Barcelona 2018

Tenez wrote:At the age of 15 without this physicality he was beaten by Gasquet.

Did he win a Challenger at 15 or not? He did. How many players have won it this young? only a handful. 

Why make a mountain out of a mole-hill? 1-2 losses as a youngster is no indication of how will they eventually turn up. If Gasquet was so good, has he ever beaten Nadal on ATP tour. I haven't checked stats, but he can't even win a set against him, no matter what surface they play. 

Gasquet may be a child prodigy, but it doesn't mean when they get into men's circuit, they will be ahead of them all. many multi slamer juniors do nothing on main tour ( see Dimi )

Getting to the point, Nadal as a 15 yo could win challengers, was quite good a player on clay already.

Tenez wrote: Nadal became physical quite early.

How early? aged 2 years? Your won above statement says he wasn't at age 15, so it must be after that. I saw him in 2003 wimble and he was nothing like physical. Even in 2004 when he beat Fed, he was okay. See the shots he hit that match. Fed was left stunned. See Fed's interviews after the match on how good was Nadal in 2004.

tenez wrote:Disagree. Djoko handled him consistently.

NOT ON CLAY. We are talking clay, why you keep forgetting. Kindly see some details online and then bring it up. You call 3 times in a row over 2 years with loss at all imp RG in between as 'consistently'?

tenez wrote:Not over 10 years but Djoko completely worked out Nadal when on form and you are only making the most of this now that Djoko is injured or down.

Injured or down huh? So only Djoko gets to be injured and down, not Nadal? What if I say the times when Djoko was beating Nadal, Nadal was down and Injured and Djok made most out of it. 

I'm not here discussing about down or injured. Loss is a loss, and that's all. Don't come to play if you are down and injured. Rest at home.

tenez wrote:But it's like talking of Nadal performances in 2015 and 16....that would be unfair.

Right. SO be fair and acknowledge how far ahead of the field Nadal is on clay. And he is since 2005.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Daniel wrote:History cares more about Wimbledon than anything on clay - so I don't care.

 Alright, personal choice. 

But History does care about clay, and French open and Wimbledon are the only 2 Slams that have retained their historic surfaces since beginning.

I didn't say it didn't care about clay.  I said it cares more about Wimbledon than anything on clay and that's accurate. That's the ultimate slam and ultimate achievement. Tennis is and was always designed to be a lawn sport.

You have got your facts wrong it seems ROTLA.
Youngest Challenger Winners

Player Age Title
Michael Chang 15 years, 7 months 1987 Las Vegas, USA
Richard Gasquet 16 years 2002 Montauban, FRA
Bernard Tomic 16 years, 4 months 2009 Melbourne, AUS
Kent Carlsson 16 years, 7 months 1984 New Ulm, GER
Marcos Ondruska 16 years, 7 months 1989 Durban, RSA
Richard Gasquet 16 years, 8 months 2003 Sarajevo, BIH
Rafael Nadal 16 years, 9 months 2003 Barletta, ITA
Felix Auger-Aliassime 16 years, 10 months 2017 Lyon, FRA

Tenez wrote:
You have got your facts wrong it seems ROTLA.
Youngest Challenger Winners

Right. My data was inaccurate, but my point wasn't.

Daniel wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Daniel wrote:History cares more about Wimbledon than anything on clay - so I don't care.

 Alright, personal choice. 

But History does care about clay, and French open and Wimbledon are the only 2 Slams that have retained their historic surfaces since beginning.

I didn't say it didn't care about clay.  I said it cares more about Wimbledon than anything on clay and that's accurate. That's the ultimate slam and ultimate achievement. Tennis is and was always designed to be a lawn sport.

Why is Wimbledon the ultimate slam? Its not any extra difficult to win than any other slams. Same rules, same field.
Same 7 matches in 2 weeks.

Designed for lawn is not a good point. Internet was never 'designed' for people to watch videos, porn, play games, socialize on line or even have online sports debates. 

But see how things evolve. Differences in surface is only good for the sport. Why kill it.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Daniel wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Daniel wrote:History cares more about Wimbledon than anything on clay - so I don't care.

 Alright, personal choice. 

But History does care about clay, and French open and Wimbledon are the only 2 Slams that have retained their historic surfaces since beginning.

