Lendl: Murray Is The Real Number One

Julia Santamaria wrote:
What's Amri? I don't know Amri.

Amri is one of your many names you have used on this and other forums.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:I don;t know whether he was that hurt.

But you said it was 'clear'. Are you now saying you were lying when you said that?

Amri is also a liar and as such has no shame, so much so that Amri has the cheek to accuse/question others who don't lie  to be liers as well.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Possible- but why would he suddenly get scared of the testers, if he was doping? Why would he not be equally scared in Paris? This theory makes no sense.

It does, but it's hard to see something when your head is buried in the sand.

That is your interpretation.

Julia Santamaria wrote:He was actually pretty clear, and also what Nadal said.

I agree with you and Toni. It's pretty clear and confirms what I say. Nadal did not "prepare"!

And he wasn't injured tenez?

Well when I was watching (never saw a replay) Nadal looked physically diminished. Clearly I could not see why his knee was more damaged than in teh FO final despite 2 weeks of rest.

To me it seems more likely Nadal was simply cycling down and did not want to go far in this Wimbledon. This is what I said from the beginning when he turned down Halle. He looked liked the weak Nadal...the one we usually see end of season.

Toni is clear: Nadal was not prepared (like they know how to prepare him).

Tenez wrote:Well when I was watching (never saw a replay) Nadal looked physically diminished. Clearly I could not see why his knee was more damaged than in teh FO final despite 2 weeks of rest.

To me it seems more likely Nadal was simply cycling down and did not want to go far in this Wimbledon. This is what I said from the beginning when he turned down Halle. He looked liked the weak Nadal...the one we usually see end of season.

Toni is clear: Nadal was not prepared (like they know how to prepare him).

Fits well with the latest from camp Nadal:

"Rafa will come back. He has no fear of this break - he has nothing more to lose," Toni Nadal told reporters at the Mercedes Cup in Stuttgart .
"Currently Rafa is doing physical training, but no court workouts. The break is important - he has played enough."

noleisthebest wrote:
It does, but it's hard to see something when your head is buried in the sand.

No, I'm sorry but I don't think this statement is fair even in the slightest.

This theory that Nadal was cycling down during Wimbledon (this is Tenez@12:22 I'm talking about here, not anyone else's) simply does not make any logical sense whatsoever.  
If in this hypothetical world Nadal was indeed doping, then this scenario still does not seem convincing in any way.
Firstly: why would Nadal not want to cycle up for Wimbledon? It is a very prestigious tournament, and if possible surely he could cycle down during after Wimbledon finishes as there is a break anyway.
Secondly: If it is because he's scared of the ITF and their doping test, then why would he only cycle down for Wimbledon? Why would he be scared of the ITF in Paris but not London? This is just bordering into a ludicrous suggestion.

Overall I think this theory really does not stand up to any scrutiny at all, irrelevant of whether Nadal is doping or not.

---------------------------------------

On a more general point, I have made an observation- and I am curious to whether the majority will agree/ dis-agree with me on this one.
I have a feeling, based on what I have seen in the past and even now, that Tenez will make a conspiracy theory without much hard evidence- irrelevant of the circumstances.
By this I mean to say, that whatever happens Tenez will always make an explanation after the event which is not genuine but always trying to push towards an image he has already created in his mind.
For example if in Wimbledon 2013:
a) Nadal had won- then Tenez would have 'theorised' that Nadal was still cycling up for Wimbledon.
b) If Nadal loses early and then misses the rest of the year due to patella injury- then Tenez will claim that Nadal has been silently banned once again (after being caught by the ITF I presume?).
c) If Nadal loses early and then plays well for the rest of the season- Tenez will claim that Nadal was cycling down during Wimbledon but then cycling up for the latter end of the year.

So we reach a situation where whatever scenario takes place, Tenez will always have a theory which broadly fits in very well with his pre-held ideas, and one which NITB will defend to the letter and claim that denial of it is 'putting your head in the sand.'
Of course, if I am right, this would lead to massive reliability issues if we are to take Tenez's word as the truth.

