Excellent Blog Cheryl. I agree with you about Nadal. He used to be so far behind the baseline on h/c, in later matches he'd move in until the match got tight. Now he manages to stay on the baseline about 90-95% of the time. That's crucial to his success.

Like what cable said in the earlier thread, Rafa is the 'more accomplished grand slam player' while Nole and Murray are 'more accomplished hard court players' . I agree with Cheryl that Rafa is the better tennis player and Nole/Murray the tecnhically better hard court players. Perhaps that explains why both Nole and Murray have more hard court titles won within a shorter period than Rafa's but Rafa ending up having more hard court slams than the two of them.

It makes things interesting now that all the top four are so good on hard courts. Still waiting for a Nole vs Murray match.

"If I were picking a game to employ on hards, I?d pick Murray?s, but Nadal?s mental toughness supersedes all."

nothing compares to the electrifying tennis Novak played during AO 2008, nothing.

Chery,, thanks for this blog, it is well written but from your perspective.

Needless to say I simply do not buy the theory that both Muzz and Djoker are better on h/c than Rafa, and I would even extend this to Federer. OK Federer has more h/c slams, I can't argue against that, but his h2h with Rafa on h/c is 4.3 hardly a lead, also the one and only time they've played in a slam h/c Rafa won in 5; now if Roger was the King of h/c and Rafa was not that good on it, you would expect Roger to finally overcome him in a best of 5 sets. In fact, the very first time they played on h/c Rafa beat a fit and rested Roger easily in straight sets when he was only 17 years old. Roger has won a load of h/c titles, all I can say is, luckily, he's only met Rafa in 1 h/c slam, otherwise things may have been different.

As for Muzz and Nole, whilst you call Murray's 6 masters h/c titles impressive, you make no mention of Rafa's 5 Masters h/c titles, because that doesn't fit in with your theory; apart from his 5 master h/c titles, Rafa has also been runner-up 8 times on h/c, same as Muzz and Nole, so basically all you are left with are your opinions about who has the better game on the surface, and as there is no hard and fast measure to determine what is a good h/c game apart from the results, I will draw the conclusion that neither Federer, Muzz or Nole is better on h/c than Rafa and vice versa.

By the way, when Rafa beat Roger in OZ, Rafa was supposed to be on his last legs, Roger had had lots of time to rest and practice with left handers and plan his strategy, and Rafa still beat him.

Cheryl, I don't understand how you can be a better tennis player than someone, yet they are technically better than you.........I just don't get that. Tennis is not a complicated game, so how can one separate the technique from the game, isn't this just an easy way out of not accepting the evidence, that these guys are no better on h/c than Rafa, after all Rafa has won 76% of his matches on H/C, both Nole and Muzz 77%. How have Muzz and Nole manifested their technical superiority over Rafa on H/C?

Cheryl: So my conclusion? My conclusion is that both Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray are technically better hard court players, but Nadal is the better tennis player. Djokovic and Murray have the sort of strokes that are taught to junior around the globe precisely because they are successful on hard courts. No coach in his right mind would teach Rafa?s game to a youngster and expect him to succeed on concrete.


So it seems like Nadal does everything 'wrong' and gets everything right. Maybe it's time they revised the text books and teach what delivers the results - Hard Court Tennis - Rafael Nadal Style - how to win a GS on the fastest of hard courts dropping your serve only 5 times in the whole tournament, all in the SF and Final against the biggest hitters.

Coaches can teach what they like, but Rafa does it his way, and that's raw talent, not being spoon-fed.

Maybe it's time they revised the text books and TAUGHT what delivers the results


Sorry for mixing my tenses.

cheryl, great blog and i too totally agree with you. but - no offense - i think cable and luckystar had brought up the crucial points in the other thread, i.e. that rafa took longer to win his hc titles/slam compared to nole and muzz and that points to the surface their games are built on (although i seem to recall muzz spent time training on clay in spain). and the next crucial point being that rafa's mental toughness has a huge, HUGE part to play a lot of the time but of course also his brains and tennis. basically, i share the same view as you, luckystar and cable on this subject.

it will be more interesting to compare these 3 (& fed) when all their pro careers are over.

Rafa did NOT take the longest to develop his game on h/c, in fact he took the least time of the 4 top players winning his first Masters shield at 19, Federer did not win his first until he was 22, Nole 20 and Muzz 21, so how can anyone say that Rafa took the longest. The facts are there in black and white.......Rafa turned pro early because he was far too good for the junior circuit.

People are confusing Rafa's relative successes on clay and hard court as an individual with his successes in relation to other players. Just because he was so successful on clay so early they write him off on other surfaces. I ask again, if Muzz and Nole are that good on h/c how come that at 23 Nole only has 1 h/c slam and Muzz has none, when Rafa had 4 slams on his best surface at that age?

Face the facts, not conjecture not based on facts.

I've just watched the OZ final between Federer and Nadal and I simply don't recognize anything unorthodox about Rafa's h/c game, he was playing his type of game and out-playing Roger.

Why don't we spend some time analyzing players' game on grass and clay, why this fixation on wanting to show that Rafa is no good at something, even when the evidence is to the contrary, so Cheryl, maybe we need a similar blog on the other surfaces.

In fact to be precise, Roger did not win a Master's shield until he was TWENTY-THREE, it was the Tennis Masters Cup he won at 22.............Rafa won his first Masters Shield at NINETEEN.

If we are comparing how early they won their first Masters shield on hard court, Rafa didn't win his faster than Nole or Murray. Rafa started his tour at 2002, won his first two hard court Masters in 2005; Nole started in 2004, won his first two hard court Masters in 2007; and Murray in 2006 and won his first two in 2008. Maybe only Fed won his a bit later but Fed started winning his hard court slams at a faster rate than any of these three.

We can't deny that Rafa took a longer time to master the hard courts than say Nole and Murray. Nole and Murray also reached their first hard court slam final earlier than Rafa, Nole in 2007(four years in tour); Murray in 2008(three years in tour) and Rafa early 2009(seven years in tour). Also I think Nole had it tougher than Rafa, as the 2007 USO final was Nole's first ever slam final vs a Fed still in his TMF mode. The 2008 and the 2010 slam finals were the only two slam finals for Murray and he failed on those two occasions. Rafa was alot more experienced in slam finals, and Rafa was rarely beaten in a slam finals, so far 2 in 11. His Ao 09 and USO 10 were his 8th and 11th slam finals respectively. As I've mentioned Rafa is a more accomplished slam player, so though he took a longer time to win his slams on hard, he still managed more than Nole or Murray could get.

Maybe another way of measuring their hard count proficiency is to look at their H2H against fellow top ten or top twenty players?

If we go by physical age, yes Rafa won his first hard court Masters at 19, earlier than the other three, but he only reached his first hard court slam And won at age 22.5,, his second at age 24. Fed won his first at about the same age as Rafa but reached his second and won by age 23. Nole reached his first hard court slam final at age 20 and won a hard court slam in his second final at age 20. Murray didn't win any slam but reached his first hard court slam final at age 21 and second at age 22.

By age 23 and on the hard courts:
Rafa - 1 slam, 5 Masters , 1 Olympics gold, total 9 titles (1 slam final)
Nole - 1 slam, 4 Masters, 1 TMC, total 14 titles. (3 slam finals)
Murray- 0 slam, 6 Masters, total 15 titles. (2 slam finals)
Fed - 2 slams, 4 Masters, 2 TMC, bet 10-12 hard court titles ( 2 slam finals)

So going by physical age, Fed and Nole accomplished more than Rafa by age 23, and Rafa and Murray is hard to call as Rafa had one hard court slam by 23, vs Murray's 0 but reached two finals; also Muuray had more Masters and other hard court titles.

luckystar, you are just splitting hairs to prove that Rafa is rubbish on h/c, but your argument doesn't have any basis based on facts. No one will ever convince me that Rafa is any worse on h/c than any of the others in the top 4, we'll just agree to disagree.

