First !!!

Im glad that Federer is back to the business !

me ouiiii

wow, pete, gotta love this thoughtful ode to my favourite surface :)

what a great picture to go with your thesis... clay, the new grass. and you show the king of grass on the new grass. galing. :)

Hey Ibrahim, what's cookin'?

Yes, Svelty, I published that photo despite the fact that Nadal is. . . sliding

Excellent writing, thank you Pete.

Also, we now have "dream semis" 2/4 & 1/3 players!

zut !!! i need to read this a couple of more times pete, you make me work my english very hard... but i like the challenge ;)
great post ! you are suspassing yourself these days ;)

Pete,

Very thoughtful stuff. What's interesting, though, is that the top 4 men all qualified for the MC SFs. And they're the top 4 based on all year performance.

So I'm not sure the playing field is truly tilted - except at the very, very top. Nadal's dominance on the surface are less a function, I think, of taking away but more adding - his best weapons, his movement and topspin, come more into play on the surface than they do elsewhere.

"the effort is multi-pronged, but based on walking a tightrope between retaining its privileged place as the official shrine of tennis and keeping up with changing times - something at which few institutions are nearly as good as the All-England Club"

Haven't even finished reading the piece, but this just made me think of how their adding a roof to Centre Court is the perfect example of what you've stated here...

It seems I've been reading señor Bodo forever, from way back in the tennis magazine of the '80s - and I still enjoy it.

Something that's been left out here, and in many other articles on the site, is Novak ... I like the way he has snuck through the draw and is facing Roger now (not sure Fed is crazy about facing him again - and the Djoker riles him up, personally and stylistically).
But for us fans, it will be a great foil :
-> Semi #1 = Nadal vs Davydenko, who vanquished him with 1 racquet a few weeks ago (albeit not on red clay). But I can imagine a scenario from which Nik can give Rafa more than a run for it.
AND
-> Semi #2 = Federer vs Djokovic, and if someone still believes that Roger is a clear-cut favourite has blinders on. The interesting (to me) is Fed probably wants to bug-crush him, but on the other hand, no matter how it finishes, Novak is there to stay a nd harass and annoy - and definately has the tools to rattle TMF's cage.

Play ball !
SP

Great piece overall, but I don't think clay is as bizarre or anachronistic as you paint it to be. It is, after all, choice number 1 for players all over the world, professional, amateur, club pro, weekend hack.

I agree with Andrew, I don't see any tilting on clay, quite the opposite.

It's funny -- clay is like the "new doubles" for some American tennis fans and media. Most fans are players, most play doubles, and most prefer clay if it's available to play on. We vote for clay -- and doubles -- with our feet.

Yet clay, like doubles, is considered by some to be less worthy or "inferior" in a lingering, sometimes hard-to-define way.

I don't think that Nole, on a decent day, CAN be crushed. His serve is too good, for starters.

But I wouldn't be surprised to see a 7:5, 6:4 score. I just want to avoid a breaker.

Well,there's tilting and. . . tilting. The top players will almost always still be on top in the long run, when all surfaces are taken into account

I think that play shows all the virtues and all the flaws of players. To win you need to be complete and at the end of the day both Nadal and Roger are complete. Nadal would have won at Wimbledon but for Roger, Roger would have won at the French but for Rafa. We saw it today, with the Roger-David N match, Roger is more complete than David, especially the equation is broken by Roger´s superior serve, which is a weapon everywhere even on clay.

(some fans of The Mighty Fed will fall back on the "still recovering from mono" defense when Federer happens to lose a match during the 2011 season).

Sooooo Bodo-like...

Actually, I loved "(some fans of The Mighty Fed will fall back on the "still recovering from mono" defense when Federer happens to lose a match during the 2011 season)."

I plan to do so until after the 2012 Olympics...

Fed isn't in a slump and never was - he just became more mortal than before, is all. But he's still tough, still thinking out there, still top four on this year alone! I wonder if this match with Nalbandian is an example of those great symbiotic tennis rivalries where players step up, regardless of their recent form?

As for Nadal, he's simply loving clay again. His problem might be, however, the catastrophic planning of the ATP. He may well reach Roland Garros on one leg!

Until then...VAMOS!