Julia Santamaria wrote: So we reach a situation where whatever scenario takes place, Tenez will always have a theory which broadly fits in very well with his pre-held ideas, and one which NITB will defend to the letter and claim that denial of it is 'putting your head in the sand.'
Of course, if I am right, this would lead to massive reliability issues if we are to take Tenez's word as the truth.

Julia,
please go and hit the ball somewhere, go on a bike-ride, or a walk somewhere nice, get some fresh air, the weather is beautiful....don't worry about Tenez or me too much, and above all, don't worry about Nadal, he's reduced you to a nervous wreck obsessing with what others think about him.
Definitely worth it.

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia,
please go and hit the ball somewhere,

I played tennis this afternoon actually, and I narrowly lost my match.

noleisthebest wrote:
he's reduced you to a nervous wreck

You know absolutely nothing about my personal life, and you can stop pretending to as well.

Julia Santamaria wrote:So we reach a situation where whatever scenario takes place, Tenez will always have a theory which broadly fits in very well with his pre-held ideas, and one which NITB will defend to the letter and claim that denial of it is 'putting your head in the sand.'
Of course, if I am right, this would lead to massive reliability issues if we are to take Tenez's word as the truth.

I am trying hard to find fitting scenari but Toni and his friends beat me hands on at this game goving a 1000 type of injuries on a single knee.

However on this occasion, Toni and I are in synch. Nadal did not get "prepared" for Wimbledon. Now maybe you can enlighten us on what Nadal coudl have done to ne "prepared" for Wimbledon? Considering Djoko only played a couple of Exho matches to prepare it doesn't seem to be a tall order to prepare for the most important tournament in the world?

You can get prepared in many ways, for example playing a warm-up tournament in Queens, or playing Boodle like Djokovic.

Type of avoids what I was saying though...

legendkillar wrote:Agreed.

It's been what 3 days since Andy won and already I feel the press have killed the occasion. Andy faces a big challenge in the American HC swing. I think he could even suffer some early exists at Cincinnati and Montral TBH.

Andy has always struck me as someone that struggles with the weight of expectation.

 In the past that was true but that certainly does not seem to be the case in the past year since Andy holds one OG, one USO and one W title!

Why does he have a big challenge in the hc swing? Who cares about the tune-up events for one, all that matters to him are the slams at this point, he pretty much said so. For the USO title, he certainly has a great chance and will be the first or second favourite.

noleisthebest wrote:Being number one is probably on a par with holding a slam, and must feel phenomenal, but only if you  are able to hold onto it for a while.
If you are an accidental number one, than it's got the opposite effect, you know you don't belong there, like Tipsarevic in top 10 or Ferrer in RG final.

Nadal's number one for example was not of the same quality as Novak's let alone Federer's. You can't dominate only one surface (and for half of the year) and claim the proper&rightful ownership of the top spot.

Murray has got a long way to go in many ways and I am not sure if Lendl's talk is going to kill him rather than lift him towards moving forward.

I have always viewed Lendl as very sharp and astute, so he probably knows what he is talking about and whether Murray is ready for that kind of talk.

However, I don't like the reverse and dishonest tone of it, because Lendl can't be thinking like that.
Very much the Toni/Nadal rubbish humble school of thought: I don't care about being number one, I am happy to be number 2, yeah, right!

 
 it is nice to be number one for sure, but winning slams is more important.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote: You can't dominate only one surface..

Slams:

Djokovic has won 5/6 on hard courts- that is around 87.5% I believe.
Nadal has won 8/12 on clay- that is around 67% I believe.

So surface wise- Djokovic depends more on HC than Nadal does on clay.

If we are looking at specific slams, Djokovic has won 67% at just AO, just like Nadal at RG.

So I think your point is moot and frankly invalid when comparing Nadal on Djokovic.