We can't deny that Rafa took a longer time to master the hard courts than say Nole and Murray.

luckystar, 12/15/10 11:57 AM

I can most certainly deny that because he won a Masters much younger than the others, and beat Roger handily on h/c in a Masters at the age of 17.

if you simply want to believe that Rafa is rubbish on h/c feel free to do so, but you CANNOT back that up with the facts. How has Murray or Nole mastered h/c anymore than Rafa? Rafa has two h/c slams plus an Olympic Gold when Murray went out in the 1st round and Rafa beat Nole in the finals.

If people feel good about ignoring the facts then so be it, everyone is free to believe what they want.

Corr. Rafa beat Nole in the SF at the Olympics.

Please nadline, nobody says Rafa is rubbish on hard courts. If he is rubbish, he won't win any slam on hard courts. Even if Rafa falls short of Fed, Nole or Murray on the hard courts, it doesn't mean that he is rubbish on the hard court. Why take such extreme views?

Furthermore, now that Rafa has arrived on hard courts, albeit a bit later than the other three, who knows how much more he can achieve on the hard courts in the future? For all we know, he may end up second only to Fed on the hard courts when everything is done and dusted. From the way he dealt with both Nole and Murray recently, I won't be surprised that going forward, he'll beat them more often than they beat him on the hard courts; likewise against Fed.

I also want to bring Delpo into the picture, though Cheryl didn't mention about Delpo here. Delpo when he is back to his normal level, is a formidable force on the hard courts. I won't say he'll rule the tennis world, as I think he is not good on grass, and yet to prove his capabilities on the clay court, despite reaching one SF at the FO. However, we can't deny that he is very good on the hard courts, I think he has 6 titles on hard courts so far, including one slam and one 500 event (Washington) but no Masters shield.

Having said all these, I'm positive that going forward, Rafa will start to win many more titles on the hard courts, I certainly hope for Rafa to win AO and defends his USO title next year. That will make it four hard court slams for Rafa, no dispute then who is better than who on the hard courts (other than Fed with nine, of course).

Yes OK, Rafa has only just got his game on h/c, everything he achieved early on in his career was just a fluke because he did not know what he was doing. Just as well he couldn't play on h/c until recently, if he started off knowing how to play on h/c like Muzz, Nole and Federer, I think he would have won every single title going from the age of 15 when he joined the senior tour.

Well nadline, if you choose to take such extreme views, then well, I guess I'll stop here. No point in having a discussion then.

Nadline, I agree with you on a lot of points but I also agree with luckystar in that Rafa's game on h/c developed at a slower pace than the other top four. Take Rafa at the US Open and AOpen a few years ago. I remember how my heart broke to see Ferrer and Youzney blow Rafa off the court bcos technically his game was lacking. He was playing a clay court game on hard courts!.......this much is true and that is why Rafa did not have much success (winning the Slam) at these venues.

However, I think NOW that Rafa does have the ability to be formidable on h/c..........and I think he can beat Del Potro handily!! Going forward, no one can convince me that any one out there currently is a threat to Rafa!........NO ONE!! Rafa's game will keep improving, he has no doubt the talent, the smarts and the braun! He WILL win the Autrailian Open................he has signalled that much............and I see no reason why he wont!

As for me, I need no further convincing that Rafa is now a very good hard court player..............just not sure why other people do!!!

Nadline, you are taking this too personally. Nobody would dare say that Rafa is dreadful on hard courts. 2 hard court slams PROVES that he isn't. But your argument that he is as good as Federer on hards is simply wishful thinking. Federer has NINE slam titles on hard courts alone. There was a time not terribly long ago that the total number of losses on hardcourts for the entire year on TWO FINGERS.

Whether or not you agree with my conclusion about Nole and Murray is up to you. I simply stated MY opinion on the matter. After taking into consideration the effort that Rafa put forth to win some of those titles, battles he had as much with his own game as his opponent's, I stand by what I said.

There could come a time where this is no longer true. If Rafa continues to play like he did at the US Open, who knows how many hard court Slams he might amass.

Given that in tennis everything is decided by GS count, Rafa gets the edge over Murray and Nole in my view. However, rafa has been pro longer than both Murray and Nole so they might catch up at the end. Lets see how it plans out.

As of now, rafa gets the edge.

But guys and girls, there's no reason why Nole and Andy's game isn't going to continue improving, is there? Nole could certainly improve his volleying and Andy his match play.

Rafa turned pro in 2001. Nole turned pro in 2003. Murray turned pro in 2005. Those are facts not open for debate. This whole discussion reminds me of how many say that Rafa would've surpassed fed's count if he had been playing for that extra 3 years that fed has as a pro (he turned pro 1998). I think the same can be applied to comparing Nole and Murray's count to Rafa's. He has an extra 2 years over Nole and an extra 4 years on Murray.

The general acceptance from most, EVEN Rafa fans is that he was not exactly a force on HC until AO 2009. People knew he was getting better but Murray and Nole were still a huge threat to him on HC. No one here has said Rafa's HC game is "rubbish". We know he has it in him, but it is NOT a crime nor is it insulting to Rafa to say that he just took a little longer than the others to develop a better HC game.

Just as Rafa improved his tennis game (as he says he wants to do every year), there is no denying that Nole and Murray can't do the same too!

My goodness, to say that Rafa is just an average guy with a big heart, and yet he manages to win nine slams, don't you find it ridiculous? More ridiculous: Haase and Petchzner more talented than Rafa on grass? Almargo more talented than Rafa on clay?? just based on one match played against Rafa? Excuse me RAFAESNADA, are you on something? To think that you negate all Rafa's accomplishments on grass and clay like that is something beyond ridiculous!!

And you think by taking 'something' Rafa can straight away improve his serve speed? And he can decide when it is safe to take that and when not to, as if he decides when the WADA guys would come to test him??

Please apply some logic to your thinking before posting here, to save yourself from some embarrassment.

Just a reminder. Tennistalk does not permit posts containing unsubstantiated speculation whether or not a player uses banned substances.

Thanks.

When you attack someone using a false premise, then the discussion is going to become more emotional. No one here has said that Rafa's hc game is rubbish, period! I think it would serve the discussion if we would respond to what people actually say and not insert our own interpretation or words for what they said.

I am in agreement with Cheryl on this one. I think Rafa has proved himself on hardcourt with his two slam wins at AO and the USO. It's not an insult to say that Rafa's game works best on clay and also on grass. That's not a dig at all. All of Rafa's considerable strengths are amplified on the soft red earth. It is a surface that doesn't require a powerful serve, that rewards great movement and court coverage and powerful groundstrokes with depth and topspin.

What is exceptional about Rafa is how he has managed to tweak his game in order to make himself more competitive and more of a threat on hardcourt. He has become more aggressive, standing closer to the baseline, moving forward into the court, taking the ball earlier and also developing an outstanding net game with a deft touch in his volleying. Rafa was smart enough to realize that his topspin didn't work to great effect on hc, so he started hitting his shots flatter.

