Good reply rotla!

Nadal has never defended a title other than clay so that proves like what one trick pony he has been all these years anyway?

TMF I don't think I've ever seen someone get their knickers in a twist by someone saying Nadal is dominant on clay.

Quite incredible.

Tmf I like spell check but exotic names give it a headache!

Jonty, I dont completely agree with rotla anyway. I agree on the point the surfaces are getting similar but they are not all same. e.g. blue cay of madrilena

I am doing as bad as you without using ipad

Tmf, there was an interesting study on where players return on different surfaces ie the depth they receive and he height of the bounce.

Hugely different across surfaces, I can only imagine people haven't played on all surfaces to see for themselves.

To say nadal isn't dominant on clay though......that has to go down as a classic.

Here's an interesting article on surfaces:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6906922/the-physics-grass-clay-cement

To say nadal isn't dominant on clay though......that has to go down as a classic.
-----------------------------------------
Typical of Jonty who doesn't mind being completely dishonest in order to win an argument. Never did anyone including rotla say Nadal is not dominant on clay.

The difference between Jonty and I, beyond many other things I am sure, is not about personalities clash, but the fact I would never use those poor, dishonest, narrow minded arguing methods.

Tenez, I just looked at this thread without logging in and therefore saw your comment:

"Typical of Jonty who doesn't mind being completely dishonest in order to win an argument. Never did anyone including rotla say Nadal is not dominant on clay."

If youd bothered to read the post that you said was a good reply by raiders, you'll see that raiders said exactly that:

"Understand the difference. He is not dominant on clay"

Feel free to apologise for your mistake whenever you're ready.

The true difference between us is that I don't go around attacking you or accusing people of lying like you do.

Why don't you stop making yourself look stupid and focus on the tennis instead of trying to badmouth me.

Yes keep digging Jonty!

To any intelligent and honest reader, we will read the whole sentence from rotla and not a short extract taken out of context.

Here is what Rotla says : "You say Nadal is dominant on clay, and yet has won 2 Wimbledons, and played in 5 out of the last 7 wimbledon finals. Can this be not defined as a dominant performance on grass?"
Meaning he is not dominant on clay only but on other surfaces too.

You are the only one here who takes his words out of context.

Simply dishonesty at its best.

And keep filtering me cause I don;t think you are quite ready to face the truth yet.

"Understand the difference. He is not dominant on clay"

That's plain and simple, why Jonty has to read between the lines when you don't.
Jonty, was saying the same thing anyway, I don't know as why to dispute it and then belittle it.

Jonty is saying that Nadal has been mainly winning on clay which is right and majority of his wins have come on clay (that's why the reaction on blue clay).

Nadal has been the king of clay and some of that momentum and slowing down of surfaces have resulted in Nadal winning few more slams. Yes, Nadal has shown good results on grass but that grass more or less has played like green clay rather than grass. It is no secret that Nadal had struggled on faster indoor courts and his record speaks for that.

So why to harp on Jonty for saying the same thing? Tenez, I acknowledge your insight on tennis but if come out of your preoccupation then it will not be difficult to see that he is also saying the same thing.

TMF are you defending Jonty's sttupid attack on rotla?

Tenez, firstly there was no attack and secondly I am not defending anyone. All I am saying that I don't agree with this meaningless attack by you on Jonty. He is my friend

What do you mean meaningless? He simply misquotes rotla and takes the p *s.

Last time he accused me of calling Federer a liar.

I like to choose my friends carefully.

When people say the courts are being homogenised, are they saying grass and HC are getting slower and clay is getting a little faster or simply the fact that grass and HC are getting so slow, that they will evetually become as slow as clay?

Anyways, I still think there is a difference in the speed of the court and HC and Grass are still faster than clay (even though they have slowed down considerably).

The problem for Nadal it seems is nowadays (other than grand slams) he's getting more and more dependant on clay. With his recent failure at Wimbledon, his lack of success outside clay could translate into slams as well. That would be a disaster for him. Unfortuanately, I've probably got it totally wrong and he'll end up winning the US Open

Anyways, I still think there is a difference in the speed of the court and HC and Grass are still faster than clay (even though they have slowed down considerably).
-------------------------------------------
Thanks JT

No probs TMF, I think the point that ROTLA is making is that whilst Nadal has dominated on clay, he has not only dominated on clay as he has loads of trophies and GS finals on other surfaces, therefore the surfaces are much more similar than in the past and as a result the same players are getting to the latter stages in Grand Slams not due to their all-round game, but due to all courts getting slower.

But I think you make a great point about the fact that Murray struggles more on clay than other surfaces. It indicates to me that there's still a difference between clay and other surfaces.

It's hard to play/win on clay without a decent forehand.

When people say the courts are being homogenised, are they saying grass and HC are getting slower and clay is getting a little faster or simply the fact that grass and HC are getting so slow, that they will evetually become as slow as clay?
---------------------------------
It's a bit more complicated cause there are other variable and conditions change year in year out for all tournaments. Conds also change whether there is a roof on or not.

The FO last year was for instance pretty fast and I suspect faster than Wimbledon. It was harder to break serve at FO 2011 than Wimbledon 2011 according to stats. And we know how they did their best to slow teh FO12 further this year by providing dead balls, which certainly made grass look fast in comparison.

But the bottom line is, in the past, there was no chance for a clay courter to get past the 1/4F at Wimbledon. Now you have Nadal, Ferrer, Schuttler, Clement, Sa, and many more who have.

Nadal might not have been as dominant on clay as on grass but rotla point is that he has reached 5 finals there and that is simply due to slow, homogenised courts.

Wilander who was a clay specialist but good enough to do well on medium pace USO never got past the 1/4F at Wimbledon.

Cheers TMF

The surfaces are still hugely different which is why, as I said before you have some players dominate on one surface and some dominate on others.

Sometimes you get someone who's game matches up well on all.

Interestingly with Murray, he trained at an early age in Spain yet it seems to be his least favourite surface.

For the record, when you hit a ball on clay, it will retain about 55-60% of its speed after bouncing, on hard courts about 65-68% and 70% on grass.

The surfaces are still hugely different
-----------------------------------------------
Not hugley but marginally only hugely was Blue Clay

I gave example of Murray but even he had a decent clay season last year.

TMF, the difference between receiving a ball at waist height or at head height is pretty huge.

That's the impact the different surfaces can have and it's common knowledge that a Federer weakness for example is the high backhand which is why Nadal plays to that area especially on clay where the height of the bounce is more pronounced due to the surface.