Federer's mix on both hard courts and grass is better (in terms of balance), but on clay he hasn't achieved the same results.

Good post Julia! People criticize Nadal for having a clay heavy resume but Djokovic's resume is even more hc heavy. In 2012 and 2013 Djokovic has ONLY been able to win the AO just as Nadal has only been able to win the FO.

Tenez wrote:That's one part of the equation. Going deep in slams also shows the variety of a player.

Federer is one of the best clay courter ever if he only has one FO. He has been extremely consistent on that surface. Nadal has 2 slow wimby but his record on grass is not as consitent as Federer on clay. Nadal on HC shows a relatively poor record in consistency compared to the other 2 players.

But at teh end of the days we are arguing about surfaces when nowadays you can play the same game everywhere so the discussion is a bit irrelevant.

 No you can't play the same everywhere otherwise Murray would have a FO, Nadal would have more slams off clay and Djokovic would have more slams off hc.

noleisthebest wrote:Well, surfaces merging have really brought tennis to a standstill.
Now the era of giants is knocking on the door, and I wonder who and how is going to topple them...
I hope ATP continue to think in the right direction and act on it.

I am not sure how Murray is going to carry on once he starts being asked for an input, he has too many similarities with Nadal, I think he even supported the two year ranking.

We have seen his winning ugly style, and I don't think I could handle him Ruling ugly on top...
 
The next 12 months will be very interesting.

Nadal Djokovic AO 2012 final did trigger some good changes, I think a few more Djokovic Murray finals will have the same effect.
Probably the ugliest match-up right now that displays everything that is wrong with tennis atm.

Knowing how badly desperate Murray is/has been for slam(s) and how much money has been dumped into him, there's not a lot to look forward to once the Imperialstic machinery gets going....

Well get ready because as I said earlier on this forum, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are going to split slams moving forward. Djokovic will likely not dominate the way he did in 2011, he couldn't even repeat his 2011 in 2012 and 2013.

BlueClay wrote:

Tenez wrote:That's one part of the equation. Going deep in slams also shows the variety of a player.

Federer is one of the best clay courter ever if he only has one FO. He has been extremely consistent on that surface. Nadal has 2 slow wimby but his record on grass is not as consitent as Federer on clay. Nadal on HC shows a relatively poor record in consistency compared to the other 2 players.

But at teh end of the days we are arguing about surfaces when nowadays you can play the same game everywhere so the discussion is a bit irrelevant.

 No you can't play the same everywhere otherwise Murray would have a FO, Nadal would have more slams off clay and Djokovic would have more slams off hc.

 LOL! It's because they play the same game that they do not have more FO, more slams on those surfaces....but sometimes it is good enough to win on those 4 surfaces with that same game. It's just a bit harder while in the 90s it was virtually impossible to win Wimbledon and the FO with the same game....even if some got close (Edberg) and even Agassi did it.

BlueClay wrote:
Well get ready because as I said earlier on this forum, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are going to split slams moving forward. Djokovic will likely not dominate the way he did in 2011, he couldn't even repeat his 2011 in 2012 and 2013.

Blueclay, the things you have said are obvious, nothing really that insightful or enlightening, we can all see where tennis is at, but unlike you are not rubbing our hands with self-recognition and being pleased with ourselves because there is not a lot to be happy about with where tennis is at right now.
On the contrary, I am sad that tennis has degraded and devolved to the level where I as a tennis fan did not want to watch WIMBLEDON FINAL!
And not just that one but many other slam finals recently.
But, thankfully, there are many other players still around I can enjoy watching play real and beautiful tennis on small courts in Wimbledon or ATP 250 events.

BlueClay wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote: You can't dominate only one surface..

Slams:

Djokovic has won 5/6 on hard courts- that is around 87.5% I believe.
Nadal has won 8/12 on clay- that is around 67% I believe.

So surface wise- Djokovic depends more on HC than Nadal does on clay.

