It's more about the bounce and speed than surface though 'cos the USO plays a lot differently the the AO despite both being hard court. Have no idea how it will play in 2020, but the changes in 2017 to a faster AO court and lower bounce made aggressive tennis much easier to impose on opponents. Make the French Open faster and lower bouncing like Madrid and Federer would have definitely won more there. .
If we start separating between different types of hard courts in which we take every surface idiosyncrasy into question to assess resumes we would go on forever. It's one thing to say "Nadal hasn't been great indoors" which is not only true, but indoors is a clearly different type of hards, it's another to start going on about the difference between various outdoor hards, especially since the surface itself differs so much over the years at the same tournament. The AO being a good example of that. That said, this 2017 surface change you're talking about isn't even true. The conditions played quicker in 2017, yes, but there was never an actual surface change. The same company that prepares the courts did so in 2017, but the timing of the resurfacing affected the speed that particular year. That's it. This is stuff is available on the internet to check.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...ederer-not-getting-favours-with-faster-courts
This article touches on this topic.
Regardless, let's say there has been a change, Nadal has reached 2 finals in 3 years, and the only reason he didn't reach the final 3 years in a row is his injury vs. Cilic. So I doubt that change made that big of a difference. He was making finals (and for the most part losing them) at the AO since before the supposed surface change.
Furthermore, make the FO faster and lower bouncing, as you did in 2011 when the balls were changed, and Federer still loses to Nadal...let's not kid ourselves. He's played Nadal in Madrid 3 times and his only win was the day after Nadal had the marathon with Djokovic in 2009. The other two times he was soundly beaten.
Also this argument is pretty weird: Make Wimbledon clay and Nadal has like 25 slams total. We don't go by what would happen if a surface is different. Roger's clay resume is 1 lone French Open win (and we all know why he won it) and only 3 Masters 1000 events. Sorry, but by his standards, that's pitiful.
We go by what actually happened, not what would happen if surfaces played differently.
It's much less about any shortcomings in Federer and Djokovic's games on clay (specifically RG) and mostly the fact that the slow RG courts (especially Chatrier which is also much bigger) are absolutely perfect for Nadal's top spin. His game has been built around that surface but the others are more easily adaptable cos you can't play loopy high balls with high net clearance on fast hard courts or indoor. They'd get eaten alive.
Wait, how is that not a shortcoming though? So let me get this straight: Nadal failing to adapt his game to fast indoor hards is a shortcoming of his and not a case of his game not suiting them, but Federer and Djokovic's failure to adapt their game to slow clay is just the nature of the surface?
Moreover, a game being suited for a surface isn't some random happenstance the way you guys portray it all the time. Players design their games, and develop their skills. It's a testament to being good. If Nadal's top spin is so perfect for clay, it's because he developed those skills and is able to hit his forehand in a way that nobody else can. If Roger can't adapt his game to clay as effectively as Nadal adapted his to other surfaces, that's on him. It's not some uncontrollable coincidence.
Also, for the record, the FO has actually been playing faster significantly over the years, and all you have to do is ask
@GameSetAndMath to link us that infamous article for proof.
There's a looooooooooot of arbitrary nonsense going on here.
:cuckoo:
