I never read it as poor. But you acted like it wasn't that great and that his success isn't clear cut. But it is. Those kind of stats on any surface are pretty amazing, especially when you have, err, an extremely good (happy?) clay court player that you have to face. Maybe I am missing it. But you never talked about comparatively or relatively. You called out Nadal's only title as a fluke and said Federer wasn't clearly successful on clay. [/b]I was simply countering those two points. I never said they were just as good on hard (for Nadal) or clay (for Fed) as they were on other surfaces. That is obviously an impossible statement to make.
Is it more likely that many tennis analysts and announcers that have played and watched the sport for decades are getting carried away about a 17-time slam winner and someone who has 7 slam titles and 18 masters titles on clay, or that you are undermining their success? Considering analysts have the numbers and experience advantage, I would say that the latter is much more likely. Based on their success, almost anything the analysts have to say about them, almost regardless of how grandiose it is, is justified. Yeah, it's hard to compare across eras. But if you look at what the Big 4 have accomplished, despite having each other as challenges, it's hard to discount their success, especially when it's as epic as Fed's success or Nadal's clay success.
Masters tournaments aren't to be overlooked. If you only count majors, you seem like a casual tennis fan.
If you look at the match they played in the 2010 final, though, it's obvious that Nole was not playing badly. Nadal was just playing incredibly well. He played incredibly well the entire tournament. And if you look at the 2012 AO final, you can again see that Nadal is definitely accomplished on hard courts. No, he didn't win the tournament, but he came pretty dang close against the greatest hard court player in the moment. You don't have to be the best on a surface to be good on it.
I never said clay wasn't Fed's worst or that hard court wasn't Nadal's. Exactly. They have both seen a large amount of success on those surfaces. That was the point I was trying to make, because in your original post, you didn't give them that credit. You credited Nadal's success to a fluke and said that Fed didn't have clear success. I was simply calling out those statements.
I didn't but Masterclass did and I was debating that point only. That's in fact the whole discussion here for me. What happened is that you simply skimmed my post and got stuck at the words 'Nadal' and 'fluke'. That's a very tardish behaviour btw.
The reason why I brought Nadal's career up is to show that his success on hard court Majors came much later in his career, 2009 to be specific whereas his success on clay came much earlier, in 2005. And his two Major wins on hard courts were blessed with kind draws where he didn't have to meet any true hard courters. Nole was too spent after the semi. I never take Federer into account when he plays Nadal. The guy hasn't seen a win against Nadal in a Major since 2008. But my point is and was, hard court is Nadal's least favourite surface as unlike clay and grass, he had to wait for a long time to see a win in a Slam and there are 2 hard court Slams, so there were plenty opportunities there fore him.
Similarly, I brought Federer up to show that clay is his least favourite surface. Why but he was ranked 5 and 1 in 2003 and 2004, and yet he got soundly beaten by Horna (who btw never got past the 3rd of any Slam in his entire career) in the very 1st round. But that didn't stop Federer winning Wimbledon that very year. The following year, in 2004, Federer again won the AO, Wimbledon and USO and got soundly beaten by Kuerten in the 3rd round at RG. And Nadal was nowhere near to be found around that time. So what are your excuses there? Do you want me to go on? Anyway, this shows how his success on clay came much later, in 2009 to be specific. And he beat A Martin, Acasuso, Paul-Henri Mathieu, Haas, Monfils, Del Potro and Soderling to win that RG. Again, it wasn't Nadal he was up against. And in that line, the first 3 players never made past the 4th round in their entire career. And Monfils and Del Potro were still coming into their own terms but still both Haas and Del Potro had pushed him to the final set. Soderling was just too happy to take Nadal out by the time he reached the final. Next year he did take Federer out to make my final point. Bottom line, clay is Federer least favourite surface and to include him with all the clay greats is nothing but a very desperate attempt.
And that's also why I said that grass is Nole's worst surface. Despite his win in 2011, he will have to do consistently well on grass to claim that he's great on it. who knows that Wimbledon might as well be a fluke. This will get Alex get all worked up, but hey.
Very recently, on MW, in a clay discussion I put Murray outside top 20. Some members got upset but while Andy has his own issues and priorities, he still hasn't established any solid result to claim his spot on clay to be in top 15. But if you give Murray the kind of draw Federer has now at this RG or the kind of draws Nadal had in 2009 AO and 2010 USO, he would be able to do wonders with it too, but that wouldn't mean he's the ultimate clay player. It would mean he got lucky.
Oh, and the reason why I took Slams into account and not Masters is because a Slam is your final place to show who's the best. A player who's won 25 Masters and has never won a Slam will not be remembered as much as someone who's won 6 Slams and 4 Masters. Majors are your ultimate criteria to judge where a player stands in terms of skills and mental ability.
Oh, and I've been watching tennis since 1994 and I know more than you think.