If we are looking at specific slams, Djokovic has won 67% at just AO, just like Nadal at RG.

So I think your point is moot and frankly invalid when comparing Nadal on Djokovic.

Federer's mix on both hard courts and grass is better (in terms of balance), but on clay he hasn't achieved the same results.

Good post Julia! People criticize Nadal for having a clay heavy resume but Djokovic's resume is even more hc heavy. In 2012 and 2013 Djokovic has ONLY been able to win the AO just as Nadal has only been able to win the FO.

Djoko: Aus: 67%, US Open: 16.67%, Wimby: 16.67%.
Nadal: Aus: 8.33%, US Open: 8.33%, Wimby: 16.67%, FO: 67%

luvsports! wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote: You can't dominate only one surface..

Slams:

Djokovic has won 5/6 on hard courts- that is around 87.5% I believe.
Nadal has won 8/12 on clay- that is around 67% I believe.

So surface wise- Djokovic depends more on HC than Nadal does on clay.

If we are looking at specific slams, Djokovic has won 67% at just AO, just like Nadal at RG.

So I think your point is moot and frankly invalid when comparing Nadal on Djokovic.

Federer's mix on both hard courts and grass is better (in terms of balance), but on clay he hasn't achieved the same results.

Good post Julia! People criticize Nadal for having a clay heavy resume but Djokovic's resume is even more hc heavy. In 2012 and 2013 Djokovic has ONLY been able to win the AO just as Nadal has only been able to win the FO.

Djoko: Aus: 67%, US Open: 16.67%, Wimby: 16.67%.
Nadal: Aus: 8.33%, US Open: 8.33%, Wimby: 16.67%, FO: 67%

 So? Julia's point still stands, both Nadal and Djokovic have 67% at ONE slam. Obviously Nadal has more slams so that is the reason his percentages at his token slams the AO and the USO are lower. Just wait a few more years, if Djokovic acquires more slams, let's see what his spread is. The fact is out of Nadal's overall titles 73.6 % have come on clay (42 out of 57 titles) and with Djokovic 75.6% of his overall titles come on hc (28 out of 37 titles.) So it is very clear both of their resumes are pretty much equally heavy on one surface. Stop trying to spin it to suit your favourite player and look at the stats, it is all right there.

Wow calm down BC. I was interested in seeing the split, so I put them up, that is all! Jeesh, take a chill pill (90's kid slang).

I am a massive feds fan btw.

BlueClay wrote:The fact is out of Nadal's overall titles 73.6 % have come on clay (42 out of 57 titles) and with Djokovic 75.6% of his overall titles come on hc (28 out of 37 titles.) So it is very clear both of their resumes are pretty much equally heavy on one surface.

But that is not a fair comparison.  A bigger portion of the tour is being played on HC, so even a perfectly balanced player would have far more HC wins than clay wins.  The fact that the percentages are comparable confirms that Nadal is more of a niche player than Nole.

BlueClay wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Agreed.

It's been what 3 days since Andy won and already I feel the press have killed the occasion. Andy faces a big challenge in the American HC swing. I think he could even suffer some early exists at Cincinnati and Montral TBH.

Andy has always struck me as someone that struggles with the weight of expectation.

 In the past that was true but that certainly does not seem to be the case in the past year since Andy holds one OG, one USO and one W title!

Why does he have a big challenge in the hc swing? Who cares about the tune-up events for one, all that matters to him are the slams at this point, he pretty much said so. For the USO title, he certainly has a great chance and will be the first or second favourite.

Murray himself said that focusing on just slams ruined his focus for the entire season hence why he would share his focus on all events leading into Slams.

summerblues wrote:

BlueClay wrote:The fact is out of Nadal's overall titles 73.6 % have come on clay (42 out of 57 titles) and with Djokovic 75.6% of his overall titles come on hc (28 out of 37 titles.) So it is very clear both of their resumes are pretty much equally heavy on one surface.

