Gets harder for World No.1

As if playing the World No.5, 4 and 3 at the French Open was not enough, World No.1 Rafael Nadal has again got it tough to attempt a 3rd Wimbledon title. The higher the ranking the tougher the draw if the infamous the 'harder a ball is hit the safer it is' is applied here. A possible projected route for the World No.1,
R1- Russel Michael
R2 - Sweeting
R3 - Raonic
R4 - Del Potro
Quarter- Berdych
Semi - Murray
Final - Djokovic/Federer

Cannot remember the last time a draw was this hard for a World No.1 in a slam, lol.
As Borg said, this is the strongest top 4 tennis ever had and slams will not be easily laid on a plate for any one.
I think this will be the Spaniard finest slam victory if he can pull another Houdini act and win the trophy with this projected path.

Apart from Nadal getting thorugh himself, you do have to question whether Del P or Berdy are going to get through to the Nadal round.

Fish, Khloscrieber (won Halle) and Simon are potential opponents should that happen

Yes Tom but still even in that case a fairly hard draw.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Yes Tom but still even in that case a fairly hard draw.

Yes it is

Berdy is really off form atm so shouldn't pose too
much of a threat !

DP has never got passed round 2 at Wimby (yet!)

Like all draws - it's in the Lap of the Gods

That draw is pants.

I've seen Russell and Sweeting play in the tune-ups, they were godawful.

Raonic is a bit unknown on grass, and to me is more of DelPo type player who plays best on HC (meaning he can't handle the low bounce)

Can't see DelPo making the 4th, he even lost to Mannarino at Queens - who then goes and loses to Ward lol

But this is a slam where players raise their game.

Yup, it is, and I agree it would be his finest if he defends it successfully. It would be Nadal's first successfully defended slam outside the French (he couldn't defend Wimbledon '08 because of injury in 2009) and would prove beyond doubt that he's more than a clay court specialist (if any more proof was needed). It does hold significance for him to retain it, good luck to him.

I'm also eagerly watching, I have my doubts about Nadal outside the French, so I hope he puts in a performance which does him credit, as we seen in previous Wimbledons when he's participated.

I guess if Nadal hasnt had to pull out in 2009 through injury, he could have been going for title 4 in a row...

Lucuis, if Nadal is anywhere near 100% he'll be tough to beat but we know he's not near 100% year. Surely his form has to return at some point...

luciusmann wrote:Yup, it is, and I agree it would be his finest if he defends it successfully. It would be Nadal's first successfully defended slam outside the French (he couldn't defend Wimbledon '08 because of injury in 2009) and would prove beyond doubt that he's more than a clay court specialist (if any more proof was needed). It does hold significance for him to retain it, good luck to him.

I'm also eagerly watching, I have my doubts about Nadal outside the French, so I hope he puts in a performance which does him credit, as we seen in previous Wimbledons when he's participated.

What do you mean by doubts outside the French? Hes won every slam, so i assume you mean doubts this year? other than the fact people say hes not playing that well, what is there in his results to suggest hes off form? He was injured early in his Aus QF and has been in all 5 Masters finals and the other slam final this year.

Certainly hes established now off-clay, considering 40% of his slams are not from the surface.

I agree lydian, he isn't 100% but he's entered his peak years (winning 3 slams last year is evidence of that). If he isn't 100% during his peak years, when will he be 100%?!

He might have won in 2009, we just don't know, Fed played brilliantly to win in 2009, remember Roddick was only broken once in that entire match (yet still lost). Then again, if Nadal had played, Fed might not have played as he did that year (due to the demons of being beaten by Nadal in 3 of the past 4 slams).

Anyway, Nadal has something to prove, he isn't 100% but what I always have difficulty with is that it's hard to define 100%. I think Nadal is not as good in 2010 as he was in 2008 and he isn't as good this year as he was in 2010. Of course I want top quality tennis so I hope Nadal plays better @ Wimbledon than @ the French. I disagree Tom, his 60% of slams @ the French is far higher than Federer and other multi slam players. I personally don't think he's established himself off clay: when he's successfully defended a title off clay, that's hardly a big ask, he's won Wimbledon twice, so I don't see what there is to quibble with. Many top players have defended two titles @ different slams, especially those considered of GOAT status.

True enough, but everyone could see he wasnt anywhere near "usual" form through a number of events this year even though he's been getting to finals. Quite impressive really. His form during FO was terribly bad at times.