I didn't say it didn't care about clay.  I said it cares more about Wimbledon than anything on clay and that's accurate. That's the ultimate slam and ultimate achievement. Tennis is and was always designed to be a lawn sport.

Why is Wimbledon the ultimate slam? Its not any extra difficult to win than any other slams. Same rules, same field.
Same 7 matches in 2 weeks.

Designed for lawn is not a good point. Internet was never 'designed' for people to watch videos, porn, play games, socialize on line or even have online sports debates. 

But see how things evolve. Differences in surface is only good for the sport. Why kill it.

Wimbledon is clearly the most prestigious one, that's not just my opinion.

On grass there are many players who can beat the opponant they can't beat on other surfaces: grass tennis contains more upsets. It's a tricky surface for anyone, hence tougher to win. The longer matches on clay shouldn't be regarded as tougher than grass. 
Grass also requires the most craftiness.

Clay always has the inevitable outcomes. True clay specialists are hard to find in the current field, probably two (Thiem and Nadal). This is imo a devaluating aspect of today's clay tennis.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Daniel wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Daniel wrote:History cares more about Wimbledon than anything on clay - so I don't care.

 Alright, personal choice. 
But History does care about clay, and French open and Wimbledon are the only 2 Slams that have retained their historic surfaces since beginning.

I didn't say it didn't care about clay.  I said it cares more about Wimbledon than anything on clay and that's accurate. That's the ultimate slam and ultimate achievement. Tennis is and was always designed to be a lawn sport.

Why is Wimbledon the ultimate slam? Its not any extra difficult to win than any other slams. Same rules, same field.
Same 7 matches in 2 weeks.
Designed for lawn is not a good point. Internet was never 'designed' for people to watch videos, porn, play games, socialize on line or even have online sports debates. 
But see how things evolve. Differences in surface is only good for the sport. Why kill it.

I can’t believe you asked it, rotla.

Wimbledon is the holy grail of tennis, it’s every player’s dream.

Even the barwoman in my club who’s never picked up a racquet dreams of winning it!

Grass is the ultimate surface that requires most skill - quickest reactions.

It’s the stage where attack (the true heart and spirit of the game, not the sweaty joke Nadal plays) is rewarded most...coming to the net not running away from it.

Thr bounce is low so no lifting the ball and injecting steroid power.

I have only once played on grass...it is simply divine under your feet.

There is no communism in tennis.  

Nadal said when he was 15 that winning wimbledon was his dream.

He could meet his dreams reaching 5 finals and winning the tournament twice, entering a narrow club of no more than 30 players who have won it more than once after 150 years.

But grass is one thing and clay is another, and both are the classic surfaces of the sport. They indeed offer different type of tennis, and it is a matter of taste which one we enjoy the most.

Trying to undarrate clay tennis is simply stupid.

And there is no doubt about who is the best tennis player on clay in history. 

Of course Nadal will sooner than later start to lose on clay too, but what he has achieved since 2004... is simply amazing, uncomparable, no one comes even close.

gallery play wrote:
Wimbledon is clearly the most prestigious one, that's not just my opinion.

On grass there are many players who can beat the opponant they can't beat on other surfaces: grass tennis contains more upsets. It's a tricky surface for anyone, hence tougher to win. The longer matches on clay shouldn't be regarded as tougher than grass. 
Grass also requires the most craftiness.

Clay always has the inevitable outcomes.

Good pont.
Nadal is a living proof, although with him, there is also the aditional anomaly in the nature of that dominance which has never been seen before...because that dominance is not due to admirable tennis skills.

I wouldn’t’ve minded Nadal’s winning if he was playing great tennis.

As things stand, he has (will have) hogged 10, possibly 15 years of a quarter of a season taking everything and giving little back.

gallery play wrote:
True clay specialists are hard to find in the current field, probably two (Thiem and Nadal). This is imo a devaluating aspect of today's clay tennis.

And the former “specialist” can’t take more than 2-3 games of the latter...

Nadal is the black hole of tennis!

And the former “specialist” can’t take more than 2-3 games of the latter...

Yeah, that's absurd indeed. I can understand Nadal fan's are over the moon Nadal does it again and again on clay but i'm getting to a point where i'm starting to doubt the field take clay really serious. Even most latin players are not in particular much better on clay than they are on HC.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:
You have got your facts wrong it seems ROTLA.
Youngest Challenger Winners

Right. My data was inaccurate, but my point wasn't.