But that is not a fair comparison.  A bigger portion of the tour is being played on HC, so even a perfectly balanced player would have far more HC wins than clay wins.  The fact that the percentages are comparable confirms that Nadal is more of a niche player than Nole.

I don't agree with that. Djokovic is a hc specialist just as Nadal is a clay court specialist. Let's see what the totals are at the end of both of their careers and see how many more slams Djokovic wins off hc.

luvsports! wrote:Wow calm down BC. I was interested in seeing the split, so I put them up, that is all! Jeesh, take a chill pill (90's kid slang).

I am a massive feds fan btw.

I am calm. Only trying to say my opinion is that Djokovic is a one surface specialist as much as Nadal is.

BlueClay wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Wow calm down BC. I was interested in seeing the split, so I put them up, that is all! Jeesh, take a chill pill (90's kid slang).

I am a massive feds fan btw.

I am calm. Only trying to say my opinion is that Djokovic is a one surface specialist as much as Nadal is.

That shows how little you understand tennis and that you are a hard-core Nadal fan.

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

luvsports! wrote:Wow calm down BC. I was interested in seeing the split, so I put them up, that is all! Jeesh, take a chill pill (90's kid slang).

I am a massive feds fan btw.

I am calm. Only trying to say my opinion is that Djokovic is a one surface specialist as much as Nadal is.

That shows how little you understand tennis and that you are a hard-core Nadal fan.

 
There is no question Djokovic is just as much a hc specialist as Nadal is a clay court specialist. Get your head out of Djokovic's arse. I am not a hard-core Nadal fan. When Federer retires I will probably take a break from tennis. I am just not a ridiculous hater like you are. You hate Nadal and Murray so much that it makes you incapable of any good tennis analysis. In the meantime, you predicted Djokovic would beat Nadal at the FO and that Djokovic would beat Murray at Wimbledon. Don't give up your day job any time soon.  I predicted correctly that Nadal would win the FO and Murray would win Wimbledon so who understands tennis better?

I actually tend to agree with NITB here (slightly), to this extent:

I believe the gap in level of play between Nadal on clay and other surfaces is greater than the difference between Djokovic's level of play on hard courts and the other surfaces.
However this is primarily because Nadal's level on clay throughout the years has been much higher than Djokovic's level on hard courts.

BlueClay wrote:

summerblues wrote:The fact that the percentages are comparable confirms that Nadal is more of a niche player than Nole.

I don't agree with that. Djokovic is a hc specialist just as Nadal is a clay court specialist. Let's see what the totals are at the end of both of their careers and see how many more slams Djokovic wins off hc.

I was just commenting on the numbers you yourself posted - on the number of all titles, not slams only.  Based on those numbers, Nadal shows up as more of a specialist.  As I said before already:  if both Nadal and Nole win about 75% on their favorite surface, it is the Nadal's numbers that are more extreme, because he did it on a surface on which fewer tournaments are played.

Who knows, maybe these numbers change by the time they are both done, but as of now they are what they are.

Julia Santamaria wrote:I actually tend to agree with NITB here (slightly), to this extent:

I believe the gap in level of play between Nadal on clay and other surfaces is greater than the difference between Djokovic's level of play on hard courts and the other surfaces.
However this is primarily because Nadal's level on clay throughout the years has been much higher than Djokovic's level on hard courts.

Yes, this is a fair comment I think.  I would say that - roughly speaking - Nole has been about as good on clay as Rafa has been on HC, but Rafa has been far better on clay than Nole has been on HC.

The "specialist" discussion is obviously done on a relative basis.  On an absolute basis, Nadal has been far superior to Nole - so far at least.  There is a reason why their slam counts are 12 vs 6.