Has there ever been a more versatile, multi-talented, weakness-free, weapon-toting pro out there? That he, as well as his buddy, Pete Sampras, haven't won the French makes a pretty good case for the argument that there's more wrong with clay than there is with Federer or Sampras.--

On the contrary, clay shows up bad assumptions and aspects of their approach and mentality. They have to show multi-dimensions and not get hung up on winning on one surface. I will definitely lose interest if I watch one supposedly multi-talented individual win all the time on a uniform surface.

I think that clay shows all the virtues and all the flaws of players. To win big in that surface you need to be complete and at the end of the day both Nadal and Roger are complete. Nadal would have won at Wimbledon but for Roger, Roger would have won at the French but for Rafa.

Perhaps, the problem belongs to Blake or Roddick are not as complete as Roger or Rafa ...They just play outstandingly well on hard (and grass in Roddick´s case). The top 4 players who reached the semis are complete and are all courters, even if each of them has a fav surface (hard for Novak, Clay for Rafa, Grass for Roger, Clay or Rebound ace for Kolya). Nalbandian like the top 4 is also an all court player with indoor carpet as his fav surface.

I can't help thinking, looking through some of the pictures on Getty/AP, like the one of Federer here, that some of these photo pros don't know about "shooting to the left". The colours look washed out. If I can avoid that happening, so should they.

I always thought that one of the reasons for the revival of Roland Garros in the 1970s was the popularity of Bjorn Borg. Which makes it even more bizarre that it was reportedly Philippe Chatrier who effectively ended Borg's RG participation by insisting that the six-time champion qualify to enter in 1982, because he hadn't met the minimum number of tournaments commitment that was newly demanded of the men back then. Borg, of course, refused to do so.

Another way to look at Andrew's dissenting opinion is to ask, "if there's no titling on clay, why have there always been clay-court experts?" and guys whose results on clay are far superior (or inferior)to those posted on other surfaces?

Sorry, Pete, but I had to get a Borg reference in somewhere...

Hey Pete !

I do believe that Federer produced one of his best performances on clay ever, hope tomorrow's semi finales will be even better...

Salutations from Morocco :-)

Hey, Pete...Gotta say, I couldn't concentrate on the words so much as I was riveted to that fantastic photo of Roger in full flight. As a former professional photographer, may I say thank you for using that incredible shot in your story (which I will read in two minutes).

Again, Pete's framing reminds me of the Star Trek Frank Gorshin episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," on discrimination.

He asks:

"Another way to look at Andrew's dissenting opinion is to ask, "if there's no titling on clay, why have there always been clay-court experts?" and guys whose results on clay are far superior (or inferior)to those posted on other surfaces?"

But frame it the opposite way -- why are some guys good on hard but awful everywhere else? And why do modern players who play well on clay also play well on all other surfaces including hard?

Totally unrelated to the discussion, but I think the term "TMF" should be retired now. I remember when Pete started using the acronym and I swear I thought it was cleverly-worded to imply another nasty moniker. Pete did have a disdain for the then new champion and his game and even today I see it used almost in a tongue-in-cheek manner.

Much as some Roger fans can be obnoxious in their fanhood to the point where no criticism of his game or manner is tolerated, Roger has done nothing to deserve contempt.

If Pete insists that "TMF" is entirely innocent in its origins, then it should be called what it is - pete's Characteristically Unbiased New Terminology

althought a repeat thought - I believe it was the grass loving British who saw their grass burn and wilt in the same area we are seeing tennis and turned to clay as an alternative.

Also the British built the first tennis court in Japan - in Yokohama - the first spot foreign devils were allowed onshore in Japan = the club is still there and I have played on the courts - though they are more densely packed dirt than any sort of clay -either green or red.

I earn my living as a lawyer which is the carreer that I chose, so I will build a little more on my argument and rebutt Pete´s:

Coria, a clay court specialist (a top ten during 2003, 2004, 2005) who reached the finals of Roland Garros in 2004, the semis in 2003, won AMS titles on Clay in Montecarlo and Hamburg and reached several AMS master finals on clay is called a claycourter. However, he reached the quarter finals in the US Open twice, was close to arriving to the semis in spite of his serving problems in 2005 when lossing against Ginepri in a 5th set. He also reached the last 16 in Wimbledon and Australia (05,04). He reached the finals of Key Biscaine lossing to Andy Roddick, and won a title on carpet in Basel.

Roddick, is simply Roddick a great player, I don´t doubt that but he never reached a AMS final on clay nor the last 16 or last 8 at Roland Garros like Coria did it in his less fav surfaces. So why on earth Roddick is just a player, and Coria a claycourter? With the same criteria Roddick is a hard court player because Roddick (unlike Hewitt) never reached the last 8 in Paris. Moreover, Andy (unlike Coria) never arrived to a AMS tournament final on his least fav. surface clay ...