The last piece of the puzzle was the big, powerful serve that he unveiled at this year's USO. Rafa understood that this was the key component that he would need to win on a faster hc like the USO. This changed the dynamic of his game on hc. Rafa could shorten the points, not have to rely on working so hard with his groundstrokes and trying to outplay everyone from the baseline. Rafa's whole philosophy and approach has changed. This is the quality that I admire so much about Rafa. He is willing to do what it takes and add more weapons to his arsenal to give him a better chance to win on hc.

All Cheryl is saying, as far as I am concerned, is that Nole and Murray have more naturally friendly hc games. She has stated that Rafa's superior mental strength has been a huge advantage on all surfaces. Rafa's game is more naturally suited to clay and grass, but he has managed to make the necessary changes to his game to make it work better on hc.

Rafa is a phenomenal tennis player. There is no question about it. It takes nothing whatsoever away from him to simply state that Nole and Murray are more natural hc players.

Cheryl, this is an interesting analysis here, but I'm leaning towards nadline's side on this one.
Rafa has 2 Majors and Olympic Gold, I know some count the WTF as being close to a Major, but to me the WTF, as much as it wants to be, cannot compare with the Olympics, let alone a Major. It lacks the pressure of sudden death, the challenge of those first rounds against newcomers eager to make their mark and with nothing to lose... It's a different format all together. So I consider the Olympic Gold as an accomplishment on par with a Major. With that in the mix, Rafa is head and shoulders above Nole and Andy.
Rafa's HC game is an evolution from his CC game. Novak and Murray built their game on HC, so there will be natural differences. HC players learn to rely on their serve power. Rafa uses all the things that make him the best on Clay, even though they are not as effective on HC they are effective enough to place him as the #2 HC player behind Roger. Add to that his recent serve improvements, and there is no doubt in my mind that RIGHT NOW Rafa is the man to beat on any surface.

I did point out that I couldn't argue with your opinion Cheryl, but I couldn't understand how someone could be a better tennis player than someone else who is better than them technically. I know that most people see it your way, but when Murray or Nole are beaten in early rounds on h/c that is not taken into consideration, like Tsonga beating Murray in the 1st round the year he also beat Rafa in the SF at OZ. It seems to me that only Rafa's losses and everybody else's successes are used in the debate, so it is pointless hitting my head against a brick wall.

OK, Roger has 9 GS titles, and that alone is enough, but Rafa's 2 against Murray's nil is not valid. When Rafa and Roger play each other on h/c, I have never seen Roger dominating Rafa in any shape or form, but maybe I have rose tinted glasses.

So the fact that Roger did not win his first h/c Masters Shield at the age of 23 doesn't mean that it took him a long time to develop his game on h/c, but in Rafa's case winning it at 19 means exactly the opposite.

grafight,

I believe that Fed is the best hardcourt player. I am not going to say that he is the best of all time, as Cheryl did, because that plays into the whole GOAT argument and, as people here know from my comments, I do not subscribe to that.

I do believe that Rafa is challenging Nole and Murray and there could be an argument made now that he could be #2 behind Fed. He has improved tremendously in the last two years. Winning the USO has certainly elevated Rafa as far as his prowess on hardcourt. If I had a dollar for every time someone said that he would never win the USO, because the fast hardcourt surface didn't suit his game, I would be a rich woman! He proved them wrong, as he has done so many times in the past.

Rafa has a few key advantages over both Nole and Murray. First, that one intangible that all great champions seem to have - mental toughness, the ability to win even when they are not playing their best tennis. Rafa has a fierce will to win, a mindset that can carry him through when everything would seem to be pointing to a loss, as in the 2009 AO. That was probably the best example of his ability to somehow overcome his physical fatigue and just put his heart and guts on the line to get the win. One of the most courageous things I have seen, and I have seen a lot in a lifetime spent watching all of the great champions in this sport.

Rafa is technically brilliant and that is not incompatible with Nole and Murray having better pure hardcourt games. His execution and ability to adjust mid-match are of the highest level. His basic game is ideal for clay and also grass. In order to become proficient on hardcourt, he had to make some adjustments. As I indicated in my previous post, he has done exactly that. He has been willing to make some key changes in his game so that it works more effectively on hardcourt. It's not like he and Uncle Toni reinvented the wheel or threw out the core basics that comprise his essential game. Rather, they built on what was already there, fine tuning it to accomodate the demands of hardcourt.

I think that Rafa has caught up to Nole and Murray. At one time I would have said that he was not as good as either of them, or Fed or even someone like Delpo or even a Soderling. Rafa has put himself right near the top. We can debate this at length, but I certainly believe that you can make the case for Rafa as the #2 player on hardcourt.

I am sure that Nole and Murray fans are more than capable of making the case for their guys, too.

Yea, Rafa IS CATCHING UP with Murray and Nole on h/c having beaten Murray in their 1st 3 h/c meetings, two in straight sets, and 2.2 with Nole in their first 4 h/c meetings! Rafa also had a 2.1 h2h against Roger in their 1st 3 meetings on h/c, but why should any of this count, because Rafa didn't know what he was doing, and they did.

I just can't get my head around how the facts do not fit the story.

I think a player's prowess on any surface is not only measured against the top few guys but against the whole field in general. Rafa is certainly not rubbish on the hard court, as he as a 17 years old, has already beaten a more established Fed on the hard court when Fed was no.1, age 22. However, Rafa was beaten in the next round when he faced Gonzo. Rafa was also beaten by other players during the hard court slams, and it took him five attempts at the AO to reach the final and winning it, eight attempts at the USO to reach the final and winning it.

When Rafa met Nole for the first time on the hard court, that was at the IW 2007 final. Yes Rafa had beaten Nole in that final, Rafa was 20, already 5-6 years in the tour, vs Nole, then 19, about 3-4 years in the tour. However, one week later at Miami, Nole had turned the table against Rafa by beating him in the QF. From then onwards, Nole went on to win his Montreal title beating Rafa along the way and Fed in the final. Nole then went on to reach his first slam final and on the hard court at the USO 07, and later won his first slam at the AO 08. Though started out later than Rafa, he went on to achieve more faster than Rafa on the hard courts, before Rafa caught up with him in 2009. Now, as at end of 2010, we can safely say that Rafa's achievements on the hard courts have surpassed that of Nole's. Though Rafa has 11 titles vs Nole's 14 on the hard courts, Rafa has 2 slams vs Nole's 1, and 1 Olympics Gold medal vs Nole's Bronze medal, their Masters titles are about the same in numbers, so results wise, Rafa has surpassed Nole on the hard courts. I do believe too that skill wise, Rafa may have even surpass Nole, though their hard court H2H is still in Nole's favor (7:5).

I have never said Rafa was better than Nole, Fed or Muzz on h/c, what I've said is that he is no worse and never has been.

grafight: in fact Andy went to the clay courts of Barcelona when he was 15, so very formative years spent there and I sometimes wonder if that is why his game was so defensive, say "was" cos I think that is an area of his game that's changing. He's a brilliant volleyer and has got to start utilising this talent. Of course he achieved early success on hard at US Open juniors. As I KEEP saying, you guys just wait till he makes that last little leap. He's got to two slam finals now and that's the place to be if u want to win one.

If we want to drum up all of Rafa's losses against the whole of the top 100, we should apply the same rules to everyone else; it's the different standards used to determine other peoples h/c credentials against Rafa's that throw up the anomalies with the facts. Just the fact that Muzz and Nole have 1 h/c GS between them is proof that they have been beaten by loads of other players other than Roger or Rafa.....how many times has Muzz got past or even made the Qtrs in a h/c GS tournament...twice - I think Rafa has done a lot better than that without even counting his title victories.