I would note though that this might still change going forward.  The last few years, Nole has been showing marked improvements on clay and that may yet change the overall picture materially.  That said, I would be very surprised if - when they are done - Nole had as many slams as Rafa.  I think I said some time ago I thought it was likely he would fail to reach 10 slams, and that is still my view.  Of course, I could be proven wrong in the years to come.

summerblues wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:I actually tend to agree with NITB here (slightly), to this extent:

I believe the gap in level of play between Nadal on clay and other surfaces is greater than the difference between Djokovic's level of play on hard courts and the other surfaces.
However this is primarily because Nadal's level on clay throughout the years has been much higher than Djokovic's level on hard courts.

Yes, this is a fair comment I think.  I would say that - roughly speaking - Nole has been about as good on clay as Rafa has been on HC, but Rafa has been far better on clay than Nole has been on HC.

The "specialist" discussion is obviously done on a relative basis.  On an absolute basis, Nadal has been far superior to Nole - so far at least.  There is a reason why their slam counts are 12 vs 6.

I would note though that this might still change going forward.  The last few years, Nole has been showing marked improvements on clay and that may yet change the overall picture materially.  That said, I would be very surprised if - when they are done - Nole had as many slams as Rafa.  I think I said some time ago I thought it was likely he would fail to reach 10 slams, and that is still my view.  Of course, I could be proven wrong in the years to come.

Yep, can't disagree with any of that. Nadal is going to finish his career on 12 slams as well, so it's going to have to be a big effort from Djokovic to get over that. Murray is his big nemesis now.

Btw, 4:57pm on Friday, not like you to miss that sort of thing. Fear perhaps, fear? It's got to be something.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Btw, 4:57pm on Friday, not like you to miss that sort of thing.

What about 4:57pm?  My thought - as with a few of the other posts on this and other threads - was let's try to focus on tennis rather than on fellow posters (I recognize you did not start it).

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/spa/summerblues/150

6:43pm, 6:38pm; Either your position has shifted or it's the position of others. Something must have changed from that, to this. I suspect it's the former.

Anyway back on topic before everyone gets too angry:
http://www.talksport.co.uk/sports-news/tennis/130708/exclusive-richard-krajicek-backs-andy-murray-reach-world-number-one-spot-201175

Now Edberg has given his backing to Murray to go on and become world number 1.
http://zeenews.india.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon-2013/edberg-believes-murray-could-be-world-s-best_764833.html

Maybe if he has a good clay season next year.

Julia Santamaria wrote:https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/spa/summerblues/150

6:43pm, 6:38pm; Either your position has shifted or it's the position of others. Something must have changed from that, to this. I suspect it's the former.

It took me some time to find it - I think the software is smart enough to show me the time in my time zone so there was no 6:43pm, 6:38pm there, but I think I found it now.

I think there was a fair amount of difference between that and your post in terms of why we wrote them.  I did not write that post with the sole purpose of criticizing others or proving them wrong, though I admit that on the face of it you could see it that way.

In any event, I am not exactly an unbiased observer here, so not much point in getting into much of a discussion.  I am happy to concede that I may have been inconsistent in my comments.

summerblues wrote:
I think there was a fair amount of difference between that and your post in terms of why we wrote them.

Well looked they looked to be exactly the same  Perhaps not.

summerblues wrote:

The "specialist" discussion is obviously done on a relative basis.  On an absolute basis, Nadal has been far superior to Nole - so far at least.  There is a reason why their slam counts are 12 vs 6.

 I very much disagree with that. The reason is simply down the fact that Nadal is slightly older (one year) and crucially benefitted from being physically more mature, especially more mature at an early age. Nadal also benefits from being more of being a clay courter without having much challenge on that surface. On more neutral ground (HC) Djokovic shows a much better record as well as a better tennis.

I always felt that at equal age Djoko was simply better regardless the surface. At the begining of their career Djoko had quite a few very close matches on clay v Nadal and it's obvious that an extra year of physical maturity and experience woudl have helped Djoko convert those close losses into wins. In fact since 2009 Djoko leads their H2H 11/6 which simply shows that Djoko is clearly the better player. the 6 wins from Nadal since 2009 are essentially down to snatching wins while facing defat all along, or Djoko playing without contact lenses like in London WTF 2010. 

