The Best Grass Court Players Ever

I got caught up by a slide on the ATP website where they used simple statistical data to draw very basic but true conclusions.....true up to a point of course.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Grass-Career-List.aspx

Here is the list of best grass players based on W/L %, or Titles won on grass. There is a 3rd stat showing the W/L ratio simply considering Wins only as a criteria but this one of course is less relevant as it;s essentially down to grass availability, played, longevity and so on. 

What I find pretty strange again is how high the current players are on all lists and all surfaces....even grass here. I am extremely surprised to see % win ratio of Nadal and Murray better than guys like Rosewall, Newcombe, Edberg, Ash to name a few.

Can you believe that Murray is number 8 in the all time list on win percentage ratio? Nadal with 2 wimbledon titles is just behind at number 9...again in front of all those players I mentioned above. Connors, Becker and Pete just ahead of Murray!!!

It just shows how consitent those players have been. It also shows how much grass and strings managed to change the game so their consistency coudl shine through and force longer rallies helped by more power...yet less pace!

Watching Murray v Mahut today it was stricking how more natural Mahut was but when Murray wanted to keep th eball in court all his shots were more secure and more powerful thanks to a better muscling of teh ball. And of course when came the crucial pressure TB, Mahut could only rely on his reflexes and thin margins while Murray added more power, spin and margins. It was still good to see it was somehow harder for Murray to add that safe spin on this fast grass and the match was relatively close whereas it would have been a very straight 61 62 loss on any other HC, let alone clay.

Federer leads the all time great list with W/L percentage (though this one could go done if he keeps playing, but also leads in the most careers title list with 2 more than Pete). Again Fed played on slow grass so we will never be sure what woudl have been his score on faster conditions like Pete had to play. Could have been worse....could have been better. Of course I think faster grass woudl have secured him at least 8 Wimbledon....including 7 in a row but that's only speculation here.  

But going back to my initial point...what do you make of Murray and Nadal being respectively 8th and 9th on the all time list of W/L %? (Djoko at 17th!).

Tenez wrote:
Can you believe that Murray is number 8 in the all time list on win percentage ratio? Nadal with 2 wimbledon titles is just behind at number 9...again in front of all those players I mentioned above. Connors, Becker and Pete just ahead of Murray!!!

It just shows how consitent those players have been. It also shows how much grass and strings managed to change the game so their consistency coudl shine through and force longer rallies helped by more power...yet less pace!

Watching Murray v Mahut today it was stricking how more natural Mahut was but when Murray wanted to keep th eball in court all his shots were more secure and more powerful thanks to a better muscling of teh ball. And of course when came the crucial pressure TB, Mahut could only rely on his reflexes and thin margins while Murray added more power, spin and margins. It was still good to see it was somehow harder for Murray to add that safe spin on this fast grass and the match was relatively close whereas it would have been a very straight 61 62 loss on any other HC, let alone clay.

Federer leads the all time great list with W/L percentage (though this one could go done if he keeps playing, but also leads in the most careers title list with 2 more than Pete). Again Fed played on slow grass so we will never be sure what woudl have been his score on faster conditions like Pete had to play. Could have been worse....could have been better. Of course I think faster grass woudl have secured him at least 8 Wimbledon....including 7 in a row but that's only speculation here.  

But going back to my initial point...what do you make of Murray and Nadal being respectively 8th and 9th on the all time list of W/L %? (Djoko at 17th!).

Another proof how percentages and stats can be deceiving!

Murray looks so odd an unnatural on grass with his centre baseline open stance rallying posture, thriving and pushing long rallies, it just looks terrible and plain wrong. I only saw a few games of the first set against Mahut yesterday, but it was enough.
It looks pathetic to see him land those big serves and then just choose to sit back on the baseline - totally wrong mindset for grass.
It would be interesting to see how your three era racquet experiment goes. I am also curious to know if and in what way serving is affected.

I think it's wrong to compare wooden racquets era with today's players. The game they played was a different sport and I am not sure how today's kings of baseline W/L ratio would fare back then.

I saw a clip of Laver-Rosewall match a few months ago, it really was pure poetry. Esp the backhands. I find Rosewall's almost static serving position quite interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8IJ0F01IiU

Although stats or no stats, nobody surpasses Fed for the full package of beauty and grace (plus everything else).

