote:

time please wrote:Oh socal, I'm just a little tongue in cheek.

Most of the people you are aiming the comments at have never argued for eras being weak or strong.  I think you have failed to realise that it is your position on the 'rollover generation' that is either being questioned by pointing out that you could argue the opposite side of the coin with totally different criteria.  In other words, it is your trenchant position that is being sent up whenever someone posts a provocative thread or comment on eras - it is not necessarily others' cast iron beliefs!

TP, the same people who for years argued with me that there is no such thing as eras or that all eras are equally strong or incomparable spend an inordinate amount of time pointing out how barren, thin, boring, and uncompetitive the current game is. Our friend IC on this very site has called this current period transitional. If I said the same thing about the rollover generation, which I have and stand by, some of the same people would rail against heaven and earth at my deficiencies. Funny, lack of depth was one of the main arguments that we heard for years and years. And the only, only evidence ever produced for this paucity of depth was that the big 4 wins too much and therefore their competition stinks. We just saw two virtuoso performances by guys who struggle to make the main draw, don't you think that exposes this lack of depth critique a bit?

No we didn't. Darcis was nothing special at all, Nadal is crocked. Stakovsky played very well, exploiting a very unusually slick Centre Court to beat an aged Federer.

Nothing there to get the flags out for depth.

spdocoffee wrote:A far more simple way of deducing an era's strength is to just watch some tennis and make up one's own mind about whether the hitting is hot or not.

I'd say it's pretty darn good.

I'd say so too - it always has been

time please wrote:IC and JHM - you beat me to it, well was typing and then thought I just didn't have the energy!

I wonder if we should take an old era argument thread and insert your postings on this thread into one of the old heated debates socal and then you could argue energetically with yourself, and we could all sit back and wonder who would emerge the most battle scarred!  

TP , we all find the new socal threads of same meaning but a different title funny so let it go

socal1976 wrote:But it is a wonderful strategy that you have all developed, when you have no facts or logic to back yourself up, simply attack socal as a Novak fan boy and make the thread about him. Really quite pathetic, and quite telling.

Glad you understand about your threads and how everybody is feeling about it.

Point 1] you spoke about depth of this era with the title
Point 2]Your analysis are very baised as its been proved by countless members time and again
Point 3] Your analysis are flawed and the best example is comparison of this year to 2001, it can't be either way boy
Point 4]We all now know how extreme fanboyism can be.
Point 5]Finally the worst part you accusing us of pathetic and telling when you know what the truth is.

socal1976 wrote:Our friend IC on this very site has called this current period transitional. If I said the same thing about the rollover generation, which I have and stand by, some of the same people would rail against heaven and earth at my deficiencies.

To dear Socal, either agree both eras are transitional or understand both are equal it can't be either way bro.

spdocoffee wrote:A far more simple way of deducing an era's strength is to just watch some tennis and make up one's own mind about whether the hitting is hot or not.

I'd say it's pretty darn good.

I agree with that completely that is my gut instinct as well. But on this site if you don't follow the party line and denigrate everything about the modern game as awful and boring then you better have some evidence to back it up. Most likely that evidence will be ignored anyway, but at least you tried. But if you want to come out and say the tour lacks depth and there is no competition for the big 4, or that the tour is boring and dull; then you don't need any evidence at all and the peanut gallery will clap and dance for you like seals waiting for you to toss them another mackerel. For years we have heard this lacks depth critique and the only evidence ever produced to support it is that the big 4 win too much therefore their competition must stink. And the majority of posters ate this up and asked for more.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:But it is a wonderful strategy that you have all developed, when you have no facts or logic to back yourself up, simply attack socal as a Novak fan boy and make the thread about him. Really quite pathetic, and quite telling.

Glad you understand about your threads and how everybody is feeling about it.

Point 1] you spoke about depth of this era with the title
Point 2]Your analysis are very baised as its been proved by countless members time and again
Point 3] Your analysis are flawed and the best example is comparison of this year to 2001, it can't be either way boy
Point 4]We all now know how extreme fanboyism can be.
Point 5]Finally the worst part you accusing us of pathetic and telling when you know what the truth is.

You just don't want to get it, many people on this site claimed that the modern tour lacked depth. Well we just saw how deep the tour is and you guys don't want to accept it. We saw that this bogus critique was nothing more than shallow and completely unsupported conclusion. Stakarcis 6 and fedal 1 in sets, exposed the shallowness of this critique better than any argument I could have ever made.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Our friend IC on this very site has called this current period transitional. If I said the same thing about the rollover generation, which I have and stand by, some of the same people would rail against heaven and earth at my deficiencies.