Rafa has been pigeoned holed as a claycourter, and a lot of people go with the flow and accept that as read. I remember a tennis commentator suggesting to Rafa that clay was his favourite surface, and Rafa's response was that he had never said clay was his favourite surface, it's just that he's had the most success on it.

Looking at the slam h/c results, this is how Rafa, Muzz and Nole have fared:

Rafa

AO - ....1 3rnd........1 4rnd.......2 Qtrs....1 SF......1 Win
USO -.....2 2rnd........1 3rnd......1 4rnd...1 Qtr.....2 SF...1 Win


Nole

AO....2 1st rnd....1 4rnd....2 Qtrs......1 Win
USO...2 3rnd.....2 SF.....2 Finals


Muzz

AO -....2 1 rnd.....4 4rnds......1 Final
USO.....1 2rnd......2 4rnd.....3 3rnd......1 Final


I don't see anything in these stats to suggest that either Nole or Muzz is any more proficient on h/c than Rafa, Muzz has been beaten in the 1st rnd twice, for a NATURAL h/c player!

My profession is Accountancy, so I see everything in numerical logic, numbers don't lie, that's why I can't help myself is seeing things in pure numerical terms, I know it's a pain to most people how I never give up, but until someone can show me hard evidence that prove otherwise, I'm sticking to the numbers.


AO

Whether or not you agree with my conclusion about Nole and Murray is up to you. I simply stated MY opinion on the matter. After taking into consideration the effort that Rafa put forth to win some of those titles, battles he had as much with his own game as his opponent's, I stand by what I said.

There could come a time where this is no longer true. If Rafa continues to play like he did at the US Open, who knows how many hard court Slams he might amass.
cherylmurray, 12/15/10 4:13 PM

Cheryl, if we all agreed with each other there would be no need for a debate. If you are saying that losing in the 1st round the first 3 times you play on a particular surface in a slam as Murray did, makes you a NATURAL on that surface, then what can I say?

I also checked on Wiki how hard Rafa's path was to winning his 2 h/c slams - he beat everyone easily in straight sets up to the SF and Final in OZ, and at the USO he dropped his serve 5 times in the whole tournament and only in the SF and final, but that still makes him WORSE on h/c than Muzz who only farther than the 4th round twice in 14 tries; and when did Rafa BATTLE to win those titles? it would be better to back up your conclusions with the facts. Is it better to lose in the first or second rounds like Muzz and Nole did regularly in h/c slams than to win a hard fought match?

Hello nadline, I don't think we are in any conflict here. We are not disputing that Rafa is good on hard courts, in fact he is easily among the top four guys all along, since he made a name for himself in 2005. I think we are only in disagreement about who gets there first, ie who gets to win the Masters, the slams, or even reaching the slam finals first, both based on age or no.of years in the tour. I don't think we are in disagreement about Nole's and Murray's games being built primarily on the hard courts and Rafa's on clay, and so as good as Rafa is, he still needs more time to adjust his game to suit the hard courts. That may explain why Nole gets to a hard court slam final and winning a hard court slam before Rafa, and both Nole and Murray reached their second hard court slam final before Rafa. However, since Rafa has improved his game even on the fast hard courts, he is able to win the USO even before Nole (and Murray) and beating Nole too in the final; that may signal to us that Rafa has finally surpass both Nole and Murray on the hard courts.

PS. nadline, I'm now semi retired, previously I was doing investment accounting, so I'm also numerically inclined. Maybe that explains why I'm also interested in Rafa's endorsement deals, as I think all his endorsements should reflect his current market value. He should maximize his earning potential and invest whatever he earns for a better future, for him and his family.

Nadline, I think its really pointless responding to these posts. I have also observed that generality of people here are subconciously keen to referring to Nadal with negativity. They must always find a dark hole in anything Rafa even if they conciously dont want to.

I had a funny experience here earlier in the year when Fed lost to Nadal in Madrid. Fed had said that victory at RG would determine who had had the best Clay season, suggesting that when he wins RG, that he would have had a better clay season than Rafa inspite of Rafa's Masters hatrick.

I had believed that the hatrick from Nadal would have amounted more than a slam but I was shouted than by a lot of people here, Cheryl inclusive. I was emphatically informed that a slam was better than 3 consecutive masters. OK no problem.

If that is the case then this blog shouldnt have been written AT ALL! Cheryl was quick enough to exclude Fed from her discussion because of his 9 slams on h/c but was able to find enough room to discuss rafa and Muzz and Nole. double standard?

Its funny when the goal posts are changed and the rules bent a bit when it is Rafa. I actually enjoy this negative talks because I know rafa is in the business of disappointing u guys. All Nadline is saying is enough of this "beefing" and call a spade a spade!!

@damianthorn, 12/16/10 11:42 AM

At last, someone gets it!

I simply want people to stop the negative mood music about Rafa's achievements against others and for people to face the facts. I argued till I was blue in the face that Rafa was more than capable of winning the USO, but very few would listen until he won it so emphatically, so now they go on about who made it first on h/c......he can't win.

luckystar, if you were to go and tell your boss that you were doing much better than your competitors, and he showed you the figures which clearly showed that you were not, would he still accept that just your opinion and gut feeling matter more than the numbers?

nadline, one thing for sure, I won't tell my boss such thing unless I have solid proof of both my and my competitors performances, backed up with both market reports and financial figures.

With that aside, when we are talking about tennis hard court results, we are not just talking about slams but overall hard court performances. In one of my above posts, I've already listed their respective results by age 23. If we want to be more specific, we can compare their hard court results from say 2007 to 2010, both in ranking point and titles won.

Rafa
2007: 3,450 One Masters (IW), 0 slam, 1 title
2008: 5,340 One Masters (Toronto), 0 slam, 1 Olympics, 2 titles
2009: 5,925 One Masters (IW), 1 slam (AO), 2 titles
2010: 5,450 0 Masters, 1 slam (USO), 2 titles

Total: 3 Masters, 2 slams, 7 titles


Nole
2007: 5,120 Two Masters (Miami & Montreal), 0 slam (1 slam final USO), 4 titles
2008: 6,720 One Masters (IW), 1 slam (AO), 1 TMC, 3 titles
2009: 5,990 One Masters (Paris), 0 slam, 4 titles
2010: 4,350 0 Masters, 0 slam (1 slam final USO), 2 titles

Total: 4 Masters, 1 slam, 1 TMC, 13 titles


Murray
2007: 2,195 0 Masters, 0 slam, 2 titles
2008: 5,280 2 Masters (Cincy & Madrid), 0 slam (1 slam final USO), 5 titles
2009: 5,150 2 Masters (Miami & Montreal), 0 slam, 5 titles
2010: 4,420 2 Masters (Toronto & Shanghai), o slam ( 1 slam final AO), 2 titles

Total: 6 Masters, 0 slam, 14 titles

Based on the above figures and those from my previous post, we can see that up to 2009, Nole had the best results on the hard court, among the three of them. In fact 2008 was his best year, as he won his first slam on the hard court, one masters and the TMC. Rafa had caught up with Nole in 2009 by winning his first hard court slam, their ranking points were close in 2009 as Nole has also won three 500 events and one Masters. By the end of 2010, we can safely said that Rafa has surpassed Nole on the hard courts when he won his second hard court slam at USO, with a total of five hard court Masters, even though with three less hard court titles.