Just noticed, players like Henman and Ivanisevic are not on that list and they  played such great grass tennis!
Also, I am not sure how that W/L percentage would look like had Murray, Nadal & co played as many grass tournaments as Laver.
Just goes to show how difficult and ineffective it is to compare different eras just using numbers.

Yes but I still think stats speak some truth. Here they show that Nadal and Murray have been very consistent on grass. And to me this speaks more about the current grass pace than the player's ability to play on grass as we know (or knew it) rather.

I noticed this year Queens seemed pretty quick....hopefully Wimby will be as quick.

It would be interesting to find out what racquets/strings manufacturers are thinking at the moment in terms of "evolution".

When I see new HEAD adds featuring Nole&Sharapova it's all about this mega power, etc....I don't know if it's just a marketing gimmick for today's youngsters who have the need to look tough and hard, but I don't like the direction of: bash it hard and blast away philosophy.

I tried (just to feel the weight) a HEAD racquet the other day and was amazed at how light it was.

Tenez wrote:Yes but I still think stats speak some truth. Here they show that Nadal and Murray have been very consistent on grass. And to me this speaks more about the current grass pace than the player's ability to play on grass as we know (or knew it) rather.

I noticed this year Queens seemed pretty quick....hopefully Wimby will be as quick.

That would be fantastic.

In fairness Grass has lost it's credibility as a surface due to the slowing down and changes made, especially at Wimbledon. This isn't to diminsh Roger's accomplishments as they are stunning as it is. I think yes it makes a mockery if Andy can make the top 10. Andy has won 3 titles on the surface and does show some great consistency on that surface. He looks more comfortable on Grass for me than Nadal or Djokovic. That Murray's match against Matosevic. It was US Open all over again with the wind completely blunting hard clean hitting and Murray was all over him. Watching Malisse the other day made me realise how much I miss the old surfaces of Wimbledon.

I would very much love to see Wimbledon sped up again and hopefully the organisers will start listening.

To me Murray does not look more comfortable on grass than Nadal, despite Nadal's game, his footwork is still superior to Murray's even on grass.
However much I dislike Nadal, you can't take away his movement, it is really excellent and makes up for all of his poor ball-striking.
I am very  curious to see how Nole is going to turn out on grass this year with all the work he put in into his volleying and serving.

Footwork will be crucial, though, his is just perfect for hard-courts as despite his speed it lacks the quick stopstart all-direction explosiveness and lightness Federer has, for example.

Grass is such a beautiful canvas for a skillfull tennis player and can really show off everything you can offer on it.

I would love to see Fed win a good match in Wimbledon. Ideally against Tsonga.

legendkillar wrote:In fairness Grass has lost it's credibility as a surface due to the slowing down ....

Well this is what I was saying and the reason why Nadal and Djoko have got a good percentage.

Regarding Fed's record I think the slowness actually affected his record. It was still faster than clay most years and this is why he was able to win some key encounters v Nadal. But when it was still pretty fast, he beat Pete there (2001) and Roddick and Philipoussis (2003). We know for a fact that 2002 was one of the slowest year (the introduction of bigger balls) and obviously it did not suit Fed.

]quote="noleisthebest"]To me Murray does not look more comfortable on grass than Nadal, despite Nadal's game, his footwork is still superior to Murray's even on grass.
However much I dislike Nadal, you can't take away his movement, it is really excellent and makes up for all of his poor ball-striking.
I am very curious to see how Nole is going to turn out on grass this year with all the work he put in into his volleying and serving.

Footwork will be crucial, though, his is just perfect for hard-courts as despite his speed it lacks the quick stopstart all-direction explosiveness and lightness Federer has, for example.

Grass is such a beautiful canvas for a skillfull tennis player and can really show off everything you can offer on it.

I would love to see Fed win a good match in Wimbledon. Ideally against Tsonga.

[/quote] 

LOL, Djokovic is by far the worst volleyer out of the top four. Federer, Nadal and Murray are all much better volleyers than Djokovic.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:In fairness Grass has lost it's credibility as a surface due to the slowing down ....

Well this is what I was saying and the reason why Nadal and Djoko have got a good percentage.