To dear Socal, either agree both eras are transitional or understand both are equal it can't be either way bro.

A because you say so, and then back it up with an emoticon it doesn't make it true. I never said that these victories prove this era is golden. What I said is people who claimed this period lacks depth are wrong as Stakarcis just proved.

Danny_1982 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

My point with Murray and Djokovic is that they can do more off the return, which is an area they are more effective and have more variety than Roger. As for what form and fitness they'll be in at 32... Who knows? No point even guessing! Federer may not be the unbelievable player of 5 years ago anymore, but he's hardly in a wheelchair. A 35 year old Haas is still in the tournament by the way.

Comparing to Haas makes no sense,coz how many matches Haas wins against Top 4 at this age compared to Fed? Fed can play like Haas and beat lesser players and indeed can be more successful coz we are talking about the Greatest player of all time, but thats not what we expect from Fed right.

Haas would be happy to reach Quarters, a final loss would still be considered a loss for Fed's standards, in my view if you ask Fed fans they will treat the 2nd round loss the same way as a final loss, at this stage of career Fed fans realistically expect nothing from him, its either Win or lose for Fed, it doesn't matter which stage he lose, which is not what we expect from Haas.

While I agree return was the major concern on yesterday's match, and it looked more vulnerable when he had no power in it let alone placement,all his returns were sitting ducks for SS, Djoko and Murray would certainly struggle with reflexes and power in the return department as well at 32 age, certainly they haven't proved enough like Fed did to stake a claim that they can do better than him at 32.

So comparing a prime Djoko/Murray to age old Fed is a wrong thing to do, was SS the better player than Fed at 32 yesterday [considering yesterday alone]? certainly yes. , you have to rather compared them to prime Fed or compare them how they would perform at 32.

socal1976 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Our friend IC on this very site has called this current period transitional. If I said the same thing about the rollover generation, which I have and stand by, some of the same people would rail against heaven and earth at my deficiencies.

To dear Socal, either agree both eras are transitional or understand both are equal it can't be either way bro.

A because you say so, and then back it up with an emoticon it doesn't make it true. I never said that these victories prove this era is golden. What I said is people who claimed this period lacks depth are wrong as Stakarcis just proved.

I've never said about 98% of the things you say I have - but you still do it over and over again. In a way I kind of enjoy it - to see what new arguments you ascribe to me just so that you can then argue against what I haven't said.

socal1976 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Our friend IC on this very site has called this current period transitional. If I said the same thing about the rollover generation, which I have and stand by, some of the same people would rail against heaven and earth at my deficiencies.

To dear Socal, either agree both eras are transitional or understand both are equal it can't be either way bro.

A because you say so, and then back it up with an emoticon it doesn't make it true. I never said that these victories prove this era is golden. What I said is people who claimed this period lacks depth are wrong as Stakarcis just proved.

Socal please be clear what you wanna argue , one side you saying this era is stronger and the victories of yesterday backs it up and within no time you are saying that you are not claiming this era as strong based on one or two match , looks to me you are so confused at the moment why not have a and relax and watch your favourite player go deep in the tournament and we could fight when Nole and Del Po make the semi and if for some reason it doesn't happen then again lets have

IC, I am not inconsistent that is what is perplexing. I am questioning how people who have claimed that there is a lack of depth and competition beyond the top 4 reconcile the events of these two matches with their conclusion that outside the top 4 there is a lack of talent. I in no WAY AM SAYING THAT THESE VICTORIES PROVE THE STRENGTH OR WEAKNESS OF THE ERA, DEPTH IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT TO ME. What I am saying is that these two victories prove that there is depth in the modern game. It doesn't mean that I value depth more now, just means that the arguments of those criticizing the depth of the current tour are wrong.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Our friend IC on this very site has called this current period transitional. If I said the same thing about the rollover generation, which I have and stand by, some of the same people would rail against heaven and earth at my deficiencies.

To dear Socal, either agree both eras are transitional or understand both are equal it can't be either way bro.

A because you say so, and then back it up with an emoticon it doesn't make it true. I never said that these victories prove this era is golden. What I said is people who claimed this period lacks depth are wrong as Stakarcis just proved.

Socal please be clear what you wanna argue , one side you saying this era is stronger and the victories of yesterday backs it up and within no time you are saying that you are not claiming this era as strong based on one or two match , looks to me you are so confused at the moment why not have a :redwine:and relax and watch your favourite player go deep in the tournament and we could fight when Nole and Del Po make the semi and if for some reason it doesn't happen then :broken:again lets have

Very good sentiments, interesting how now the Djokovic, Del Po, Berdy half of the draw is the tougher half, what a wacky 2 rounds. As for the drink I have already fired up an after work scotch. Cheers and Del Po looks pretty good after his sickness worries, which I am happy about always have liked the gentle giant with the big game.