Murray joined the tour at a much later date than Rafa, in fact a four years difference. His hard court results from 2007-2010 was the worst among the three, however, 2007 was only his second full year in the tour, he did make a big jump in ranking points in 2008 & 2009. If we compare his first five years from 2006-2010 to Rafa's from 2004-2008, we can see that he in fact did better than Rafa on the hard courts, in terms of ranking points and in terms of titles won. In fact this is something we are debating all along.

My conclusion is still the same:
1) Rafa is proficient on the hard courts, all along he is.

2) Nole's hard court results are impressive. He learns and improves the quickest on the hard court, among the three of them, thus we see him reaching the heights within the shortest period of time among the three.

3) Murray's hard court results are not as impressive as Nole's, though he is good enough to win 6 masters and reached 2 slam finals, all within five years.

4) Rafa is better than Nole and Murray on the slower hard courts, as his results at the AO is the best among the three(nadline had provided the info earlier on). Rafa did take a longer time at the USO and so he reached the final and won at his eighth attempt. Nole and Murray are yet to win the USO, though time is on their side.

5) Right now at the end of 2010, Rafa's hard court results has surpassed that of Nole and Murray, by virtue of Rafa winning his second hard court slam, one more than Nole, while Murray is yet to win his first.

6) I may even conclude that Rafa has surpassed both Nole and Murray on the hard courts, in terms of his skills, tactics and strategies, judging by how he has beaten them even when he is not playing his best tennis, case in point, the recently concluded WTF.

PS For the 2007 & 2008 ranking points, I've recomputed them based on current point system, do make some allowances for minor mistakes here and there.

So we are now onto the pace of the courts. Why start in 2007 why not 2005 when Murray came onto the senior tour, obviously because before that, Rafa was leading so it doesn't give you the answer you want. In any case, I thought the argument was all about who achieved more on h/c sooner, why all of a sudden we are now talking about points gained from 2007? In fact what the points show between Nole and Rafa is that there is nothing in it, as I have been pointing out all along and Murray comes third in all those years, so you've rather proved my point that Murray, the celebrated NATURAL h/c player does not live up to that tag.

The fact that Murray came onto the senior tour so much later is testament to the fact that he simply wasn't good enough before 2005, and Rafa was at 15.

I'm off to a Carol Service in a minute so won't be able to respond to anything till tomorrow.

LOL Damianthon gets Kudos from nadline but I dont ;-)
Maybe I wasn't indignant enough about the discussion altogether. But I don't think that people pointing out their favorite players successes means by necessity that they are engaged in an anti-Rafa conspiracy. Everyone is entitled to have their opinions and make their comparisons, and I don't mind reading other points of view. I respect them all because I want mine respected when it's my turn, so I take it at face value and don't assume that Muzz and Nole fans pray every night for Rafa's knees to fall apart. When it comes to Rafa it's easy to make the case for his greatness because he helps by constantly rising the bar of his own accomplishments. Cheryl said she has no crystal ball, so we only consider past and present. How fast a player started getting results after turning pro is not necessarily and indicator that they are better, those may be the peak performances of their careers! (let's hope not). If that mattered, Michael Chang is the GOAT. We can only tally up results obtained so far, regardless of how early or late they were obtained.

the discussion has always been about their performance "over the years" on hc which means the pace of courts is one of the crux of the issues - naturally. but your argument was more about results to date and nothing else. it's not smart to compare when they peak (who came on tour sooner) because rafan's argue that it's unfair to compare fed with rafa when fed is older and came on tour earlier, yet the same rules don't apply here. in any case it's a discussion but you're turning it into war.

you could bring in other points such as mental touhness and fitness which also all play a part but presumably you'd fly off the handle if someone brought up another point for the purpose of the discussion. there are no hard nad fast rules to how the discussion should flow.

also, there were many rafa fans who had faith that rafa would win USO just a matter of time but you claim the credit here. most rafans knew at the end of FO when rafa said he was going for USO that he'd likely win it.

i don't think you need to get so personal and emotional just because people don't agree with you. your posts all sound so angry as if it affects rafa what goes on in this thread. i think you should try to calm down. it's only a blog.

nadine, if we start in 2005, Rafa still has the advantage over Murray, as Murray started in 2006 (full tour) whilst Rafa started in 2004. Rafa will always have the advantage!

If we are to compare, than we'll compare Rafa's from 2004-2008, to Murray's from 2006-2010 to be fair.

Rafa
2004 630 points, 0 hard court title
2005 3,415 points, 2 Masters, 3 hard court titles (Montreal, Madrid, Beijing)
2006 2,195 points , 0 Masters, 1 hard court title (Dubai)
2007 3,450 points, 1 Masters, 1 hard court title (IW)
2008 5,340 points, 1 Masters, 2 hard court titles (Toronto, Olympics)

Total: 15,030 points, 4 Masters, 1 Olympics, 7 titles


Murray
2006: 1,610 points, 0 Masters, 1 title (San Jose)
2007: 2,195 points, 0 Masters, 2 titles (St Petersburg, San Jose)
2008: 5,280 points, 2 Masters, 5 titles (Cincy,Madrid)
2009: 5,150 points, 2 Masters, 5 titles (Miami, Montreal)
2010: 4,420 points, 2 Masters, 2 titles (Toronto, Shanghai)

Total: 18,655 points, 6 Masters, 15 titles

So based on their first five years, you tell me who achieved more on the hard courts? In fact if I started comparing their first five years on the tour, Rafa would come in third, behind Nole and Murray, and yet you are saying the opposite. I start the comparison in 2007, to be fair to both Nole and Murray, who joined the tour later than Rafa and they only joined the full tour in 2006. Comparing their 2005 or 2006,to Rafa's 2005/2006 would definitely give Rafa the advantage.

No doubt Rafa started to turn professional at age 15, still he was only doing futures and challengers till 2003. He only joined the full tour in 2004, age 17/18. Murray was all along playing at the juniors, turn pro in 2005, still playing challengers then. He joined the tour in 2006, same year as Nole, both of them did play some atp events in 2005 but not for the full year.

grafight is right, all these who achieve what first is not so important. The more important issue is what one achieves during one's career as a whole. We can only compare that when they all retire.

One good example is Fed, he is a relatively late bloomer, compared to Hewitt, Safin and Roddick. Right now, he is almost nearing the end of his career and we can safely say that he has achieved more than what Hewitt, Safin or Roddick can or have achieve. So, whether Rafa started off earlier, or later than Nole or Murray or others, he has now achieved more (on all surfaces, including the hard courts) than other active players (with the exception of Fed). Whether they can catch up with Rafa, or not, we have to wait and see.

I don't take this discussion too seriously, but since we talk about supporting facts with figures, so I proceed to dig out the figures from the atp website. I find some figures quite interesting, I didn't realize that Nole's hard court points were so high back in 2008, must be such a good year for him. Since 2008, he has not achieved that level of play and I certainly hope that's not the highest point in his career going forward. I think Murray is still yet to reach his career high. For Rafa, I know he can still improve and achieve more, on all surfaces.

nadline: "so Andy simply wasn't good enough" OMG that's so harsh! Players mature at vastly different rates and can't be judged at the age they turn pro. Andy was a very skinny guy in those days, physically he would've been at a disadvantage against strong guys.
I'm fed up with Andy being dissed in this way! So am going to put petrol on the flames. In the second set at the O2 Andy made Rafa look ordinary. Rafa's game did not drop, Andy simpmy outplayed him and gave his fans a sight of things to come.
IMHO Andy should stop saying how much he "enjoys" playing Rafa and concentrate on how much he enoys winning against him! Grrrr!