Regarding Fed's record I think the slowness actually affected his record. It was still faster than clay most years and this is why he was able to win some key encounters v Nadal. But when it was still pretty fast, he beat Pete there (2001) and Roddick and Philipoussis (2003). We know for a fact that 2002 was one of the slowest year (the introduction of bigger balls) and obviously it did not suit Fed.

Right the slowed down W conditions did not suit Federer, that is why he won 7 titles there.

BlueClay wrote:
Right the slowed down W conditions did not suit Federer, that is why he won 7 titles there.

Do you really think that is a logical counter argument? No wonder you only drop views here cause clearly your logic and debating skills are very poor.

Let me help you:

FO slowest - Federer 1 slam
AO second slowest - Federer 4 slams
USO third slowest - Federer 5 slams
Wimbledon 4th slowest or fastest - Federer 7 slams.

Any clearer?

Tenez"]
Right the slowed down W conditions did not suit Federer, that is why he won 7 titles there.

Do you really think that is a logical counter argument? No wonder you only drop views here cause clearly your logic and debating skills are very poor.

Let me help you:

FO slowest - Federer 1 slam
AO second slowest - Federer 4 slams
USO third slowest - Federer 5 slams
Wimbledon 4th slowest or fastest - Federer 7 slams.

Any clearer?

[/quote] 

But that is not what you were talking about. You said the slowed down conditions of W were detrimental to Federer since the W courts were slowed down in 2001. And my reply to you was, how is that so when Federer won 7 W titles on those slowed down W courts between 2003-2013? We were not talking about the other slams, only W and clearly Federer has not been hurt by the slowing down at W.

I said the slowness of the court affected his record. The guy who stopped his run as Wimbledon is the kind of slow slam.

What else does need to be explained?

Tenez wrote:I said the slowness of the court affected his record. The guy who stopped his run as Wimbledon is the kind of slow slam.

What else does need to be explained?

Huh? I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying Nadal stopped Federer from winning more W's because the W courts were slowed down? But what does that have to do with the fact that Federer did NOT suffer from the slowing down of W in 2001 since he won a record seven W titles(tied with Sampras?)

Interesting where the bookies are putting the money.

Federer and Murray are the form men coming into the event. You have to say that a kind draw and the roof would give Federer the advantage he would require to progress deep into the tournament. Murray as much as I would like for him to win is just not posting the first serve numbers I think are required to win Wimbledon.

Djokovic well I guess you have to wonder how much the FO defeat to Nadal is playing on his mind. If he is fresh and mentally in the right place I can see him reaching to final should he avoid Nadal in his quarter.

Nadal you have to say is the form guy. Surprised he missed Halle. I have to say that watching Queens has seen the baseline players struggle with the pace as it offers something to the bigger cleaner hitters. I think Nadal will reach the final.

Outsiders? Well Tsonga and Berdych for me not mentally tough enough to go the distance. I think Del Potro could surprise a few if he brings his IW form into the tournament. I would love to see Haas make the QF's.

legendkillar wrote:
Djokovic well I guess you have to wonder how much the FO defeat to Nadal is playing on his mind. If he is fresh and mentally in the right place I can see him reaching to final should he avoid Nadal in his quarter.

I don't see it like that at all. Even under-form Djoko should have beaten top form Nadal on clay last week. And that was with Nadal being allowed to have the time to put his huge top spin (his main weapon) which won't be as much the case on grass.

Let's not forget that Since Summer 2009 Djoko leads Nadal in their H2H 11/6 and that Nadal has not beaten Djoko outside clay for two and a half years.

BlueClay wrote: Huh? I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying Nadal stopped Federer from winning more W's because the W courts were slowed down? But what does that have to do with the fact that Federer did NOT suffer from the slowing down of W in 2001 since he won a record seven W titles(tied with Sampras?)

Allow me, a Nole fan to point out a thing or two to you - a  Federer fan: Federer is so good he would have ruled in any era. 
Unlike Federer, Nadal is only able to thrive in these, for proper tennis, unnatural conditions,  helped by foul play on top of it all.
So all Nadal's wins are just an asterix waiting to be taken away one day, like with Lance Armstrong.
In the meantime, we just have to put up with it and make our displeasure known, not be cowards like pundits and say he is a great champion when he is just a great cheat.
But you know that anyway.

If you like tennis, you will surely be surprised that some very average grass tennis players are so high up on this list of greatest grass tennis players.

and here comes blue clay's mocking response.... 

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote: Huh? I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying Nadal stopped Federer from winning more W's because the W courts were slowed down? But what does that have to do with the fact that Federer did NOT suffer from the slowing down of W in 2001 since he won a record seven W titles(tied with Sampras?)

Allow me, a Nole fan to point out a thing or two to you - a  Federer fan: Federer is so good he would have ruled in any era. 
Unlike Federer, Nadal is only able to thrive in these, for proper tennis, unnatural conditions,  helped by foul play on top of it all.
So all Nadal's wins are just an asterix waiting to be taken away one day, like with Lance Armstrong.
In the meantime, we just have to put up with it and make our displeasure known, not be cowards like pundits and say he is a great champion when he is just a great cheat.
But you know that anyway.

If you like tennis, you will surely be surprised that some very average grass tennis players are so high up on this list of greatest grass tennis players.

LOL, if you are waiting for that day to happen where Nadal's slams will be taken away from him, you will be waiting a very long time. It is very unlikely to happen. Blood bags and evidence went "poof" as you know.

I agree that Nadal thrives in the slower conditions but last time I checked he won the USO beating your hero Novak. Nadal > Novak. They are pretty much the same age and Novak has half the number of slams, he won't ever catch up to Nadal's slam numbers imo. By the way, Novak also clearly thrives on these slow conditions. How many slams would he have if the conditions were not slowed down?

luvsports! wrote:and here comes blue clay's mocking response.... 

You have to fight against stupidity! Somebody has to do it on here.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Djokovic well I guess you have to wonder how much the FO defeat to Nadal is playing on his mind. If he is fresh and mentally in the right place I can see him reaching to final should he avoid Nadal in his quarter.

I don't see it like that at all. Even under-form Djoko should have beaten top form Nadal on clay last week. And that was with Nadal being allowed to have the time to put his huge top spin (his main weapon) which won't be as much the case on grass.

Let's not forget that Since Summer 2009 Djoko leads Nadal in their H2H 11/6 and that Nadal has not beaten Djoko outside clay for two and a half years.

So you honestly think that Nadal is NEVER going to beat Djokovic again in an off-clay slam? Are you sure about that?

BlueClay wrote: I agree that Nadal thrives in the slower conditions but last time I checked he won the USO beating your hero Novak. Nadal > Novak. They are pretty much the same age and Novak has half the number of slams, he won't ever catch up to Nadal's slam numbers imo.  By the way, Novak also clearly thrives on these slow conditions. How many slams would he have if the conditions were not slowed down?

A few more than he already has, particularly at USO. Fed would have creamed 10 Wimbledon titles, probably. All players had to adjust to slower conditions unfortunately and those conditions suited Nadal best. In case you don't know why - because his game is exclusively physical and has little to do with talent/ball-striking. Put Nadal on a fast grass court/carpet and he wins nothing.
Nadal would not have won anything except RG.

noleisthebest
A few more than he already has, particularly at USO. Fed would have creamed 10 Wimbledon titles, probably. All players had to adjust to slower conditions unfortunately and those conditions suited Nadal best. In case you don't know why - because his game is exclusively physical and has little to do with talent/ball-striking. Put Nadal on a fast grass court/carpet and he wins nothing.
Nadal would not have won anything except RG

.
 
Nonsense. If Nadal has benefited from the slowed-down conditions and I think he has, the less talented Djokovic has certainly benefited as well. Look, you can harp on and on about how Djokovic is more talented than Nadal but the slam difference of six tells me otherwise and Nadal has the Career Slam, Djokovic does not. If Nadal is mostly a great clay-court player, Djokovic is mostly a great hc player. Neither player is as versatile as Federer.

BlueClay wrote:
 
Nonsense. If Nadal has benefited from the slowed-down conditions and I think he has, the less talented Djokovic has certainly benefited as well. Look, you can harp on and on about how Djokovic is more talented than Nadal but the slam difference of six tells me otherwise and Nadal has the Career Slam, Djokovic does not. If Nadal is mostly a great clay-court player, Djokovic is mostly a great hc player. Neither player is as versatile as Federer.