Not quite. You point was based on data and your data was wrong. Nadal did not win anything when his body was not pumped up. He even kept losing to Gasquet. 16y9months is the perfect time to pump steroids in. While under the radar of the anti-doping testers, build that bbodybuilder body. As you know one injection of steroids can benefit 10 years down the line.

You cannot say that Nadal is a winner regardless of his muscles. That's not right.

Regarding Nadal, it is no coincidence that his success on clay recently is linked to the poor form (and absence) of Djokovic and Murray. They were the other 2 road runners who finally got the better of Nadal on that surface.

Another stat for you ROTLA..about Djokovic not beating nadal consistently.

Since 2011 the year Djoko became a very top player, his H2H v Nadal on clay is 7/6.

Nadal leads the FO in that period 3/1 emphasising possibly Nadal superiority again over the distance as in shorter B03 on clay Djokovic would lead 6/3!!!

So please do not tell me Nadal has the best game on clay. He has the most consistent...I grant you that!

Tenez - you say above it would be unfair to refer to Rafa’s form in 2015-16. What’s Novak’s record against Rafa since 2011 excluding those years?

4-6

gallery play wrote:

And the former “specialist” can’t take more than 2-3 games of the latter...

Yeah, that's absurd indeed. I can understand Nadal fan's are over the moon Nadal does it again and again on clay but i'm getting to a point where i'm starting to doubt the field take clay really serious. Even most latin players are not in particular much better on clay than they are on HC.

Interesting theory.

The rest can’t all be that pathetic...because Nadal simply isn’t that good!

Even young asthmatic Nole said Nadal was beatable in that old interview 12 years ago after their first match on clay.
The face which said: Hey everyone, what’s the big deal with this guy? Why is everyone scared of him...he is playing nothing special!

So why do “the rest” give up so easily?

Why does the fight last only one set....

Why are umpires scared of Nadal...

Same old questions...which is why I can’t wait for clay season to end.

Nole is here in Belgrade, looks like he is trying to up his fitness (at laaaaaaast!)
He has charged his soul batteries in homeland...so maybe RG will be not dull after all!
But, who cares...

even that doesn’t make much difference.
Only Nadal’s full disappearance could clear up grey skies.

I mean, can anyone imagine Nadal play for another five years?

Slippy wrote:Tenez - you say above it would be unfair to refer to Rafa’s form in 2015-16. What’s Novak’s record against Rafa since 2011 excluding those years?

It could have been a good point cause he may not have been in top top form in 2015 but that was more to do with him trying to play closer to the baseline than any injury. So it was part of the learning process to get to the level he is today. He knew he had to change his game as he was regularly beaten by Djoko on clay and started to get beaten by other players convincingly (Murray and Nishi before injury). Nadal still won clay titles in 2015...so not quite the same as Djoko.

2016 is also weird as he wins MC and Barca (without losing a set), has very easy wins in the first 2 rounds of the FO...before withdrawing surprisingly.

If we count Djoko off form matches then it would make things complicated including his 2017 loss to Nadal.

So the point remain, Nadal was no longer the only force on clay after 2011. His record is second to none....but not his tennis!

So 2006-2010 and 2017-18 dont count for Nole, but 2015-16 does count for Rafa, ok:

2011-2016

NOLE: 1 ATP250, 7 MASTERS, 1 SLAM

RAFA: 2 ATP250, 7 ATP500, 7 MASTERS, 4 SLAM

its clear 2014-2016 for some reason was nadal´s most vulnerable period, not only djokovic had his number, he could lose to people that had never beat him before (like ferrer, nico, murray or wawrinka)

Djokovic: 4 times
David Ferrer: 1 time (it was 16-0 before that)
Nico Almagro: 1 time (it was 7-0 before that)
Fognini: 2 times (it was 2-0 before that)
Murray: 2 times (it was 7-0 before that)
Wawrinka: 1 time (it was 4-0 before that)
Thiem: 1 time
Cuevas: 1 time 



nadal vs djokovic on clay:

2006-2010: 9-0 for nadal (prior to top nole)
2011-2013: 4-3 for nadal (including super 2011 by nole)
2014-2016: 1-4 for Nole (weak nadal period as shown above)
2017-2018: 1-0 for nadal

And even though Nole has a better h2h on clay with rafa since 2011 (7-6 for nole) it is not shown in titles won since then:


2011-2018

NOLE: 1 ATP250, 7 MASTERS, 1 SLAM

RAFA: 2 ATP250, 9 ATP500, 10 MASTERS, 5 SLAM

naxroy wrote:So 2006-2010 and 2017-18 dont count for Nole, but 2015-16 does count for Rafa, ok:

2011-2016

NOLE: 1 ATP250, 7 MASTERS, 1 SLAM

RAFA: 2 ATP250, 7 ATP500, 7 MASTERS, 4 SLAM

Well it is clear that 2006-10 Djoko was not a mature player yet. That's why Nadal made the most of that period, also helped by the fact Djoko was also constantly on feds' draw in 2008-2011.

I am talking about the period when they were both at their peak, or thereabout.

Tenez wrote:

naxroy wrote:So 2006-2010 and 2017-18 dont count for Nole, but 2015-16 does count for Rafa, ok:

2011-2016

NOLE: 1 ATP250, 7 MASTERS, 1 SLAM

RAFA: 2 ATP250, 7 ATP500, 7 MASTERS, 4 SLAM

Well it is clear that 2006-10 Djoko was not a mature player yet. That's why Nadal made the most of that period, also helped by the fact Djoko was also constantly on feds' draw in 2008-2011.

I am talking about the period when they were both at their peak, or thereabout.

But you agree that 2015-16 is not nadal at his peak right?

naxroy wrote:its clear 2014-2016 for some reason was nadal´s most vulnerable period, not only djokovic had his number, he could lose to people that had never beat him before (like ferrer, nico, murray or wawrinka)

Djokovic: 4 times
David Ferrer: 1 time (it was 16-0 before that)
Nico Almagro: 1 time (it was 7-0 before that)
Fognini: 2 times (it was 2-0 before that)
Murray: 2 times (it was 7-0 before that)
Wawrinka: 1 time (it was 4-0 before that)
Thiem: 1 time
Cuevas: 1 time

 Sorry but that's not an argument. The field was getting stronger and all players lose to others. Almagro bagelled Nadal before and Ferrer had plenty of close matches ....so 7/0 before doesn't mean anything, especially when in those previous matches, there were very close matches. The tour is constantly evolving...and that;s the reason even nadal had to adapt and change his game to regain with success.

nadal vs djokovic on clay:

2006-2010: 9-0 for nadal (prior to top nole)

That's my point. People thought that because Djoko had never beaten nadal on clay that he could never do it. Yet he became BETTER than Nadal at the end even on this surface...and Nadal admitted it.

Now what we don;t know is whether Djoko can come back and beat that new Nadal who in my view is better than the old version.

naxroy wrote:


But you agree that 2015-16 is not nadal at his peak right?

I agree but my point is that he was not at his peak because he knew his game at his peak was not good enough for beating Djoko and that other players were starting to expose his standing too far back. .

This FO 2013 Final that he won exposed that very clearly. Djoko should have won that one....in spite of playing himself well below par. Nadal only managed to get through thanks to Djoko's schoolboy error and not Nadal's superior tennis.

you mean semifinal right?

I think nadal should have won that match in 4 sets

true that nole made a huge mistake in the 5th, but nadal kept him alive in the 4th

I cant see how djokovic is better than nadal since 2011 and still win less than half his titles:

2011-2018

NOLE: 1 ATP250, 7 MASTERS, 1 SLAM

RAFA: 2 ATP250, 9 ATP500, 10 MASTERS, 5 SLAM

naxroy wrote:you mean semifinal right?

I think nadal should have won that match in 4 sets

true that nole made a huge mistake in the 5th, but nadal kept him alive in the 4th

Agreed because Djoko was completely out of form, we all thought he was injured at the time....yet nadal could not win in 4. That's how better Djoko is/was.

I cant see how djokovic is better than nadal since 2011 and still win less than half his titles:

2011-2018

NOLE: 1 ATP250, 7 MASTERS, 1 SLAM

RAFA: 2 ATP250, 9 ATP500, 10 MASTERS, 5 SLAM

Cause Djokovic is better v Nadal though more vulnerable to other players.