Pete and Andrew... I'm planning on giving up the 'mono defense' after the end of the year. Then, I am switiching to the 'twinkie defense.

Hmm... You might want to at least read up a bit more on the lingering and very real effects of the disease before taking not so backhanded swipes at people who aren't looking to excuse - just to explain and understand. There are differences between those things... you could look it up.

" To see Good Tennis! What divine joy
Can fill our leisure, or our minds employ?
Let other people play at other things;
The King of Games is still the Game of Kings "
from Parker's Piece by J.K.Stephen

Roseangel is right-the colors in the Fed photo aren't good.

And, if it weren't for the shadow, we'd think this was shot at Special Olympics.

Fed did not lose his leg when he had mono! Who took this?

Maplesugar: great pose and framing, I agree, but that pic definitely has blown highlights, hence un-necessary loss of detail.

Oh come on, Sue B, you can see the shadow of both legs :-P

R of 16 at Wimby for a player who lacks as much..."heft" as Coria does is quite impressive to me.

Also, let's not forget Guga Kuerten, who I recall facing a murderer's row in Cincy one year and winning, and also winning Indy, and of course he beat Pete and Andre consecutively to win the '00 Masters, finals of Miami and Indian Wells...

Really unfortunate that his injuries hit when they did, and perplexing, he was such a smooth, almost elastic mover.

Fine post Pete !
I was told Fed started to play on clay in Switzerland. Is it true ?
I saw som pictures of TMF's match today. It seemed for me as if he was waiting longer for the ball before hitting it, instead of hitting "soon" as he's used to.
Would it be Higueiras' work ?

PS : Well, here in France, the weather is beautiful. Maybe I will play tennis tomorrow on hmmm ... clay ? ;-)

Andrew, I can do you one better, I plan on using the Mono defense till he retires (feasibly after the Olympics), 'cos as we all know mono is a virus that stays in the blood till you die...and no, I have no evidence of this...

Fairangel - I can honestly tell you that TMF was and always has been a term of endearment and respect, chosen mostly because it's bombastic and over-the-top in precisely the way he is not. I really like the word "mighty" and would never debase it.

NO! clay is not the new grass. Grass is much harder to control. Honestly there need to be more clay in one seasons..I hate hard ..it's so boring in many way. Here go my vote!

1.Clay
2.Hard
3.Grass

Grass don't make sense...Why play on grass? The ball just don't move as well as on hard or clay...Just replace grass with clay. Want rating? Change your game play. I think when grass seasons start I'm going to sleep. How about sand or water?? what's next paper?? LOL Really I love tennis but the seasons get boring real fast after hard come into play. No wonder the u.s open is one of my last pick of the seasons..A.O is Worthless Jeez man change the seasons for real.

Ryan,

In 2005 Coria, Nalbandian and Roger F were the only players to reach at least the last 16 in the 4 Grand Slams. Coria lost to Andy R in Wimbledon that year, and he was not blown out of the court ...

And in 2004 Coria and Roger F were the only players to play finals in all surfaces (Coria arrived to the finals in the tournament played in the Netherlands before Wimbledon that year).

In 2008, Novak D, Nalbandian and Roger F are the only players that reached at least the semis in all grand slams. Rafa is still missing the US Open.

Nice stats linex. Also, Guga made the quarters at Wimby.

Maybe the "clay court specialist" is an entirely American notion, and abroad people talk about hard court specialists. In modern tennis, the latter seems much more appropriate ("clay court specialist" Ferrer in USO semis, Masters F)

My comment on the Fed photo was uncomplimentary to the photographer, not to our man.

Surely there are numerous photos of Fed taken at today's match that are far more flattering.

Which makes me ask Pete: why did you chose this one? Or perhaps the tennis.com editors do the choosing?

But Todd, Linex, Andrew et al - I have no problem calling Roddick a "hard-court expert." I think you should also consider that the French Open has produced - by far - the largest number of "surprise" champions, and champions whose games didn't fare all that well on the other surfaces.

SueBee - I chose it because i found it striking, and the references to it here in the comments make me think it was a good choice. I usually select my own photos, so the blame - or glory - is all mine!

Funny, I'd always assumed the more dignified version:

The Man Federer. "Mighty" never entered the picture.

The photo is "blown out," and it could use some serious cropping, but the squeeze point is good, and the phantom limb is what makes this so.

Ros: My impression is that "some" of the pros have gotten either lazy or pressed for time by the instant demands of the new media.

ks

Ryan,

Here in Argentina we all recognize that most of our players are clay court specialists, but once a player reaches certain heights (like Guga, and now Nadal did), I guess the terminology has to change in some way.

Pete--this is true.

But why, instead of considering it a fringe event like Wimbledon, isn't the French considered the most difficult, perhaps even elite Slam? Granted, it's a bit of a stretch calling the likes of Gomez, Bruguera, Costa elite...

But think about it. You can't say that about the USO or AO--the "best" players have all won there. It's why Agassi's '99 French title is, to me, the crowning achievement of his career. He managed to use his own game in ways the other players (McEnroe--although barely, Sampras, etc) couldn't.

Linex, Coria actually had a versatile game and good movement that enabled him to transcend the "clay court expert" label, so either the point is lost on me or, more likely, you and a number of other dissenters here are under the impression that I'm suggesting that lousy players win on clay. The molten core of my opinion is: great players are great movers; clay allows many not-so-great movers (as well as players who aren't great servers or returners) to enjoy better results - and challenge superior players - on clay. A guy like Coria doesn't really figure into my argument.

Guga in his prime, Coria, all good examples of guys thought to be clay courters who have gotten great hard surface results. And I would focus too on the guys who dependably make it to quarters, sometimes semis, on all surfaces -- like Canas, Robredo, Ferrer, Nalby etc.

There are few to no modern-day analogous examples of hard court players who transition their games to do well on clay. I think Pete's conception of "classic" clay court specialists is just that -- a classic conception that might have applied as recently as 10 years ago, but that is fading. On the other hand, a guy like Blake is a charter member of the "hard court only club."

Well, who played on clay knows it is special in the way that it averages a lot of things :
Serve speed has less significance, and generally you have to play "more", and to accept spending more time on the court. Forget about "blasters", you have to "build" the point.
That's why Sampras didn't have significant results on clay.

linex - and I think clay is a great learning ground to build fundamentals as has been pointed out many times here. Often at the junior level an early "major" weapon can hinder the player attempting to scale the heights.

Sampras said (I defer to Pete if this is wrong) that early on he was willing to sacrifice junior wins to build his game.

I also find it interesting that Roddick, evidently, was not a large guy early on and did not have a big serve so had to find other ways to win as a junior and his serve came on later in his player development.

Good point, Ryan, especially on Agassi's achievment.

And Linex, thanks for that last comment, it's very honest and realistic and I agree wholeheartedly. But I'll go one further. As I've written here before, I dislike the term "clay-court specialist" because it implies that the CCS is bad on or indifferent to the other surfaces. That's why I always write "clay-court expert". To me, it's less "damnation by faint praise."

Pete,

I understand that Gaudio for example was a surprise champion and neven won nothing outside clay ... But this scenario will not be repeated this year nor was the case in the last years when Roger and Nadal took ownership of the P. Chatrier, with Nalbi, Novak and Kolya as a supporting cast. Maybe that happened when there was not so many all round players like today. Maybe after all Sampras is not as complete as Roger Federer who was so close to winning the French this last 2 years.

"some fans of The Mighty Fed will fall back on the "still recovering from mono" defense when Federer happens to lose a match during the 2011 season."

Are you going to take this, Fed KADs? Have some pride, for god's sake! To the caferteria, folks: fight, fight, fight!

Very interesting article, Mr. Bodo. That said, I still prefer grass (the turf, I mean). God help us all should Mariano Puerta and his ilk take over the tennis establishment . . .

--Liron

Pete--who are these poor movers that benefit from clay?

Andy Roddick? Lindsay Davenport? You could certainly make the case for Monica Seles or Mary Pierce, but I'm struggling to think of any others...

I think excluding Coria from "your" argument is kinda disingenuous. If this guy isn't the prototype for players who get labeled CCS, who is?

Also, I'd say that people like Costa, Berasategui, etc, your typical CCS, are great movers, but on hard courts they move (and play) in the wrong framework (loopy shots way behind baseline), negating their great movement. Who are the CCS that don't have great movement?

Hi Ms. Rubin! I'm glad you spoke the magic name!