BC, I can't believe you said that.
It's going to be difficult to discuss things if you can't recognise what talent is.
I gather for you talent is measured by wins and titles exclusively.

That may have been the thing of the past, but isn't any more and Nadal and his 12 GS titles is the living proof.

I would not define Federer as versatile, he is just supremely talented and very, very unique, beyond compare to the rest.

Here's a question: how would you describe tennis talent? What in your opinion makes Nadal more talented than Novak?

Talent doesn't always equate to slams BC. Look at nalbandian. Imo the closest player to rival feds talent wise, but he is slamless. He is so much more talented than either djoko or nadal but he just didn't put nearly enough effort in.

If you don't agree with that surely we can agree that gasquet is very talented (more so than djoko and nadal) but has failed to make the most of his talent.

LS,
Tenez made a break-through in putting the finger on Gasquet's "talent" by pointing out that he is actually not that talented in terms of ball-striking, but more that he has a very good technique.
A talented player generally has a very good forehand, and Gasquet is not that great in the FH department.

I still see him as very talented and certainly more so than djoko & nadal. 
Imo he hasn't made the most of his talent, that's it.

I like Gasquet and he can really play, but once in a blue moon kind of thing. He played a great set against Murray, I think it was Indian Wells or Miami, had a bleeding toe so couldn't keep it up and beat him unfortunately.
He is great when he plays all-court tennis and moves in, but that is very rare.
His game is a bit erratic and still unformed, he allows others to dictate too much being so far behind the baseline and not being as "fit" as Nadal, is a recipe for disaster.
His serve could be better, too, as well as FH as I said earlier. So these areas is why he didn't make the most of what he has. It has to be complete package for the all court game, a bit of guts would not go amiss, either.

BlueClay wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Djokovic well I guess you have to wonder how much the FO defeat to Nadal is playing on his mind. If he is fresh and mentally in the right place I can see him reaching to final should he avoid Nadal in his quarter.

I don't see it like that at all. Even under-form Djoko should have beaten top form Nadal on clay last week. And that was with Nadal being allowed to have the time to put his huge top spin (his main weapon) which won't be as much the case on grass.

Let's not forget that Since Summer 2009 Djoko leads Nadal in their H2H 11/6 and that Nadal has not beaten Djoko outside clay for two and a half years.

So you honestly think that Nadal is NEVER going to beat Djokovic again in an off-clay slam? Are you sure about that?

Where did I say I was sure? Just telling you what the results have been. But just for the fun I can bet whatever you want that Djoko will Hammer Nadal whereever and whenever they meet. I think he has learnt his lesson from the FO.

As I said in tennis you can have different "talent". Borg's footwork, Lendl's flick of wrist, McEnroe..etc....

But for me it is essentially at making the game look easy...and what makes the game look easy, is actually the ease with which one can win points. So usually talented people have a good serve but because height can make it easier or more difficult for some it is not always the best criteria...but if you think about it 99% of what we call talented have a good serve. So for me the real talent is how you can handle a fast ball and more important what you do with it.

If you can hit a ball flat you need almost no effort to generate pace, especially if you take it early (this is what I call handling a fast ball). To do that you need great timing. That to me is real talent that is innate to people.

Nadal cannot handle those fast balls. It's a simple fact. He panicks, stands way far back and never goes for thin margins simply cause he does not trust his talent. The bulk of his points comes from UEs....essentially on clay cause people are trying to hit past him. He constantly needs being coached on court cause hardly anything comes naturally to him, And as I said many times he has yet to win a slam within the 20s rule.

noleisthebest
BC, I can't believe you said that.
It's going to be difficult to discuss things if you can't recognise what talent is.
I gather for you talent is measured by wins and titles exclusively.

That may have been the thing of the past, but isn't any more and Nadal and his 12 GS titles is the living proof.

I would not define Federer as versatile, he is just supremely talented and very, very unique, beyond compare to the rest.

Here's a question: how would you describe tennis talent? What in your opinion makes Nadal more talented than Novak?