On the contrary deuce it's Rafa who is being dissed with people arguing that he was a late developer on h/c compared to Andy and Nole, so if you read all the posts, you will see where I'm coming from.

Yes homos, it's OK to fight everybody elses's corner but if you argue Rafa's case you are being angry. As it makes little difference to anything, I really think everybody should hold on to their own opinion.

95% of TT agree that Rafa is the weakest on h/c of the top 4, I am one of the 5 % who don't, end of story.

Rafa is NOT being "dissed" when people say he took longer to develop a complete game on HC (much like no one said Rafa's game is "rubbish")!! Quit taking it so personally! This is just an analytical look at different players' HC game...not a pissing contest. No need to drag down other players' games in order to "prove" that Rafa's game is better. Andy and Nole's HC game was better and more consistent than Rafa's was earlier. The simple fact is that EVERYONE knows that HC is the toughest surface for Rafa to play due to negating his topspin, serve, and fear of knee injuries. That does not mean he can't do well on it, it is just not his best surface. I know I'm going to get slammed for saying all that, but I just see no need to get so defensive and riled up about it, seeing insults where there aren't any.

Homos, I totally see your point of view when some of my fellow Rafa fans argue that Rafa has accomplished more than the FED had at the same age, and then here I come and say that it doesn't matter how early accomplishments happen.
Let me assure you I'm not using a double standard I won't deny that Roger Federer has accomplished more than Rafa in many areas, and that if both of them retired right now Roger would be considered the greater of the two.
I just want to extend the same courtesy to Rafa, when comparing him with the rest of the current active field of players. We don't know the future and the fairest comparisons come after a career is over. Safin is done, so we know where he stands. If we want to compare active players all we can do is consider ALL of their achievements, from the time they started playing in the ATP tour up to the present.

grafight, i wasn't actually pointing at you in particular (about double standard). far from it i was making a general statement. you are one of the fairest persons on this site :) i just thought some comments got very personal and emotional when all luckystar was doing was putting forward her points in a very logical manner and kudos to her for doing it so calmly and well.

Thanks a bunch everyone for pouncing on me just for taking a legitimate part in a debate.

I think I have had enough of TT for now, so you won't be hearing from me for a while.

This is becoming a battle of egos, with damianthorn throwing in a bit of instigating by questions the motives of those who are expressing their own opinion. I particularly take great exception to this notion that somehow some Rafa fans are being disrespectful to him by not making him the best hardcourt player in tennis. I see a good deal of respect for Rafa's achievements on hardcourt.

Oh yes, the world would be a dull place if we all agreed. However, what are we really disagreeing about here? Are we splitting hairs? For the record, in my professional life, I am an accountant and bookkeeper. So numbers are my thing, too. I don't care to regurgitate stats regarding Rafa's hardcourt record. I made my opinion clear - I believe that Rafa has proved himself on all surfaces, he is an accomplished hardcourt player and is among the mix of the best of the best on this surface. What more needs to be said?

I know that some of the emotion comes from the fact that Rafa has been called a one-dimensional player, a clay court specialist, for too long. Pete Bodo even dredged it up again earlier this year. I wrote him a stinging e-mail in response. It has been insulting to read these comments, even after Rafa has proved himself on all surfaces. So I do understand the intensity of some of the arguments standing up for Rafa as a great hardcourt player.

I don't see the need for anyone to have hurt feelings or want to leave. I don't see any major area of disagreement. There seems to be a consensus that Rafa is now an all-surface player. Where he fits among the top four players or how he ranks among them as a hardcourt player, doesn't affect his considerable achievements in this sport. It's all good as far as I am concerned.

nadline,

I thought it best to address you directly. I took issue with your comment that we were saying that Rafa's hardcourt game was "rubbish". No one here said that or used that word. I said that you were using a false premise. You have not backed away from that comment. That is what concerns me. You have become defensive, angry and hurt and feel rejected. Now you say that you want to leave. Why won't you simpy admit that your statement was incorrect? It might do wonders to undo some of the hurt feelings that you caused when you made that accusation.

You also need to accept the fact that others may choose to disagree with you about where Rafa stands in relation to the other top players as far as his hardcourt game. As you said, if everyone agreed then it would be boring. You were answering a comment made by Cheryl, but it also applies to you. If someone here honestly thinks that Nole or Murray are better on hardcourt than Rafa, then that is their opinion and they are entitled to have it.

I don't know that it matters who is best or second best or third best or fourth best. What counts are results and Rafa has done it when it counted. He has proved himself not only on outdoor hardcourt, but we Rafa fans can be very proud of his result on indoor hardcourt at the WTF. Now that has been the surface that has bedeviled him in the past, yet he got wins over Roddick, Nole, Berdych and Murray.

There is much to be happy about for Rafa fans these days. Maybe this is a good time to remember where we were after Rafa retired at this year's AO. We didn't know what the future held for Rafa. Now we have seen him come back in fine fashion. It's something to celebrate!

nadline i'm sorry if i seem like pouncing on you. i didn't mean to. i just thought that it was unneccesary for you to take it so personally and luckystar was trying hard to exaplain her point, which you also were and i actually thought many of your points were interesting and valid (though i didn't agree with all but i still like reading the different opinions).

however i must reiterate native's point that no one used the word "rubbish" and i also took exception to that because it was entirely false. even though murray has no slams on hc (yet) i wouldn't even call him rubbish on hc. i think it's an interesting and valid discussion and this happens a lot during the off season when we have nothing better to do and it's the best time to discuss things in detail until the new season begins :)

please don't take a long break, i hope you come back soon.

Don't get angry nadline. We know you love Rafa, all his fans do. We are not saying Rafa is rubbish on hard court, in fact we are all so proud of him when as a 17 years old, he was able to beat Fed, the then no..1 player in the world. He is the only player able to beat Fed on all surfaces, compare him with the likes of Roddick, Davy n Sod for example, who took ages just to get a win over Fed.

Right now we are all happy with Rafa's game on hard courts, as I've mentioned earlier, he may have surpassed Nole and Murray on the hard courts now and going forward, he may go on to win more hard court slams. I'm hoping for him to win the AO next year and then greedily hope that he defends all his slam titles next year. We all know what that means, so let us look forward to next year and beyond for what Rafa offers us on the tennis courts.

I think we can all tolerate differences and accomodate each other. I remember I had some differences in opinions with NNY too just after the USO about Rafa's performances but after that everything is fine now. We just have to accept that there will always be differences in opinions and move on. One thing doesn't change, and that is we are here to cheer for Rafa. I'm looking forward to Rafa meeting Davy and Delpo on the hard courts and address the imbalance in their hard court H2H. Looking forward to a good or even better year for Rafa come 2011 where he can exert his authority over the field as the no.1 player in the world.

Well, I don't like it at all when folk seem to need to put down other players in order to promote their own favourite. It's particularly unnecessary when we are discussing Rafa or Roger for goodness sake, their achievements speak for themselves. The fact that Andy shot up the rankings as soon as he turned pro., proves to me he did turn pro at the right moment. Nonetheless he sustained a nasty wrist injury 2007 so who knows what would've happened if he'd done so earlier.
As Roger was unable to dominate on all 3 surfaces, so Rafa fans may have to accept that he will not be able to dominate on all 3 either. Which I would respectfully suggest would be much better for the game itself and the excitement it generates for us fans. We'll see..

The key is that we are all entitled to our opinions. I still hold the position that Andy and Nole have better hard court games. I do. I honestly think the mechanics of their games on hards are better. But Rafa is infinitely better with the intangibles and when it comes down to it, he's a better match player.