Its true hod Djoko's draw looks tougher now, with Dimitor/Del Potro, Bderdych, Haas n Ferrer.

socal1976 wrote:Wow, maybe I should take out a billboard in London or something. I don't think depth defines the strength or weakness of an era. An era is defined by the quality of the top handful of players.

Yes, but in your arguments you often use the relative lack of success of players around Fed in his early dominance years as a sign that they were not all that good.  That lack of success comes about because they were losing to lower ranked players more frequently.  One could either take the view that there was more depth then, or that the top players were on average weaker.  You always lean towards the latter.  Yet today you take more or less the same argument, and lean in the opposite direction.

Except, SB that I analyze the lack of success of the top players who in their primes were surpassed by much younger players. Exactly what everyone today complains about that young players don't come up and displace more established stars happened in the mid to late 2000s. We had murray, djoko, nadal, berdy, Tsonga, and even Gasquet surprass Fed's contemporaries in what should have been their physical prime. Take for example the very end of what I have dubbed the weak era 2007. In 2007, fed's closest competition in the rankings was guess who? Djokovic and Nadal, not Roddick, not Hewitt, not Safin. It wasn't the odd losses here and there to the world 136 player that is the basis of that argument. The closest competitors to Roger, at his peak in 07 were not his age contemporaries but an asthmatic pre-prime Djokovic and a teenage Nadal with a WTA serve. I leave it to you to determine whether this reflects well on the quality of Roger's contemporaries. I know what conclusion I draw from these objective facts. And I think that conclusion is the frankly the most obvious and logically supported. That Nalby, Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick were inferior in quality to Nadal, Djoko, and Murray. Lets remember that most of the rollover boys struggled to even maintain a top ten ranking after the crop of 06/07 youngsters moved onto the scene, whatever the excuse may have been injuries, conditions etc.

Don't take my word for it, take the word of Ivan Ljubicic who said at the time he rose temporarily to world #3, "yes I am #3 in the world but I haven't really won anything" (paraphrase). In short, there is a whole host of factors in my analysis. And at the end of the day to simplify it ask yourself this question, at their physical primes why was it that a teenage Nadal with a WTA serve and an asthmatic Djokovic finished 2 and 3 in rankings and not nalbandian, Roddick, or safin? Or do objective results and facts not matter when we want to pump up the Washington Generals of the tennis world?

socal1976 wrote:Except, SB that I analyze the lack of success of the top players who in their primes were surpassed by much younger players.

You used both arguments over time.  The argument about Hewitt, Roddick etc not winning much is I think circular, and is why people are teasing you about it here.  The argument about them being surpassed by Rafa, Nole etc is better (though I do not think quite as strong as you make it out to be), and I mentioned before that it is one of the reasons I also lean in the direction of thinking those guys were a bit weaker on average (though again, by nowhere near as much as you suggest).

socal1976 wrote:take the word of Ivan Ljubicic who said at the time he rose temporarily to world #3, "yes I am #3 in the world but I haven't really won anything"

Wow, that's cool, what a good timing, that can come in handy for Ferrer  

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Except, SB that I analyze the lack of success of the top players who in their primes were surpassed by much younger players.

You used both arguments over time.  The argument about Hewitt, Roddick etc not winning much is I think circular, and is why people are teasing you about it here.  The argument about them being surpassed by Rafa, Nole etc is better (though I do not think quite as strong as you make it out to be), and I mentioned before that it is one of the reasons I also lean in the direction of thinking those guys were a bit weaker on average (though again, by nowhere near as much as you suggest).

socal1976 wrote:take the word of Ivan Ljubicic who said at the time he rose temporarily to world #3, "yes I am #3 in the world but I haven't really won anything"

Wow, that's cool, what a good timing, that can come in handy for Ferrer  

David Ferrer has one more grandslam final, one more master's title, at least 12 more tournament wins, and 3 more grandslam semifinals than then number #3 Ivan Ljubicic. Ljubicic is still taller though and balder. That is exactly why I mentioned Ljubicic, thanks for playing the straight man. At a time when the world is coming to an end because Ferrer for a short time will be number #3 maybe people should be reminded of Ivan "I made one grandslam semi" Ljubi. At the time of the quote he had won, exactly nothing. (pre-IW)

By the way SB, I don't think you understand one part of my argument. You claim that I over state how weak they are, I don't think they were lacking talent in anyway. I don't think they were completely awful, they were incredible players to a certain extent but WHEN COMPARED TO THE OTHER TOP HANDFUL OF PLAYERS THAT CAME IMMMEDIATELY BEFORE AND AFTER THEM, they were highly wanting.