 
Listen NITB, I don't have to agree with your assessment of what talent is. I do not see how Djokovic is a more talented player than Nadal, neither with respect to results or their tennis. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. And results are very important in tennis imo.
 
Yes, Federer is very versatile as well as very talented. He dominated at three slams during his prime, that is the very definition of versatility.

BlueClay wrote:
 
Listen NITB, I don't have to agree with your assessment of what talent is. I do not see how Djokovic is a more talented player than Nadal, neither with respect to results or their tennis. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. And results are very important in tennis imo.
 
Yes, Federer is very versatile as well as very talented. He dominated at three slams during his prime, that is the very definition of versatility.

I've listened.
Now, YOU listen: what makes you think Nadal is more talented than Novak? How would you explain it to someone who has never seen a tennis match?

luvsports! wrote:Talent doesn't always equate to slams BC. Look at nalbandian. Imo the closest player to rival feds talent wise, but he is slamless. He is so much more talented than either djoko or nadal but he just didn't put nearly enough effort in.

If you don't agree with that surely we can agree that gasquet is very talented (more so than djoko and nadal) but has failed to make the most of his talent.

I have to disagree with you luvsports. Sure Nalabandian is talented but if you cannot optimize that talent and make the most of it, what good is it? He underachieved and that is the bottom line, so all of this "but he is so talented" talk is nonsense imo. As for Gasquet, he is very overrated imo. All I see is a spectacular forehand with an average fh, average serve and terrible movement and fitness and he his mental strength is in the negative numbers.

I want to see players win and win consistently, I don't want to watch a player win one tournament every two years, that is not why I like to watch the sport. I like to watch the greats.

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote:
 
Listen NITB, I don't have to agree with your assessment of what talent is. I do not see how Djokovic is a more talented player than Nadal, neither with respect to results or their tennis. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. And results are very important in tennis imo.
 
Yes, Federer is very versatile as well as very talented. He dominated at three slams during his prime, that is the very definition of versatility.

I've listened.
Now, YOU listen: what makes you think Nadal is more talented than Novak? How would you explain it to someone who has never seen a tennis match?

Everything Djokovic can do, Nadal can do just as well or even better aside from Novak's bh shot which is cleary superior. Nadal's fh is vastly superior to Novak's fh, Nadal's defense is superior even though Novak has given Nadal a run for his money in that area in the past two years, I still think Nadal at his best is better than Novak at his best. On natural surfaces Nadal's movement is superior to Novak's (on hc I think Novak's movement is superior however.) Oh I forgot, Novak ROS is better than Nadal's overall. Their serves are comparable. Nadal has been more consistent throughout his career than Novak has been and from a younger age. Remember the earlier years of Novak were like a scene from the movie, "The Quitter."

Tenez wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
Djokovic well I guess you have to wonder how much the FO defeat to Nadal is playing on his mind. If he is fresh and mentally in the right place I can see him reaching to final should he avoid Nadal in his quarter.

I don't see it like that at all. Even under-form Djoko should have beaten top form Nadal on clay last week. And that was with Nadal being allowed to have the time to put his huge top spin (his main weapon) which won't be as much the case on grass.

Let's not forget that Since Summer 2009 Djoko leads Nadal in their H2H 11/6 and that Nadal has not beaten Djoko outside clay for two and a half years.

So you honestly think that Nadal is NEVER going to beat Djokovic again in an off-clay slam? Are you sure about that?

Where did I say I was sure? Just telling you what the results have been. But just for the fun I can bet whatever you want that Djoko will Hammer Nadal whereever and whenever they meet. I think he has learnt his lesson from the FO.

So you ask me where did you say that Djokovic would lose to Nadal off clay from now on and then you say you can bet me that Djokovic will hammer Nadal wherever and whenever they meet? Fib much? LOL. Okay, you are on, I do not think Djokovic will hammer Nadal wherever and whenever they meet from now on. I think the rivalry will probably be tighter than that and they will split some wins.

BC,
if you read Tenez's definition of talent a few posts above, you'll be able to see why Nadal does not qualify for the talent conversation.
Yes, Nadal moves really well, but that's about it, that's roughly 50% of what makes a player great. That's not what most understand as tennis talent, though,  that's  athleticism.
The other 50% he does not have which is why his knees are wrecked as he has to compensate for his lack of talent with all that running.