Ask either Nole OR Andy which they'd rather have, and I can guarantee that they would pick Rafa's particular skill set. His ability to stay focused point in and point out for hours at a time is unprecedented. I've never EVER seen another player do it as well as he does.

I love that we can have differing opinions at TT. In fact, I can't remember writing a blog and not having somebody disagree with me (or occasionally tell me I'm a complete moron). :D I hope you change your mind, Nadline.

I feel that many people degrading rafa's H/C because of his complete dominace in C/C game. if you compare only H/C game by forgetting his C/C achivements

As of now i will rate
1. Reoger because of his 9GS in H/C including fast and slow fast
2. Rafa 3GS 1 US,1AO,1 Olympic in H/C including fast and slow fast
3. Nole 1 AO in H/C slow fast
4. Delpo 1US

If you look for todays form
1.Rafa
2.Roger
3.Nole
4. Murry

Hey Guys, dont worry with Nadline....................she will be back pretty soon.......lol!

However, I do believe that Rafa is being unfairly sidelined with respect to his abilities on h/c, and up until a few years ago......even grass!!!!!!! There is still a lot of debate about Rafa's abilities on grass as compared to Roger's..........some even say Rafa does well on grass only bcos its 'kinda' like clay!!! It is a fact that Rafa is constantly undermined when it comes to other surfaces other than clay, and it really annoys me, and that is why I do understand Nadline's agitation!

Duece, i quite like your last post, particularly the latter part. I do share your view! I do believe that there is so much to celebrate, esp for Rafa, and this 2010 season has set the stage for an interesting 2011..................and hoping that it extends to the blog topics and comments!!!!

VAMOS!!!

Sorry folks, (dont mean to digress) but I had to post this article.........i oculdnt believe it when i read it!!!
Cheryl, please comment..........interesting.......very interesting indeed!!!.....perhaps a blog would be appropriate!

Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal: Federer Senses Conspiracy With Surface Speeds
By
Vijaylakshmi Shetty
(Correspondent) on December 16, 2010
2,282 reads

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about surface speeds, clay courts and the rise of one-dimensional players. This was set off by remarks made by Roger Federer at different interviews.

The current conditions and surfaces obviously favor Federer. He has won 16 Grand Slam titles within the ridiculously short period of six-and-a-half years. Just imagine if two of the surfaces had been clay. Nadal might have won 14 Grand Slam titles and Federer's tally may not have exceeded 11.

One would expect Federer to be happy with the current serendipitous state of affairs, with three of the surfaces favoring him and thus heavily loading the dice against his rival. But, no, he claims the surface speeds have now been slowed to the advantage of Nadal. Should a player of his class be complaining that current conditions favor his rival? Aren't the players expected to play with the conditions as given?

But the curious part of this story is that, except for the Australian Open, which admitted to changing the surface in 2008, none of the other Grand Slam tournaments have admitted making any changes in surface speeds since 2001. So, if Federer is right, why are the tournaments concealing this change? Clearly, Federer suspects a conspiracy.

Whenever there is a conspiracy, you would expect to find big money behind it.

The big sponsors are backing Federer. They clearly make tons of money if the Federer brand is enhanced. For instance, at the 2009 Australian Open, all the sponsors, broadcasters and tournament representatives were devastated when Federer did not win. Everything had been kept ready for the historic moment when Federer would match Pete Sampras' record. As Federer rightly said, it was a tragedy for everybody.

At the betting sites too, most of the money has been backing Federer.

So big money backing any conspiracy against Federer doesn't make any sense.

The tournament directors, too, have had a vested interest in Federer winning, as they could get more sponsors, more viewers, more money from sale of broadcasting rights, etc. Federer has been the golden boy of tennis, pampered and favored by the tournament officials. When, for instance, Wimbledon matches suffered delays because of rain, everybody, including Nadal, were herded into inconvenient schedules except for Federer, whose convenience was given priority. Why would the tournament directors fall into the vile schemes of conspirators to kill the goose which lays the golden eggs and plot to change conditions to suit his rival? Doesn't make sense.

Yet, clearly, Federer suspects a conspiracy and by making public announcements, he has let the conspirators know that he is on to their game. So whom could he be suspecting?

After giving the matter much thought, I think he suspects the ghosts of Greatest of All Time (GOAT) contenders of the past, present and the future.

In 2005, when he was ready to complete the career slam and start piling up a mind-boggling number of calendar slams and be on his way to being recognized as the undisputed GOAT, what happened? A lad turned up excelling on the one surface Federer needed to conquer to achieve his goals. A coincidence? Federer must then have realized that there was a nefarious conspiracy afoot and Nadal was the creation of this vile group. He resigned himself to this fact and took comfort in knowing that this creature of the horrendous conspiracy was just, by his own admission, a clay-courter. All seemed peaceful with the division of territory between Federer and this product of the conspirators.

There is a conspiracy to prevent Federer from becoming the GOAT

(1) Yes

(2) No

(3) He is already the GOAT

(4) Federer should just accept that Nadal is becoming better instead of floating theories about ridiculous slowing down of surfaces

See results below!!!

There is a conspiracy to prevent Federer from becoming the GOAT -

Yes (5.4%)

No (5.9%)

He is already the GOAT (47.9%)

Federer should just accept that Nadal is becoming better instead of floating theories about ridiculous slowing down of surfaces (40.8%)

Total votes: 595

However, he had underestimated the vileness and the power of the plotters. Not content with depriving him of calendar slams, they then entered the minds of the officials of the Grand Slam tournaments and brainwashed them to slow down all the surfaces so that the clay court creature of the conspiracy could force Federer off his favored surfaces. Federer fears that Nadal may unseat him as the best player of this era.

Is Federer helpless against the power of the ghosts? No, Federer, too, has a powerful weapon: His millions of fans. Through his several cleverly worded interviews, he has launched this weapon. The adoring army of fans has understood that Federer is a great sportsman and he is not complaining that the "ridiculous" slowing down of the surfaces is suiting his rival. He is complaining that, though this might suit Nadal (message conveyed to conspirators to let them know he is on to their game), it is ruining the game by encouraging the rise of one-dimensional players (message conveyed to fans by use of words like "ridiculous").

Who will win? The minds of more than four million fans against the ghosts of the GOAT contenders of the past, present and the future, who may number in the hundreds at the most. Let us wait and see.

monalysa - thanks for that article. There is a misconception concerning court surface that I would like to clear up. The Australian Open changed its surface. Literally. The old surface was called Rebound Ace. It was a slower more rubbery surface. In 2008 officials switched to plexicushion, which they claimed had a thinner top coat thus wouldn't be as hot for the players.

Fact #1 - rebound ace was SLOWER than plexicushion.

Fact #2 - hard courts aren't like clay or grass...they don't GET replaced all the time. They resurface them due to wear and tear, but the composition of the court doesn't change drastically.

Fact #3 - Wimbledon's grass mixture was changed once to make it more sturdy. The thing that slowed it down was the use of the Slazenger tennis balls NOT the kind of grass. The Slazenger balls are much heavier and thus not as easy to muscle around the court...and the bounce is different.

Also a fact - Roger started winning Wimbledon AFTER the grass mixture was changed. Surely he has no complaint with THAT?

Fact #4 - the French Open has been speeded up over the past few years through the simple process of using slightly less crushed brick on top than before. This is not something they are advertising, but its obvious to anyone who has watched the tournament for more than 3 years.

Maybe Roger is responding more to the fact that OTHER tournaments (like Indian Wells) are choosing to surface their hardcourts with a slightly slower topcoat. The fact is that people would rather watch a good baseline rally than a point that is over with one or two strikes of the ball (ace or good serve/missed return).