Here it is for you mathematically. Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi>Hewitt,Nalby, Safin, and Roddick<Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray. I don't see what is even controversial about this, it is like saying my dog's farts smell bad. Only V2 posters would argue that no my dog's bunts smell like Chanel No. 5.

socal1976 wrote:By the way SB, I don't think you understand one part of my argument. You claim that I over state how weak they are, I don't think they were lacking talent in anyway. I don't think they were completely awful, they were incredible players to a certain extent but WHEN COMPARED TO THE OTHER TOP HANDFUL OF PLAYERS THAT CAME IMMMEDIATELY BEFORE AND AFTER THEM, they were highly wanting.

Here it is for you mathematically. Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi>Hewitt,Nalby, Safin, and Roddick<Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray. I don't see what is even controversial about this, it is like saying my dog's farts smell bad. Only V2 posters would argue that no my dog's bunts smell like Chanel No. 5.

I think you've missed someone out of the middle group. I doubt you'd think that excluding Djokovic from 2013 fairly represent the strength of this period.

ljubo beat djoko, rafa and roddick onto winning his masters title in 2010 at 31 btw.

socal1976 wrote:I don't see what is even controversial about this, it is like saying my dog's farts smell bad. Only V2 posters would argue that no my dog's bunts smell like Chanel No. 5.

  socal you do make me laugh - you always take such extreme positions!

Having said that, we are all a persuasive and talented bunch!!!  

time please wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I don't see what is even controversial about this, it is like saying my dog's farts smell bad. Only V2 posters would argue that no my dog's bunts smell like Chanel No. 5.

  socal you do make me laugh - you always take such extreme positions!

Having said that, we are all a persuasive and talented bunch!!!  

He does have gift for the metaphors and similes, does our Socal.

His effort in which he likened himself to a liquored up 1950s executive and Federer fans to a cute office girl was a masterpiece of modern literature.

  I missed that one HM - do you have a link?

time please wrote:  I missed that one HM - do you have a link?

4th page of this. 6:38pm 14th November.

https://www.606v2.com/t37162p150-more-gamesmanship-from-federer-the-diva-wants-his-chair

Re-reading it, it's quite an amusing thread. It takes a very surreal turn on the third page!

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

My point with Murray and Djokovic is that they can do more off the return, which is an area they are more effective and have more variety than Roger. As for what form and fitness they'll be in at 32... Who knows? No point even guessing! Federer may not be the unbelievable player of 5 years ago anymore, but he's hardly in a wheelchair. A 35 year old Haas is still in the tournament by the way.

Comparing to Haas makes no sense,coz how many matches Haas wins against Top 4 at this age compared to Fed? Fed can play like Haas and beat lesser players and indeed can be more successful coz we are talking about the Greatest player of all time, but thats not what we expect from Fed right.

Haas would be happy to reach Quarters, a final loss would still be considered a loss for Fed's standards, in my view if you ask Fed fans they will treat the 2nd round loss the same way as a final loss, at this stage of career Fed fans realistically expect nothing from him, its either Win or lose for Fed, it doesn't matter which stage he lose, which is not what we expect from Haas.

While I agree return was the major concern on yesterday's match, and it looked more vulnerable when he had no power in it let alone placement,all his returns were sitting ducks for SS, Djoko and Murray would certainly struggle with reflexes and power in the return department as well at 32 age, certainly they haven't proved enough like Fed did to stake a claim that they can do better than him at 32.

So comparing a prime Djoko/Murray to age old Fed is a wrong thing to do, was SS the better player than Fed at 32 yesterday [considering yesterday alone]? certainly yes. , you have to rather compared them to prime Fed or compare them how they would perform at 32.

I don't really know what you're getting at with most of this. My point with Haas is that at 35 he's playing the best he's played in 10 years. The reason I pointed that out is because being 32 does not necessarily mean someone is bound to be physically spent. David Ferrer is only a year younger, plays a much more attritional style and is having his best year. I completely agree Federer looked a little leggy the other day but I don't agree that's inevitable because he's 32.

Roger does a lot of things better than anyone else has ever done. One thing that a couple of his rivals do better and have done better for a few years now is return serve. I was pointing out that they might have found that problem easier to solve because its their strength. SS attacked the blocked / chipped return. That's how Fed returns to bring his other weapons into play, and SS cleverly attacked that. Murray and Djokovic get to more, and get it back with more variety... Surely nobody disagrees with that? Will they still do it at 32? God knows!