I don't know if you have played tennis but to do what Federer does is insane, try it just once and then tell me that Nadal hiding all those metres behind the baseline is talented.

But BC not being able to fulfill their talent is different from what we were talking about, i.e. nadal is more talented than djoko because he has more slams.
I refuted this claim by referring to more talented players who have not achieved much success but are still more talented.

noleisthebest wrote:BC,
if you read Tenez's definition of talent a few posts above, you'll be able to see why Nadal does not qualify for the talent conversation.
Yes, Nadal moves really well, but that's about it, that's roughly 50% of what makes a player great. That's not what most understand as tennis talent, though,  that's  athleticism.
The other 50% he does not have which is why his knees are wrecked as he has to compensate for his lack of talent with all that running.

I don't know if you have played tennis but to do what Federer does is insane, try it just once and then tell me that Nadal hiding all those metres behind the baseline is talented.

I don't care what Tenez's definition of talent is. No offense but I disagree with most of what he says.

I have outline the reasons I feel overall Nadal is more talented than Djokovic. If you don't agree with those reasons that is fine but that does not mean my opinion is incorrect. I think you would find very few tennis analysts who would say Djokovic is more talented than Nadal.

P.S. I do not think Nadal's knees are wrecked. I think he was likely serving a silent supsension for 6 plus months. I think he may have some problems with his knees but his camp overstates the seriousness of the situation imo.

luvsports! wrote:But BC not being able to fulfill their talent is different from what we were talking about, i.e. nadal is more talented than djoko because he has more slams.
I refuted this claim by referring to more talented players who have not achieved much success but are still more talented.

That is fine but I disagree with you that those players you mention are more talented. They are both highly overrated imo.

Ok, but still the point is slam count doesn't necessarily mean you are more talented.

luvsports! wrote:Ok, but still the point is slam count doesn't necessarily mean you are more talented.

No, but what it means is that you took the necessary step to optimize that talent by winnng slams.

Sure. Think we are done here .

BlueClay wrote:
I don't care what Tenez's definition of talent is. No offense but I disagree with most of what he says.

I have outline the reasons I feel overall Nadal is more talented than Djokovic. If you don't agree with those reasons that is fine but that does not mean my opinion is incorrect. I think you would find very few tennis analysts who would say Djokovic is more talented than Nadal.

P.S. I do not think Nadal's knees are wrecked. I think he was likely serving a silent supsension for 6 plus months. I think he may have some problems with his knees but his camp overstates the seriousness of the situation imo.

I don't buy much of what those paid "analysts" say in front of cameras.
You seem to be happy to believe their talk about Nadal's talent but not his injured knees. Pretty selective.

Just like you can't imagine them talking about silent bans, they equally can't tell the masses how pathetic Nadal is as a player.

BlueClay wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Talent doesn't always equate to slams BC. Look at nalbandian. Imo the closest player to rival feds talent wise, but he is slamless. He is so much more talented than either djoko or nadal but he just didn't put nearly enough effort in.

If you don't agree with that surely we can agree that gasquet is very talented (more so than djoko and nadal) but has failed to make the most of his talent.

I have to disagree with you luvsports. Sure Nalabandian is talented but if you cannot optimize that talent and make the most of it, what good is it? He underachieved and that is the bottom line, so all of this "but he is so talented" talk is nonsense imo.  As for Gasquet, he is very overrated imo. All I see is a spectacular forehand with an average fh, average serve and terrible movement and fitness and he his mental strength is in the negative numbers.

I want to see players win and win consistently, I don't want to watch a player win one tournament every two years, that is not why I like to watch the sport. I like to watch the greats.

But you are mixing things up once again. Talent is one thing, making the most of it is another. When a poet creates a poem his/her talent is under no condition of delivering under pressure. And he has no opponent to prevent him to write his poems. In tennis the same may happen in an exho or simply someone playing for fun. When you need to deliver that talent...many other factors come into play. To start with one needs to be physically able to deliver that thin fragile talent for long enough (fitness). Then to deliver under key points (mental), etc.. Talent is not the same as fitness and not the same as mental.