Tenez wrote:Another stat for you ROTLA..about Djokovic not beating nadal consistently.

Since 2011 the year Djoko became a very top player, his H2H v Nadal on clay is 7/6.

Nadal leads the FO in that period 3/1 emphasising possibly Nadal superiority again over the distance as in shorter B03 on clay Djokovic would lead 6/3!!!

So please do not tell me Nadal has the best game on clay. He has the most consistent...I grant you that!

1. why should I count from 2011? Clay tennis wasn't started in 2011, or was it?  Every result is valid, so lets not start putting filters to make it look.

Nadal has the best game on clay and by a distance. You may like to think otherwise, you ( and probably nitb if she is with you in this) are going to be alone if your view-point is anything else. You may not care about it, your choice. 

No tennis expert, no sport analyst, no commentator, no present/former tennis player has ever shared this particular view of yours about Nadal.

I dont know, the h2h is not as clear (7-6) as to state that djoko is better on clay, when nadal has had so much wider success even in the years you have chosen to analize

one thing is clear, djoko in his "beast" form, could look rafa in the eyes, but half of those times (2014-2016) rafa was in a strange low form (it is clear seeing stats prior to 2014 and after 2016)

I think a player´s career is not a question of 4-5 years, in the case of nole and rafa is a history of more than 15 years and what rafa has achieved is miles ahead of what djoko did (on clay) (Rafa has 33 big titles on clay, nole 9)

saying that despite these facts, nole plays better on clay... dont know, seems a little blind

noleisthebest wrote:Even young asthmatic Nole said Nadal was beatable in that old interview 12 years ago after their first match on clay.
The face which said: Hey everyone, what’s the big deal with this guy? Why is everyone scared of him...he is playing nothing special!

Can't believe you are still clinging on to this cheap-trash talk after a loss, by a Guy who took another 10 years to beat him at RG. And in the meantime Nadal was collecting RGs at will.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:Another stat for you ROTLA..about Djokovic not beating nadal consistently.

Since 2011 the year Djoko became a very top player, his H2H v Nadal on clay is 7/6.

Nadal leads the FO in that period 3/1 emphasising possibly Nadal superiority again over the distance as in shorter B03 on clay Djokovic would lead 6/3!!!

So please do not tell me Nadal has the best game on clay. He has the most consistent...I grant you that!

1. why should I count from 2011? Clay tennis wasn't started in 2011, or was it?  Every result is valid, so lets not start putting filters to make it look.

In order to be in agreement with your own points. We are not talking about nadal's consistency right? We are talking about who has produced the best clay tennis, isn't it? Who has been dominant in the last years. I therefore thought that if we consider Nadal's competition on clay, we have to take into consideration Djoko from the time he became a real force on clay as Nadal was already a force then. So before 2011 would not be relevant like 2023 might not be relevant either. We are talking about "relevant times".

Nadal has the best game on clay and by a distance. You may like to think otherwise, you ( and probably nitb if she is with you in this) are going to be alone if your view-point is anything else. You may not care about it, your choice. 

Argue instead of saying so.

No tennis expert, no sport analyst, no commentator, no present/former tennis player has ever shared this particular view of yours about Nadal.

Disagree. During 2011 up to 2015....They were saying Djoko had Nadal's number. He was even chosen as the favourite to win RG.....and were surprised when he did not.

5-1 since 2011

but hey, nole´s game was better for clay

naxroy wrote:I dont know, the h2h is not as clear (7-6) as to state that djoko is better on clay, when nadal has had so much wider success even in the years you have chosen to analize

one thing is clear, djoko in his "beast" form, could look rafa in the eyes, but half of those times (2014-2016) rafa was in a strange low form (it is clear seeing stats prior to 2014 and after 2016)

I think a player´s career is not a question of 4-5 years, in the case of nole and rafa is a history of more than 15 years and what rafa has achieved is miles ahead of what djoko did (on clay) (Rafa has 33 big titles on clay, nole 9)

saying that despite these facts, nole plays better on clay... dont know, seems a little blind

Again I am not arguing Rafa's record. I am not stupid. His clay tennis is at a very high level consistently, but a few people have played better on some occasions and I am sure it will happen again soon...even if they will never get close to his record.

naxroy wrote:Grand slam titles + Masters 1000 on clay:


Nadal: 33
.
.
.
.
.
.
Borg: 14
Lendl: 11
Vilas: 9
Djokovic: 9
Orantes: 8
Kuerten: 7
Federer: 7
Nastase: 7
Muster: 7
Wilander: 6

TMS1000 did not exist then. You are too young to remember that Vilas was winning everything on clay and had the longest winning steak in clay until it was broken by Nastase using a banned racquet. Without it, Vilas might still have that streak going.