To me it is a bit of a case of Borg/McEnroe. Borg won more slams certainly but who was the better player? WHo went on to reach much higher levels? Mc....not Borg.

I sense this is another case of selective stats from Tenez to try and hone in his pre-held agenda.

Apart from Djokovic's purple patch in 2011, Nadal leads the H2H 20-9.
How's that for some selective stats?

In their last 5 matches Nadal leads the H2H 4-1 (although these are clay based- but due to homogenisation aren't all the surfaces the same these days anyway? Was there a big difference between AO 2012 and FO 2013?)

If my memory serves me correctly, I can vividly recall Tenez saying after the AO 2012 final that Djokovic's safest surfaces against Nadal is now clay... infact I am 100% sure Tenez said that.
Let's say Tenez was correct there (and why should we doubt him?), the 4-1 H2H after that for Nadal would have been even more one sided if they had played on grass and hard courts.

Yes....I still think so actually. Watch the trend from now on. It will confirm it.  Djoko was pretty unlucky at the FO....he played really poorly yet shoudl have won. Shoudl have been 2\0 this year on clay if it was not for a silly mistake.

Julia Santamaria wrote:I sense this is another case of selective stats from Tenez to try and hone in his pre-held agenda.

Apart from Djokovic's purple patch in 2011, Nadal leads the H2H 20-9.
How's that for some selective stats?

In their last 5 matches Nadal leads the H2H 4-1 (although these are clay based- but due to homogenisation aren't all the surfaces the same these days anyway? Was there a big difference between AO 2012 and FO 2013?)

Amri, what is the purpose of all your arguments here? What are you actually trying to prove?
Btw, homogenisation of surfaces does not mean they are all the same, but that players are able to play the same game on virtually all surfaces.

Tenez wrote:Yes....I still think so actually. Watch the trend from now on. It will confirm it.

The trend from now on will be that Djokovic will beat Nadal everytime they meet; Nadal has now played 12+ years on the pro tour and is now over the hill... this is an irrefutable fact.
However that won't prove anything in terms of surface to surface comparison.
This point though is relevant:
-After AO 2012 you said clay would be Djokovic's strongest surface against Nadal.
-Let's assume you were correct.
-The H2H after that match between these 2 is 4-1 to Nadal, all on clay.
-Thus we must assume if you are right than Nadal would have had a similar if not better H2H if they had played on grass or hard courts.
-Therefore we can say without any 'brackets' or 'smallprint' that Nadal's recent H2H against Djokovic is 4-1.
-This makes a mockery of your point that Djokovic has been better than Nadal at every stage after he physically matured.

Of course I believe your whole premise after AO 2012 that Djokovic's safest bet against Nadal is clay and not HC, is nonsensical. The surface speed is similar, but movement wise Djokovic is top dog on HC, while Nadal is top dog on clay.
On a separate issue, now I believe Nadal has starting to decline, but he has played 750+ matches on tour so this is not surprising (to give an example- Nadal has played more matches so far than Ljubicic did in his entire career).

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:

The "specialist" discussion is obviously done on a relative basis.  On an absolute basis, Nadal has been far superior to Nole - so far at least.  There is a reason why their slam counts are 12 vs 6.

 I very much disagree with that. The reason is simply down the fact that Nadal is slightly older (one year) and crucially benefitted from being physically more mature, especially more mature at an early age. Nadal also benefits from being more of being a clay courter without having much challenge on that surface. On more neutral ground (HC) Djokovic shows a much better record as well as a better tennis.

....

To me it is a bit of a case of Borg/McEnroe. Borg won more slams certainly but who was the better player? WHo went on to reach much higher levels? Mc....not Borg.

To some extent I think our disagreement is on semantics.  To me, the "better" player is by definition the one whose game can win more titles.  I am willing to allow for some contingencies (e.g., player X can be a "better" player but not win as many titles as player Y if say player X had harder draws, or some such things), but the "beauty" or "technical quality" of tennis does not come into it at all.  Even if say a player can only win their matches because the opponents ultimately tire, that is enough to make them better than their opponents - the opponents do not have the full package required to win the match.