If you had analysed Nadal's game, his aim is actually to make sure talent plays a minimum role in his matches. The aim is to force the opponent into running so that the fragile talent gets suffocated by the effort of running right and left. If Talent was so important for Nadal, he woudl have used his "natural" arm but Toni had other plans...to take the game away from skills and force it into a lung battle. That's why Nadal usually does not panick v Federer cause he knows that as well as Fed can play for a set or 2....he will start to miss and shank especially as Nadal spinny balls are tough to time. One may argue that spinning that ball is a talent...To me it's clearly proportional to the size of his bicep.

BlueClay wrote:
I don't care what Tenez's definition of talent is. No offense but I disagree with most of what he says.

That is not just his definition, that's THE definition of tennis talent. The only reason you don't like it is because Nadal does not fit well in it.
It's a shame you don't want to see it, because once you take the blinkers off and understand tennis is not about "them against us", then you'll be able to enjoy it a lot more.
Sticking up for any player, especially Nadal is definitely not worth it.

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote:
I don't care what Tenez's definition of talent is. No offense but I disagree with most of what he says.

That is not just his definition, that's THE definition of tennis talent. The only reason you don't like it is because Nadal does not fit well in it.
It's a shame you don't want to see it, because once you take the blinkers off and understand tennis is not about "them against us", then you'll be able to enjoy it a lot more.
Sticking up for any player, especially Nadal is definitely not worth it.

NITB, get off your high horse. With all due respect this is just your opinion, it does not make it a world wide fact. On every tennis forum you see stupid posters but I must say that some of the posts you make are world-class in the WTF dept! You have quite a reputation on other forums you know!

Also, Nadal is far from my favourite player, I just don't irrationally hate him the way you do. YOU are definitley the one with blinkers on. Did you or did you not say Nadal had no chance to win the last FO? And saying Djokovic is more talented than Nadal is laughable. They are both obvioulsy talented but you make it seem like Nadal is some kind of tennis mug. He is way above Djokovic on any and every greatest of all time list and I doubt Djokovic will ever catch up with him. Djokovic is not the likeable saintly character you make him out to be and he certainly is not more popular world wide than Nadal or heaven help us Federer is. How many true fans does Djokovic have? About 50?

BlueClay wrote:

You have quite a reputation on other forums you know!

"And saying Djokovic is more talented than Nadal is laughable."

Really? I'd like to know what is your reputation on those other forums. Even Nadal says Djokovic is more talented. Since Djokovic matured (2009) he beat Nadal 11 times to only 6 to Nadal and most of the 6 wins were on clay. So I am not sure what is laughable about saying Nadal is more talented. It's an opinion and a pretty valid one shared I'd by most ......including Nadal and Tony as I said.

In terms of talent I will quote Pat Cash on Federer in a documentary (I am not a Cash fan)

"Does Roger have the best FH? No. Does he have the best BH? No. Does he have the best serve? No. But he is in the top 3 in every category, so if you combine that together you get a quite brilliant player"

I think that is so true. There are players out there that yes have areas which they are better than the top of the field, but because in other areas they are extremely weak totally negates the talent combined. Take my favourite player Murray. Does he have the best FH in the top 10? No. Does he have the best BH in the top 10? No. Does he have the best serve in the top 10?. No. However his fitness and groundstrokes are enough to compensate the areas in which he isn't so strong. His US Open victory for me was down to having the energy to last in matches and also grind down the mental faculties of players such as Lopez, Cillic, Berdych and even Djokovic.

I am not sure whether Cash is talking about Fed now ....but even now I think Fed has the best FH and even the best in history actually. I cannot think of a player having a better FH. It's not as deadly as it used to be cause he had to add some spin but he still places it better and more consistently than anybody out there.

I also disagree with Cash with the fitness part. It's what makes Federer so special is that without having Djoko's stamina or Nadal and Murray power he can still stay with them on talent alone. His fitness looks good cause he doesn't use half the energy of the other 3 and that helps him last a bit more. He will also try to shorten the point to preserve some explosiveness.

But to me WTF 12 final summarise the situation best. Federer is better and can win points more easily often leading but as Djoko extended the rallies and asked him to pull more risky shots he folded....simply because fitness wise he will never be as good as them.