Chung v Zverev next.

Should be interesting. Zverev seems to be hitting form and Chung is back to his normal self...Thrashed his first round opponent and beat Klizan with more ease than Nadal in the sense that he did not have to save SPs.

master 1000 now, master series years ago, Grand Prix Tour Championship Series since the 1970 and they include those stats I gave


maybe I am not as young as you think


other than those 7 championship series wins Vilas had 1 roland garros and 1 usopen on clay, the rest were minor tournaments. stats are totally comparable

2011 the year nole beat rafa everywhere:

Nadal: Barcelona, Montecarlo, Roland Garros 
Nole: Belgrade, Rome, Madrid 

2012:
nadal: barcelona, montecarlo, rome, roland garros 
nole: ___ 

2013:
nadal: sao paulo, acapulco, barcelona, madrid, rome, roland garros 
nole: montecarlo

2014:
nadal: rio, madrid, roland garros
nole: Rome

2015:
nadal: Buenos aires, hamburg
nole: montecarlo, rome

2016:
nadal: barcelona, montecarlo
nole: madrid, roland garros

2017:
nadal: barcelona, montecarlo, madrid, roland garros
nole: 

2018:
nadal: barcelona, montecarlo
nole:

naxroy wrote:master 1000 now, master series years ago, Grand Prix Tour Championship Series since the 1970 and they include those stats I gave


maybe I am not as young as you think


other than those 7 championship series wins Vilas had 1 roland garros and 1 usopen on clay, the rest were minor tournaments. stats are totally comparable

No. They are not comparable. What you call minor tournaments where simply tournaments. the 250/500/1000 series did not exist then.

Tenez wrote:

naxroy wrote:master 1000 now, master series years ago, Grand Prix Tour Championship Series since the 1970 and they include those stats I gave


maybe I am not as young as you think


other than those 7 championship series wins Vilas had 1 roland garros and 1 usopen on clay, the rest were minor tournaments. stats are totally comparable

No. They are not comparable. What you call minor tournaments where simply tournaments. the 250/500/1000 series did not exist then.

there was a Grand Prix Super Series totally comparable with the masters 1000 from today

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

naxroy wrote:

Tenez wrote:

naxroy wrote:master 1000 now, master series years ago, Grand Prix Tour Championship Series since the 1970 and they include those stats I gave


maybe I am not as young as you think


other than those 7 championship series wins Vilas had 1 roland garros and 1 usopen on clay, the rest were minor tournaments. stats are totally comparable

No. They are not comparable. What you call minor tournaments where simply tournaments. the 250/500/1000 series did not exist then.

there was a Grand Prix Super Series totally comparable with the masters 1000 from today

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

So you can see it is not comparable! No Hamburg, No Madrid, nothing was as planned and consistent as today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Prix_Super_Series

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:Another stat for you ROTLA..about Djokovic not beating nadal consistently.

Since 2011 the year Djoko became a very top player, his H2H v Nadal on clay is 7/6.

Nadal leads the FO in that period 3/1 emphasising possibly Nadal superiority again over the distance as in shorter B03 on clay Djokovic would lead 6/3!!!

So please do not tell me Nadal has the best game on clay. He has the most consistent...I grant you that!

1. why should I count from 2011? Clay tennis wasn't started in 2011, or was it?  Every result is valid, so lets not start putting filters to make it look.

In order to be in agreement with your own points. We are not talking about nadal's consistency right? We are talking about who has produced the best clay tennis, isn't it?  Who has been dominant in the last years. I therefore thought that if we consider Nadal's competition on clay, we have to take into consideration Djoko from the time he became a real force on clay as Nadal was already a force then. So before 2011 would not be relevant like 2023 might not be relevant either. We are talking about "relevant times".