Yes he's not in 2010 or 2008 form...but no reason why it cant return once he gets his confidence back.

Can someone correct me if I'm wrong but on the ATP Masters 1000 series & grand slams, has Nadal ever successfully defended any titles off clay? I'm not aware of any...

Now of course successfully defending grand slam titles is not everything, but it is a reasonable ask if we are going to consider Nadal of future GOAT status, nor is it a unreasonable one.

I've not said Nadal's form is bad, when I said I had doubts, I meant doubts about his performance on other surfaces, I'm entitled to think that till I see him not only win titles (which he's done) but also defend them successfully! This is by no means an attack on Nadal, it's just how I'm measuring him, you may measure him differently, fair enough. The fact he's won the US Open once and the Aussie Open is great, let's hope he successfully defends one of them in the future.

luciusmann wrote:I agree lydian, he isn't 100% but he's entered his peak years (winning 3 slams last year is evidence of that). If he isn't 100% during his peak years, when will he be 100%?!

He might have won in 2009, we just don't know, Fed played brilliantly to win in 2009, remember Roddick was only broken once in that entire match (yet still lost). Then again, if Nadal had played, Fed might not have played as he did that year (due to the demons of being beaten by Nadal in 3 of the past 4 slams).

Anyway, Nadal has something to prove, he isn't 100% but what I always have difficulty with is that it's hard to define 100%. I think Nadal is not as good in 2010 as he was in 2008 and he isn't as good this year as he was in 2010. Of course I want top quality tennis so I hope Nadal plays better @ Wimbledon than @ the French. I disagree Tom, his 60% of slams @ the French is far higher than Federer and other multi slam players. I personally don't think he's established himself off clay: when he's successfully defended a title off clay, that's hardly a big ask, he's won Wimbledon twice, so I don't see what there is to quibble with. Many top players have defended two titles @ different slams, especially those considered of GOAT status.

So Agassi was an Australian open specialist then? not the all court great we all thought he was?

Federer has yet to establish himself on clay?

Half of Nadal slam finals have been off clay, hes made 3 QFs and 3 SFs on other attempts at HC slams - seriously how on earth can anyone say he has more to prove off clay? Theres no real way he could possibly equal 6 slams at another event - who does that? only Fed and Sampras have come close with multiple Wimbledon and USO hauls and Borg for his Wimbledon and RG hauls.

Maybe he could get 4 wimbledons over his career, but honestly what does defending a slam title have to do with establishing yourself on a surface. Surely winning a slam on a particular surface instantly establishes you on that surface unless you happened to be playing a bunch of puddings that year?

luciusmann wrote:Can someone correct me if I'm wrong but on the ATP Masters 1000 series & grand slams, has Nadal ever successfully defended any titles off clay? I'm not aware of any...

Now of course successfully defending grand slam titles is not everything, but it is a reasonable ask if we are going to consider Nadal of future GOAT status, nor is it a unreasonable one.

I've not said Nadal's form is bad, when I said I had doubts, I meant doubts about his performance on other surfaces, I'm entitled to think that till I see him not only win titles (which he's done) but also defend them successfully! This is by no means an attack on Nadal, it's just how I'm measuring him, you may measure him differently, fair enough. The fact he's won the US Open once and the Aussie Open is great, let's hope he successfully defends one of them in the future.

who mentioned GOAT status? i certainly didn't because its not something i believe in. I thought a second ago we were discussing Nadal proving himself off-clay, not proving himself GOAT potential.

Look, your entitled to your views, I'm not endlessly arguing with you because you take a different view to me. I've simply stated my view and not said anyone has to agree with me, I'm not sure what your issue is? Nothing which I said is an attack on Nadal at all (but reading what you wrote, you might think so).

I'm sorry, you may think he's more than a clay court specialist and I don't think he is that alone but he has got more to prove, that's what I said, which isn't a big deal (but it is to you, for some weird reason). What's finals got to do with it? I don't want to count what % of his overall titles (because that's what people usually count) are on clay but I bet it's a lot higher than the 60% of his grand slam titles @ RG, which supports what I been saying.