Just because I think 32 isn't the graveyard people are making it out to be, and because I think 2 players strengths would have been better suited to solve the problems posed by SS... Does not mean I'm slagging off Federer and I'm perplexed at the defensive responses.

Maybe I should reiterate that he's the greatest ever to placate some people.

Oh, and I almost forgot....  

In answer to the thread title: No

Let's look at it in terms of how many players feature among the winners of the Slams....

Looking back at the last 10 winners of the Australian, the last 10 winners of the French, the last 10 winners of Wimbledon, and the last 10 winners of the US, this is what we see:

The trio of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have won 35 of the 40 titles on offer. Safin won one, JMDP won one, Murray one, Roddick one, and Gaudio one.

When you look back at the previous 10 years, the top three winners were Sampras (13), Agassi (7) and Kuerten (3), making that 23 out of 40. Johanssen, Kafelnikov, Korda, Becker, Ferrero, Costa, Moya, Muster, Bruguera, Hewitt, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Safin, and Rafter all won Slam titles.

What about the 10 years prior to that? Lendl won eight, Wilander six and Edberg six, making that 20 out of 40. Becker won five, so if you want to call it a top four instead of a top three, that's still 25 out of 40. The other Slam titles were shared by Courier, Bruguera, Gomez, Chang, Agassi, Stich, Cash, McEnroe, Sampras and Connors.

So, I can see a greater number of potential winners in previous decades. Now, men's tennis is dominated by an even smaller number than before. The likelihood of a Korda coming thru to win a Slam is next to nil these days....

HM Murdoch wrote:

time please wrote:  I missed that one HM - do you have a link?

4th page of this. 6:38pm 14th November.

https://www.606v2.com/t37162p150-more-gamesmanship-from-federer-the-diva-wants-his-chair

Re-reading it, it's quite an amusing thread. It takes a very surreal turn on the third page!

Thank you so much Murdoch - I had to cross my legs reading some of it (probably too much information!)

Socal - you are wasted on (just) us!

(special mention to some of our illustrious moderator's dead pan ripostes)

Have socal and IC been at it again?

HM Murdoch wrote:

time please wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I don't see what is even controversial about this, it is like saying my dog's farts smell bad. Only V2 posters would argue that no my dog's bunts smell like Chanel No. 5.

  socal you do make me laugh - you always take such extreme positions!

Having said that, we are all a persuasive and talented bunch!!!  

He does have gift for the metaphors and similes, does our Socal.

His effort in which he likened himself to a liquored up 1950s executive and Federer fans to a cute office girl was a masterpiece of modern literature.

Thanks for that TP and Murdoch certainly put a smile on my face and I try and on occasion succeed in returning the favor. A masterpiece of modern literature I like it, we writers like our booze, I have to say I have often chuckled at your work as well Murdoch.

shivfan wrote:Let's look at it in terms of how many players feature among the winners of the Slams....

Looking back at the last 10 winners of the Australian, the last 10 winners of the French, the last 10 winners of Wimbledon, and the last 10 winners of the US, this is what we see:

The trio of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have won 35 of the 40 titles on offer. Safin won one, JMDP won one, Murray one, Roddick one, and Gaudio one.

When you look back at the previous 10 years, the top three winners were Sampras (13), Agassi (7) and Kuerten (3), making that 23 out of 40.  Johanssen, Kafelnikov, Korda, Becker, Ferrero, Costa, Moya, Muster, Bruguera, Hewitt, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Safin, and Rafter all won Slam titles.

What about the 10 years prior to that?  Lendl won eight, Wilander six and Edberg six, making that 20 out of 40.  Becker won five, so if you want to call it a top four instead of a top three, that's still 25 out of 40.  The other Slam titles were shared by Courier, Bruguera, Gomez, Chang, Agassi, Stich, Cash, McEnroe, Sampras and Connors.

So, I can see a greater number of potential winners in previous decades.  Now, men's tennis is dominated by an even smaller number than before.  The likelihood of a Korda coming thru to win a Slam is next to nil these days....

Excellent analysis and good facts Shivfan. You must remember that parity is mediocrity in tournament tennis. And periods of great parity do not give you the massive rivalry matches that push and test the great player as he battles against another foe of equal or almost equal standing. Sure any two pros can play a great match and push each other. But beating a good player in a slam final is just not the same as beating Fed on grass or Rafa on clay, or before them Pete on Grass or Borg on clay.