CLAY SEASON - General Discussion

[GameSetAndMath]

Naw, turns out I'm wrong about him, too. He has a higher winning pct. on clay, with a sizable sample. Of his 3 titles, 2 are on HC, but his most recent is Estoril, on clay. So I guess he's still in the mix, too. He made QFs of RG last year (ret.v Nadal,) and SF of USO. He's on an upward trajectory.

...............when he faced five qualifiers in a row.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, Thiem is the Baby Rafa. Chung is the Baby Novak.

Does any one remember what happened to Baby Fed?

 

[Moxie]

...............when he faced five qualifiers in a row.

Jaysus, you're such a spoil-sport. Do you pull the wings off of flies as a hobby? That USO was as ripe for comers as any in the last dozen years. Give the man his due for taking his shot. I watched him beat Shapo. And it was well-played.

 

[Fiero425]

So, Thiem is the Baby Rafa. Chung is the Baby Novak.

Does any one remember what happened to Baby Fed?

Grigor still is "Baby Fed" with all the shots and looks like Roger even close up! The stroke production, style, and feel is exact; just not the heart and mental fortitude to get to the next level! I've given up on him; esp. dropping a Masters' match against Murray up a couple breaks in 2nd & 3rd sets with multiple MP's! :whistle:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Jaysus, you're such a spoil-sport. Do you pull the wings off of flies as a hobby? That USO was as ripe for comers as any in the last dozen years. Give the man his due for taking his shot. I watched him beat Shapo. And it was well-played.

No, I do it as vocation.

 

[mrzz]

It's totally possible that Monfils makes a great analogy for Kyrgios. But I'm going to remind us all of @mrzz's reminder that we can't predict tennis. Though, in fairness, all we do around here is make predictions and argue them, so, fair enough.

Just to make my position clear, I like the game we play here and I have no problem in having fun with predictions. I just disagree when people dismiss tournaments and matches saying that it is completely predictable. It is much less than we sense it is with hindsight at hand.

 

[Moxie]

So, Thiem is the Baby Rafa. Chung is the Baby Novak.

Does any one remember what happened to Baby Fed?

This is my point above. Rather than seeking pallid versions of the future Hall-of-Famers we have at hand, it may be the ones who are different that break through.

 

[Moxie]

No, I do it as vocation.

I should have known.

 

[Moxie]

Just to get this off of my chest. Justin Gimelstob, who we all know can be a blow-hard, today declared that "A-game" Djokovic beats "A-game" Nadal, even on clay. Incongruously, he still claimed that Rafa was the King of Clay. But I beg to differ re: RG. I won't pretend that Djokovic doesn't have Rafa's number in many ways. And he's beaten him best of 3 on clay more than a few times, which is rare. But A-game Novak has not beaten A-game Rafa at RG. It actually took C- Rafa for Novak to beat him there. It's a long way to go to see "A-Game" Nole, and until we get to RG, but I don't think anyone beats A-game Nadal at RG. That's been proven.

 

[mrzz]

I disagree that Djokovic's A-game beats Nadal's A-game on clay and/or RG specifically. But it is very close (at least regarding clay in general) and it is a worthy discussion.

But the argument itself could make sense. If a guy cannot sustain his peak (A-game), he is out of the "king of clay" (or whatever surface) by definition. The "king" is the guy who keeps winning.

 

[Moxie]

I disagree that Djokovic's A-game beats Nadal's A-game on clay and/or RG specifically. But it is very close (at least regarding clay in general) and it is a worthy discussion.

But the argument itself could make sense. If a guy cannot sustain his peak (A-game), he is out of the "king of clay" (or whatever surface) by definition. The "king" is the guy who keeps winning.

While I do understand that Novak is a tough match-up generally for Rafa, I don't agree that it's really even that close at RG. In best of 3 on clay, yes, Djokovic has proven he can get Nadal on clay, sometimes. But at Roland Garros, they played 3 matches when both were prime, and Rafa won all of them. They played 7 times there. If you throw out '06-'08, when Rafa won in straights, and '15, when everyone and their sister were beating Rafa, you look at those 3 matches. Even in the epic SF in '13, Novak was lucky to get to a 5th set. Rafa in best of 5 on clay is a different question. And RG has huge courts that give him lots of room to move.

I'm not sure about your second paragraph, as I don't think the "King of Clay" is disputed.

 

[mrzz]

Ugh, I wrote in a hurry so no wonder it wasn't clear enough. I mostly agree with you. What I tried to say that, in general, with both on their peak, there could be some discussion, given the match-up and all, and the extremely high level that Djokovic got. But, specifically regarding RG, you cannot argue with the numbers. During all his prime Djokovic could "only" manage to win it once. That is why I wrote the "at least regarding clay in general" phrase, the idea was to let clear it was not RG specific.

And in my second paragraph I never intended to put in dispute who is the King of Clay. Much to the contrary. What I tried to say is, even if one would agree that peak Djokovic on clay > peak Nadal on clay, it does not matter to decide who the King of Clay is, as this "title" is given to who wins real matches, not theoretical comparisons of "A-games".

 

[Moxie]

I'm not trying to torture you, but for all of your walking it back, are you still trying to say that peak Djokovic is better than peak Nadal on clay? I can't agree with that.

 

[mrzz]

No, I am not trying to say that, as I do not think it is ultimately true, but I am saying it is at least debatable.

 

[Moxie]

No, I am not trying to say that, as I do not think it is ultimately true, but I am saying it is at least debatable.

You are being uncharacteristically wobbly on this. I've given you the chapter and verse on Nadal v. Djokovic at RG. What is there to debate? And if you want to debate it, how do you defend your side? I've defended mine.

 

[mrzz]

At RG there is nothing to debate, I agreed with that. Taking RG aside (which is a huge thing, I know), given the match up, given how well Djokoivc played on a few occasions, you will find people who will argue this point. He did beat Nadal comprehensively a few times in a row, with Nadal playing close to his best (but not his absolute best, I agree). Remember, we are talking about "A-games", which is something quite abstract to begin with. And remember that half of my point was "no matter what, it doesn't matter to the KoC discussion anyway".

 

[Carol]

According to some comments it seems that there is not any King in any surface..... but I think to compare Nadal to Novak is like to compare God with a gypsy it doesn't matter if Novak beat Nadal in some matches including the semis in RG when this last one was playing his worst, remember that Nadal also lost vs Ferru, Nico, Fog and someone else (years 2014-15). In my opinion I think Novak with his A-game had and has better chance in grass and specially in Wimbledon where he has played better matches than in RG

 

[Moxie]

At RG there is nothing to debate, I agreed with that. Taking RG aside (which is a huge thing, I know), given the match up, given how well Djokoivc played on a few occasions, you will find people who will argue this point. He did beat Nadal comprehensively a few times in a row, with Nadal playing close to his best (but not his absolute best, I agree). Remember, we are talking about "A-games", which is something quite abstract to begin with. And remember that half of my point was "no matter what, it doesn't matter to the KoC discussion anyway".

But I already said that in best-of-3, there is an argument for Novak. My specific beef was with Gimelstob staying that Novak's A-game beats Rafa's A-game, even on clay. I was saying that excludes RG, imo. You're saying the same thing. That's all. Imho, there isn't a player in the game that even beats B-game Nadal at RG, even on their best day. Djokovic, being the best option, tried numerous times. He only beat a C- Rafa, there.

 

[Fiero425]

But I already said that in best-of-3, there is an argument for Novak. My specific beef was with Gimelstob staying that Novak's A-game beats Rafa's A-game, even on clay. I was saying that excludes RG, imo. You're saying the same thing. That's all. Imho, there isn't a player in the game that even beats B-game Nadal at RG, even on their best day. Djokovic, being the best option, tried numerous times. He only beat a C- Rafa, there.

Nole doesn't have to prove anything; if anything, he should get more credit for his accomplishments fending off the legend of Fedal! He was closing in on them, but after completing Nole-Slam in 2016, there's been a steady decline mentally and physically! He says his arm is pain free; we'll see how he performs over the clay season! I'm hopeful, but today's players aren't scared! He'll be challenged early and often in this comeback! :whistle: o_O

 

[Moxie]

Nole doesn't have to prove anything; if anything, he should get more credit for his accomplishments fending off the legend of Fedal! He was closing in on them, but after completing Nole-Slam in 2016, there's been a steady decline mentally and physically! He says his arm is pain free; we'll see how he performs over the clay season! I'm hopeful, but today's players aren't scared! He'll be challenged early and often in this comeback! :whistle: o_O

I'm only speaking about one specific thing: Nadal and Djokovic at RG. In that sense, he does have to prove that he can, at Rafa's best. Or not. His legacy doesn't depend on that one thing. Roger's doesn't, apparently.