Read my post above and I've explained clearly why defending a title successfully is useful, it's useful in discussions about GOAT. You're not the only person on these boards Tom, so I don't really see why I have explain every single detail to you, fair enough you don't agree but going over things endlessly is boring. I mentioned GOAT because you go on and on, and I wouldnt have mentioned it if you didn't go on and on. Am I supposed to be particularly interested if you don't believe in a GOAT?

luciusmann wrote: I disagree Tom, his 60% of slams @ the French is far higher than Federer and other multi slam players. I personally don't think he's established himself off clay:

Sampras 50% slams at wimbledon

Borg 55% slams at RG

Mac 57% slams USO

Connor 62.5% USO

They're all greats, all in the same ball park of % slam on their most sucessful event

Only Fed, Llendl and Wilander have a good spread of multislam winners as far as i can see.

I guess we should wait and see if fed can prove himself at the FO, before we except he has established himself on clay?

luciusmann wrote:Look, your entitled to your views, I'm not endlessly arguing with you because you take a different view to me. I've simply stated my view and not said anyone has to agree with me, I'm not sure what your issue is? Nothing which I said is an attack on Nadal at all (but reading what you wrote, you might think so).

I'm sorry, you may think he's more than a clay court specialist and I don't think he is that alone but he has got more to prove, that's what I said, which isn't a big deal (but it is to you, for some weird reason). What's finals got to do with it? I don't want to count what % of his overall titles (because that's what people usually count) are on clay but I bet it's a lot higher than the 60% of his grand slam titles @ RG, which supports what I been saying.

Read my post above and I've explained clearly why defending a title successfully is useful, it's useful in discussions about GOAT. You're not the only person on these boards Tom, so I don't really see why I have explain every single detail to you, fair enough you don't agree but going over things endlessly is boring. I mentioned GOAT because you go on and on, and I wouldnt have mentioned it if you didn't go on and on. Am I supposed to be particularly interested if you don't believe in a GOAT?

I haven't attacked either as far as i see, ive just questioned your view as you made a statement (rather than suggested opinion) that Nadal has to prove himself off clay, i asked why and i haven't seen anything tangeable since as the %'s don't add up, thats all.

Er, read my posts Tom, I've said he's got more to prove, never said he's not established.

Do you think the fact that Mac & Conors won so many USO slams has something to do with them being American (i.e. home crowd support, which can make a difference, although not a massive difference).

Fed has won a slam @ the French but I'd never say clay was his best surface, or would I say he's a masterful clay court player (hard to compare when he's obscured by Nadal).

"Read my post above and I've explained clearly why defending a title successfully is useful, it's useful in discussions about GOAT. You're not the only person on these boards Tom, so I don't really see why I have explain every single detail to you, fair enough you don't agree but going over things endlessly is boring. I mentioned GOAT because you go on and on, and I wouldnt have mentioned it if you didn't go on and on. Am I supposed to be particularly interested if you don't believe in a GOAT?"

One detail would suffice and at the time you mentioned GOAT i had asked you only one question in a single post

luciusmann wrote:Er, read my posts Tom, I've said he's got more to prove, never said he's not established.

Do you think the fact that Mac & Conors won so many USO slams has something to do with them being American (i.e. home crowd support, which can make a difference, although not a massive difference).

Fed has won a slam @ the French but I'd never say clay was his best surface, or would I say he's a masterful clay court player (hard to compare when he's obscured by Nadal).

I would say fed is one of the best clay court players ever myself - six finals and counting, whos done that on clay bar Nadal and Borg?

Incorrect, I said Nadal has something to prove, I didn't allude when I made that statement with anything with regards to clay. It's very easy to see.

If that's the only reason you 'questioned' as you put it, your premise was incorrect. In that sort of situation it's just common sense to ask to clarify. If we were discussing this face to face, you wouldn't fire a zillion questions Tom, you'd ask (like most sensible people) 'What do you mean?'. You wouldn't ask accusingly, (as it comes across in your questioning and your tone) because it would look, quite frankly, weird (unless you'd been drinking). Had you asked to clarify, you would have saved yourself a whole load of unnecessary typing and me too.

luciusmann wrote:Er, read my posts Tom, I've said he's got more to prove, never said he's not established.

Do you think the fact that Mac & Conors won so many USO slams has something to do with them being American (i.e. home crowd support, which can make a difference, although not a massive difference).

Fed has won a slam @ the French but I'd never say clay was his best surface, or would I say he's a masterful clay court player (hard to compare when he's obscured by Nadal).

Mac and Connors USO, american advantage, yes - doesn't mean they needed to prove themselves more at other slams though - their records at other slams proved enough imo, finals/SFs everywhere

luciusmann wrote:Incorrect, I said Nadal has something to prove, I didn't allude when I made that statement with anything with regards to clay. It's very easy to see.

lol, so you weren't linking the prove to proving off clay, how silly of me. I must have got it wrong when your post previous to that one said:

"It would be Nadal's first successfully defended slam outside the French (he couldn't defend Wimbledon '08 because of injury in 2009) and would prove beyond doubt that he's more than a clay court specialist"

How he played in the early rounds at RG was alarmingly poor. If he plays that way at Wimbledon in the early rounds he'll lose. I agree we haven't seen the best of Nadal this year except in patches.

I'm thinking in terms of GOAT, as you don't believe in that debate, of course you won't see why it's significant if he defends a title off clay successfully, which is fine. I am, I think that's were we've got tangled up unnecessarily.

Convince Tom of that SA.

Well Tom, they are said separately and @ different points so yes, it is silly of you. I can also confirm to you, it was not said in consideration of clay.

Selective quote Tom, I also said after that '(if any more proof was needed)', clearly suggesting that not much more proof is needed (but if any is needed, this will confirm it).

Again, if you're in doubt, ask, i.e ask for clarification instead of launching it to a zillion questions, it's tedious.

Luciusman I take your point but defending a title isn't necessarily a criteria in my opinion. It can show dominance but more so, the total title count is what is important, not how many times you defend it. In a 10 slam period i.e. 10 AO in 10 years, a player can win 5 slams without even defending any of them. Will it be any less than a player who wins 5 slams within that period and defended it may be twice along the way?
Also Nadal dropped the clay courter tag after winning a 2nd Wimbledon last year.

Luciusman and Tom: I feel this private argument gets tedious -

Like Tom said Agassi won 5 hc slams of his 8. He will be a hard courter then Luciusman? Not when he won 2 Wimbledons and a FO.

It depends if your considering Agassi for GOAT, that's the basis of which I made my comments and Nadal is coming into contention for that, could have been said more clearly. Depends, Nadal finishing on 11 or 12 RG titles, 2 Wimbledon, 2 Aussie & 1 USO titles, is heavily tilted to clay, you'd expect titles to be more evenly distributed for GOAT, not saying it's a must but you'd expect.

Yes, Talatonian, it is getting tedious but I'm not the first one (nor for the first time) writing long posts disputing what the other poster said.

But even with that Nadal has 4 slams outside clay. Surely that is high. I don't see how it will interfere in any GOAT argument.

Even strictly speaking and taking hc slams collectively you can say Nadal is the 1st all surface slam champion having won at least 2(multiple) slams on all surfaces.

Mmm, I see what you mean, it depends on your preferences, I feel having well over 65% of your slams (which it would be if he won 11/12 @ RG) at one tournament is too high but that's just my view.

luciusmann wrote:Yes, Talatonian, it is getting tedious but I'm not the first one (nor for the first time) writing long posts disputing what the other poster said.

I'm just thinking it takes the general thrust of the thread away and ends up excluding others and killing the thread....is there a mechanism to avoid this whilst allowing luciusman and tom (or other protagonists)to continue separate from the main thread?

luciusmann wrote:Yes, Talatonian, it is getting tedious but I'm not the first one (nor for the first time) writing long posts disputing what the other poster said.

...interesting comment.

Number in brackets indicate Career W/L on Grass based on ATP data (qualifying players are not included) and up to QF stage only (legend - experienced, dangerous ).

Nadal's quarter (assuming Nadal gets to QF)

R128 - Russell (5/14)
R64 - Andujar (0/4), Sweeting (0/2)
R32 - Muller (6/14), Haas (42/21), Fognini (4/7), Raonic (2/1)
R16 - Del Potro (11/7), Rochus (34/29), Gil (1/4), Sela (9/9), Simon (15/13)
QF - Fish (39/24) , Granollers (5/6), Kohli (29/15), Istomin( 12/8 ), Haase (2/ 8 ), Riba (0/3), Stepanek (27/16), Verdasco (27/18), Chela (3/9), Young (2/4), Bogomolov (3/5), Benneteau(18/21), Volandri (1/7), Berdych (34/13)


Murray's Quarter - (assuming Murray gets to QF)

R128 - DGT (2/7)
R64 - Kamke (3/3), Kavcic (0/3)
R32 - Stakh (6/6), Cox (0/1), Looby (22/25), Cilic (16/11)
R16 - Gasquet (32/13) , Giraldo (4/4), Kunitsyn (8/18), Starace (1/8 ), Wawrinka ( 8/12 )
QF - Monfils (17/12), Bachinger (0/1), Kendrick (4/13), Clement (48/40), Karlovic (38/18 ), Tipsarevic (25/19) , Bellucci (5/3), Schuettler (42/34), Lopez (30/21), Berrer (5/11), Pospisil (0/1), Hanescu (12/13), Roddick (76/18)

It seems Murray's draw has more banana skins compared to Rafa's.

Outside of Raonic in the third round I don't see this draw as that tough, Del Po has never been past the second round at wimby and grass is his worst surface. Andy Murray is an easier semi final than Roger federer for Djokovic. Berdych has been playing poor tennis the last month or so. It is hardly Edberg at the USO where he had to go through lendl, chang, and sampras to win the title.

I disagree with Josiah I don't see Raonic as a del Po type. He does have a monster forehand. But i would say Raonic volleys about 5 times more than Del Po. Raonic is actually a very comfortable and competent volleyer. Where as Juan that is probably his biggest weakness. And Raonic is a better server as well hitting his serves up to 150 mph. Del Po has the bigger groundies and the better returns, but in terms of serve and volley I give the edge to Raonic.

Continuation of my previous post.....

Federer's Quarter (assuming Federer gets to QF).

R128 - Kukushkin (0/1)
R64 - Mannarino (3/2)
R32 - Nalbandian (24/10), Reister (1/2), Serra (8/15), Haider-Maurer (0/1)
R16 - Almagro (4/8 ), Nieminen (16/17), Isner (2/6), Mahut (26/20), Devvarman (1/4), Gremelmayer (0/5), Monaco (0/3), Youzhny (36/25)
QF - Ferrer (20/11), Paire (0/1), Dodig (3/2), Berlocq (1/4), Golubev (1/7), GGL (18/13), Dolgopolov (5/3), Gonzalez (21/13) , RRH (0/4), Dimitrov (2/5), Tsonga (15/6)

Djokovic's Quarter (assuming Djokovic gets to QF)

R128 - Chardy (5/7)
R64 - Marchenko (3/3), Anderson (5/8 )
R32 - Montanes (6/9), Seppi (18/18), Blake (31/24), Baghdatis (23/14)
R16 - Llodra (38/24), Ward (9/8 ), Mello (0/6), Robredo (24/20), Lu (13/19) , Gonzalez (0/2), Troicki (10/9)
QF - Soderling (24/16), Petzschner (15/13), Nishikori (3/8 ), Hewitt (103/25), Andreev (14/14), Gabashvili (2/8 ), Davydenko (9/17), Mayer (17/10) , Evans (0/2), Malisse (31/22), Zverev (11/12), Gulbis (4/8 ), Tursunov (29/18), Falla (7/13), Melzer (27/25)

Djokovic's draw seems to be loaded with good grass players and the toughest.

E & O E.

Surely Hewitt is not a legitimate danger tho these days.

"Gets harder for World No.1"

Its never easy being the best in the world, ask Federer.

And you can ask WannabeNo1 Djokovic just how hard it is trying to get there in the 1st place.

Besides, Nadal always rises to a challenge, its what keeps him fresh.

Tom_____ wrote:Surely Hewitt is not a legitimate danger tho these days.

You are correct, Tom. As I stated, experienced and dangerous are the two categories in my analysis.

He did take out DelPo in 2009, IIRC, but his injury problems are threatening his remaining career.

LLodra and and Anderson are very tough grass court matchups despite their rankings. Anderson is only six 8 and servers like 145 mph. Llodra is probably the most talented serve and volley player on tour. I don't see how outside of Raonic nadal's draw is that tough frankly.

Quote from Rafa (referring to Wimbledon and playing on grass)

"I enjoy it because it is something different, not the first week, but the second week when the court is starting to be clay at the baseline, you can run better and you can defend. You can do different shots and you can go to the net easier. I love this..."

Very interesting. Do not have a link to post though. Will try and find a video link....

That's right Laverfan. Borg also mentioned his love for grass at Wimbledon but not the first few rounds in week 1.

I suspect Nadal is meaning he gets more traction on the grass as the surface breaks a bit more, whereas in the first week its more fresh and slippery making it harder to move around and to the net?

I remember in the 80s the courts looked almost completely worn out after 2 weeks! Maybe that was a factor for Borg too...

I have never played on grass myself, only on clay and hardcourt but you would think that one commonality between clay and grass is that on both you have variable bounces where on hard court you pretty much get the same bounce everytime.