Also, I think Roger enjoys complaining every now and again.

Also a fact - Roger started winning Wimbledon AFTER the grass mixture was changed. Surely he has no complaint with THAT?
cherylmurray , 12/17/10 5:21 PM

i just had to laugh at this. many months ago i made this exact statement and that chr18 accused me of making it up. native, do you remember? :) and didn't senorplaid call wimb green clay this year after rafa won it? seems it's mostly fed fans who scream foul when fed loses and they conveniently neglect pointing out the faster FO surface. birds of a feather....

yeah i don't know why people say AO got slower. for years lleyton made so much noise to have the surface changed to a faster one to suit his game and increase his chances of winning because with rebound ace, the ball just sat up waiting for players in their strike zone. others besides hewitt also complaint about for the same reason. finally they changed it and rafa won it and people go on about how the surface has slowed down. i think they imagine it because they need to.

cheryl i like your last statement. i think it's so true. didn't he always complain about hawkeye too because he always got the calls so wrong?

I think it's a misconception that Rafa couldn't do well on fast surfaces. His game has evolved from a clay based game to an all surface game. Rafa did reach the final of Rotterdam last year, one of the fastest indoor hard courts around, beating Tsonga and Monfils en route to the final. This year, he won both USO and the Tokyo Open on fast outdoor hard courts. Some of the matches at the Tokyo Open were played under indoor conditions due to bad weather, making the conditions even quicker. Whether there is conspiracy or not, Rafa can win on any surface, it's a matter of him adapting his game to suit the surface. I'll look forward to him winning at the Paris Masters (fast indoor surface) and WTF (slower indoor surface) next year, that will silence some of his detractors.

Rafa is EXACTLY right. Wimbledon is NOT getting slower. I've been watching that tournament for 2 decades. In the 90s, the game was lightning fast there, so much so in fact, that it turned into an ace fest.

In a move of brilliant strategy, officials changed the rye grass mixture and more importantly adopted the use of the Slazenger balls. It slowed play just enough to make it watchable again. that was in 2001. This generation has never really known Wimbledon any other way.

All of this blathering on about slower surfaces is simply not giving credit where its due. A clay courter figured out how to win on grass. It's completely legit. Deal with it.

I don't think it's fair to say that Wimbledon wasn't watchable when it was fast. It disrespects the greatest grass court player of all time i.e. Pistol Petey.

I remember Marcello Rios saying grass was for cows back then. I wish they had kept it fast personally.

I agree with Cheryl, matches that turn into ace contests are unwatchable. I saw footage recently of a match between Sampras and Agassi where after a long succession of aces, neither player was even trying to return anymore. Yawn!

Ace fest matches are boring as bat sh*t. It's one ne of the reasons i hardly watch Roddick.

funniest commentator ever. watch this ppl and laugh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nTsaoYGlqY

homos , 12/17/10 6:18 PM,

Ah yes, my friend, I well remember that discussion! Yes, you tried to set the record straight and the obsessed Fed fans went absolutely crazy! You have been vindicated at last!

Cheryl,

This is why I love reading your blogs and respect you so much. You tell it like it is, even if it means you disagree with Fed's comments. Yet you are fair enough to give him his due. I actually had no idea about the change in the AO surface. I found that utterly fascinating!

I also thank you for once more trying to put to rest this shameful propaganda about the grass courts of Wimbledon being slowed down only when Rafa started winning. As you said, the changes were implemented in 2001, before Fed even came along. So whoever won on that surface, it has remained the same for nine years!

It's basically the Fed fans who resort to this business of rewriting history to try desperately to somehow diminish Rafa's slam wins. What will we hear next about the USO surface - that it was somehow magically slowed down enough for Rafa to win?

Anyone who indulges in this absurd speculation about conspiracies or the like, should be ashamed of themselves! That includes you Fed!

In fact some people already started saying that the USO hard court looked slower this year. When they speed up the indoor court of the Paris Masters this year people were speculating that it's because of Rafa. They were afraid that Rafa would start to win everything so now they sped up the courts again. Rafa has turned into such a monster that now they are trying their best to stop him from winning. Conspiracy theory always revolved around Rafa, first slowing things down to allow him to win, now they decided that he had won too much and so they started to speed up the courts again! My goodness, Rafa is such an influencial or even controversial figure, he certainly made the tennis authorities very busy!!

so basically what Rafa said and what Cheryl has endorsed, Wimbledon courts have remained the same since 2001.Fed won 6 times in the same courts, and when rafa wins it Fed says that the court has been slowed down....downrightly disgusting..
Precisely the reason why I dont respect Fed as much as Rafa.

luckystar,

Why am I not surprised! See, it's what I said! Every time Rafa wins a slam, particularly on a surface where he has not won before, then someone starts coming up with some silly thing about the court surface being slower, faster, lower bouncing, higher bouncing, blah, blah, blah!

Yes, it's true as you say that Rafa is such a threat now that the tennis powers that be must do everything in their power to stop him! Too funny!

I see that you mentioned our difference of opinion after the USO. I remember that very well. I am extremely happy that we have managed to put that behind us and continue to share our thoughts. I never like it when things get a little too intense, so I am glad that there are no hard feelings between us! You have a great knowledge of the game and have much to contribute here. It's a pleasure reading your comments! :)

if the player makes excuses than of course his fans are going to back him up. see what happened to berdych at wimb this year (of course nothing to do with court surface but just an eg). absolutely appalling the way he had to defend his win. maybe the court surface excuse was exhausted on rafa so some other excuse had to be used.

Yes NNY, there shouldn't be any hard feelings between/among Rafa fans. We can have differences in opinions but our goal(s) here is/ are the same, ie to support Rafa and to cheer him on, both in good times and in bad.

All we need now is for Rafa to win the Oz Open 2011, collect the Rafa slam to be the first to hold all 4 majors since Laver and we'll all know for sure then that ALL the grand slam courts have been slowed down specifically to LET Rafa win because he couldn't have done it otherwise because Roger is the GOAT and should be entitled to win all majors all of the time!!!!!!!

jean,

I love your sardonic wit and humor. You are always get to the heart of it!

This is one of your all-time best! Yes, should Rafa accomplish this historic feat, one that will put him up alongside the great Rod Laver, we all know what to expect from the Fed fans, naysayers, sore losers, etc. It will just have to be a conspiracy to slow down the AO hardcourts even more to give Rafa the advantage.

At least we are prepared! And you know what? If Rafa pulls off this win, I won't care one bit what they say! :)

I would like to say Nole is the best...
OMG... I would really like Nole to win AO...
but... there is a little part of me, who will be very happy for Rafa, if he take the trophy and bite fourth trophy in row :)
... and ... it will be good for Muzza to reach that one more step, and to grab Wimby in 2011...
So, lot of excellent tennis is in front of us with those three players. And era of Roger is over!
By that I don't think we should write off Fed. He will be there on top, still at his age... but still very dangerous. So don't jump on me Fedfans pls :)

"If I were picking a game to employ on hards, I?d pick Murray?s, but Nadal?s mental toughness supersedes all."

nothing compares to the electrifying tennis Novak played during AO 2008, nothing.

rfzr , 12/15/10 5:40 AM

I was so wrong, Nole AO 2011 ;)

To me, Rafa's USO 2010, AO 2009 and Nole's AO 2008 & 2010 are all very impressive. Of course if we include Fed, then Fed's many hard court slams are equally impressive.