Nadal has the best game on clay and by a distance. You may like to think otherwise, you ( and probably nitb if she is with you in this) are going to be alone if your view-point is anything else. You may not care about it, your choice. 

Argue instead of saying so.

No tennis expert, no sport analyst, no commentator, no present/former tennis player has ever shared this particular view of yours about Nadal.

Disagree. During 2011 up to 2015....They were saying Djoko had Nadal's number. He was even chosen as the favourite to win RG.....and were surprised when he did not.

1. You don't get to decide what is time relevant. So don't pretend it. You want it to be from 2011, which shows you have no argument, so lets pretending to judge 'relevant' times. Huh.. 

2. There is every proof out there crying aloud Nadal's got the best game on clay. Results, stats everything. You don't see it coz you don't want to.

Tenez wrote:Cause Djokovic is better v Nadal though more vulnerable to other players.

Is your point??? See you have failed your own point. Djo has better clay game than Nadal, yet he loses to other players. But when Nadal is beating Djoko, he isn't losing to anyone out there. 

Now if Djo had better game, he would be beating Nadal and everyone out there. Just like Nadal did, he was losing almost nothing to anyone on lay. SO even if we agree that Djo had Nadal's numbers on clay, it means that he only had game to beat Nadal, but not to beat anyone and everyone on clay. Got the difference?

Tenez wrote:

there was a Grand Prix Super Series totally comparable with the masters 1000 from today

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics

So you can see it is not comparable! No Hamburg, No Madrid, nothing was as planned and consistent as today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Prix_Super_Series

Come on tenez, you are being funny now. 

You know it is the very same circuit structure with 4 slams, 1 year end masters championship, 9 (super series, master series, atp masters, masters 1000) and the rest (now atp500 and atp250) since 1970

of course hamburg was not one of the super series in the begining, then it was and it isnt now either, but the stats I gave include any tournament won under such pedigree, so Vilas has won 7 of those super series tournaments on clay... and no more

You put Nastase and Villas in your table when they played a very different agenda than today. Vilas won 14 clay court titles in one season. That's how different the tour was then.

Tenez wrote:You put Nastase and Villas in your table when they played a very different agenda than today. Vilas won 14 clay court titles in one season. That's how different the tour was then.

as different as it was, it had 4 slams and 9 tournaments that followed slams in importance, just as now.

but back to the point... why are we even talking about Vilas, he was not even close to Borg in his very same era...

Nadal is obviously head, shoulders and then some above everyone else on clay.

I would grant Djokovic one thing:  When they both play their absolute best on clay, it would be close, and I am even inclined to think that Nole might be better.

However, while Rafa has been able to be close to his best or thereabouts for 10+ years (2015-16 were really the only two down years for him), Nole only reached comparable levels rarely - 2011 and 2015.

Overall, there is no question that Rafa is far superior to Nole on clay - Rafa most likely the best ever while Nole not even in the second tier.

Chung vs Zverev should be interesting.  Chung one of our last few hopes vs Rafa this year.  In order to confirm his status as a genuine threat, he should beat Zverev - and preferably easily.

summerblues wrote:Nadal is obviously head, shoulders and then some above everyone else on clay.

I would grant Djokovic one thing:  When they both play their absolute best on clay, it would be close, and I am even inclined to think that Nole might be better.

However, while Rafa has been able to be close to his best or thereabouts for 10+ years (2015-16 were really the only two down years for him), Nole only reached comparable levels rarely - 2011 and 2015.

Overall, there is no question that Rafa is far superior to Nole on clay - Rafa most likely the best ever while Nole not even in the second tier.

That's roughly what I am saying, like it or not. ...except that I think Djoko was clearly better when both at their best as Nadal was forced to change his game and improve (adopting heavier racquet, taking the ball earlier)..but Djoko was far less consistent or rather did not have that heavy spinny ball enabling him to cut through the draw like Nadal. But I am also saying that not only Djoko but others could beat him on clay on the day.

Chung is producing here the kind of game that would hurt Nadal similar to what Djoko was doing then.

How did chung go from having a point for 4/1 up on his serve to being 5/3 down...and losing a close 7/5.

Chung very inconsistent

he is not trying....sad to see.