If you define "better" to mean something else, then of course you can easily have a "better" player being less successful than the "worse" player, but then you are just talking about something else.  I will grant you that say on pure ball striking ability, Nadal is not quite as good as one might expect of a 12 slam winner, but I find that irrelevant.

The question of "who reached higher levels" is a bit different.  E.g., if player A collects more slams than player B by being successful for a longer period, but never reaches say the same level of dominance as player B reaches during their shorter reign, who is better then?  Again, it will depend on what one defines to mean "better", but in my case, I will tend to go with player A.  In particular, I certainly have Borg as a better player than McEnroe (notwithstanding the fact that I find McEnroe's game far more breathtaking than Borg's game).

summerblues wrote:
To some extent I think our disagreement is on semantics.  To me, the "better" player is by definition the one whose game can win more titles.  I am willing to allow for some contingencies (e.g., player X can be a "better" player but not win as many titles as player Y if say player X had harder draws, or some such things), but the "beauty" or "technical quality" of tennis does not come into it at all.  Even if say a player can only win their matches because the opponents ultimately tire, that is enough to make them better than their opponents - the opponents do not have the full package required to win the match.

If you define "better" to mean something else, then of course you can easily have a "better" player being less successful than the "worse" player, but then you are just talking about something else.  I will grant you that say on pure ball striking ability, Nadal is not quite as good as one might expect of a 12 slam winner, but I find that irrelevant.

The question of "who reached higher levels" is a bit different.  E.g., if player A collects more slams than player B by being successful for a longer period, but never reaches say the same level of dominance as player B reaches during their shorter reign, who is better then?  Again, it will depend on what one defines to mean "better", but in my case, I will tend to go with player A.  In particular, I certainly have Borg as a better player than McEnroe (notwithstanding the fact that I find McEnroe's game far more breathtaking than Borg's game).

Beauty and technique are never a factor for me, contrary to the common belief. Winning effortlessly is what we tend to call "beauty" or talent but that is irrelevant....without the word "winning".

I mean Djoko is simply a better player as his game and results have been better since 2011....and teh H2H shows also a better tennis since 2009 when matched against each other.

What you probably mean is "greater". For now people recognise Nadal as a greater player, which is fine as he achieved much more. Yet the better player is clearly Djoko...certainly over the last few years. Though you might say "greater on clay" while Djoko is greater oustide clay....all those can be true I guess.

Tenez wrote:

summerblues wrote:

The "specialist" discussion is obviously done on a relative basis.  On an absolute basis, Nadal has been far superior to Nole - so far at least.  There is a reason why their slam counts are 12 vs 6.

 I very much disagree with that. The reason is simply down the fact that Nadal is slightly older (one year) and crucially benefitted from being physically more mature, especially more mature at an early age. Nadal also benefits from being more of being a clay courter without having much challenge on that surface. On more neutral ground (HC) Djokovic shows a much better record as well as a better tennis.

I always felt that at equal age Djoko was simply better regardless the surface. At the begining of their career Djoko had quite a few very close matches on clay v Nadal and it's obvious that an extra year of physical maturity and experience woudl have helped Djoko convert those close losses into wins. In fact since 2009 Djoko leads their H2H 11/6 which simply shows that Djoko is clearly the better player. the 6 wins from Nadal since 2009 are essentially down to snatching wins while facing defat all along, or Djoko playing without contact lenses like in London WTF 2010. 

To me it is a bit of a case of Borg/McEnroe. Borg won more slams certainly but who was the better player? WHo went on to reach much higher levels? Mc....not Borg.

Borg was the better player and more successful player. Have you ever seen any list where McEnroe is placed above Borg in terms of greatness? McEnroe may be a more talented player but he is not better than Borg.