It's been great chatting with y'all, have a great weekend. Luke has his first horseback riding lesson tomorrow on a pony named "Encore."

'Dios!

Liron: Yes. Wearily. :)

And can I just say for a second that I am so thoroughly grateful that there exists this forum where I can have intelligent discussions with other tennis nuts about subjects as esoteric as tennis semantics?

Pete a few moments ago:

"The molten core of my opinion is: great players are great movers; clay allows many not-so-great movers (as well as players who aren't great servers or returners) to enjoy better results - and challenge superior players - on clay."

So you can win on clay without being a great mover. You can win on clay without being a great server. You can win on clay without being a great returner. And you can win on clay even against "superior" players.

Pete, tell us what you really think!

"Are you going to take this, Fed KADs? Have some pride, for god's sake! To the caferteria, folks: fight, fight, fight!"

Liron: Surely you know that we Fed KADs, like Fed himself, are not "warriors". ;-)

Ryan : CCS have great loopy movements because
1. It allows great ball effects (more efficient on clay than nake power)
2. they have time to do it. (and do not on other surfaces ...)

Liron--since you're around, I'm inspired to play devil's advocate :)

I'd say Puerta et al taking over the world would be about as exciting as Krajicek, Karlovic, etc doing the same...

This has to be quick, because I'm running to a meeting.

My sense is that, for the ATP, the world has changed twice in this decade. The first change is technology based - strings. This has made passing shots easier, decreased net play, and amped returns. The return is now on a par with the serve as a defining shot in tennis.

The second has been the emergence of the all court game. The top 4 seeds making the Monte Carlo final is not an aberration. At least three from these four players made all the SFs from RG onwards in 2007. Federer and Nadal have owned Wimbledon and RG since 2005.

So the clay court specialist may have been real, like the sabre toothed tiger. Maybe we won't see either soon, until the wheel turns again.

Of course, but Nadal won three times RG and no other Grand Slam ... So he IS a clay court specialist trying to improve his all court game

Ryan,

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that you need my online presence as an excuse for playing devil's advocate. Go at it, boy . . .

Of course, you're not really saying that you don't look forward to an Isner-Karlovic Wimbledon final, right?

Sam,

Oh, you guys are the fiercest warriors around? For proof, go to the archives and type in "Tim" or "Cl." I can think of many others, but those two will suffice. Fierce, they are.

--Liron

Oh Liron, I'm just saying that few people inspire my jackassery as you do. :)

Isner/Karlovic--I've already booked my tickets.

Can everyone agree that that would probably be the single ugliest tennis match ever played?

A Karlovic-Isner final in Wimbledon for sure I would not have woken up at 5.30 am to watch the dream quarter finals of the Montecarlo tournament like I did today ...

To say the truth, I do not know if clay equals or not the capabilites of all players, but one thing is for sure, this is my favourite part of the season Montecarlo-Roland Garros.

Thanks for all of your responses Pete. I have a final question though, why did you say all this of clay levelling the field when most of today´s quarter finalists were all courters? Only Andreev and Querrey (who I guess was excluded from the clay court expert label) are not recognized as such. Do you think that clay is favourable to David N in a match vs. Roger Federer? Because statistics say the opposite. He is 1-3 vs Roger on clay.

Ryan,

I'm flattered! And worry not, as I'm a jackass as well.

--Liron

I do agree.
Anyone who saw a match between 2 Serve and volley players would, I think.

Lines: Indoor carpet is most favourable for Daveed against Fed...

Liron: we are not warriors, our opponents just choke in our presence!!!

Pete:
Interesting. Though I'm not sure that I get your thesis, which seems to me to be an apples and oranges situation.

"The up-side is that you have more players in the mix, because raw horsepower, and the ability of the support personal to squeeze it out, is de-emphasized. The down-side is that the playing field is not really leveled - it's just tilted to accommodate more people."

"We have the wherewithal to have a truly level playing field on which all skills - including naked power - are more equally rewarded, and all shortcomings more equally punished. In fact, we may have it at the U.S. Open, and TMF's recent dominance there supports this idea."

I think what you're saying in the end is that smaller, less powerful players, though they may have outstanding technical and athletic abilities like Coria, David Ferrer, and JC Ferrer—great "movers" all, who grew up playing on clay, are not getting the results that more powerful players are getting on hard courts and all surfaces; therefore clay is outdated? And that if everything were switched to hard court, these players would not even be a factor on the tour, and we'd all be better off because we could watch Andy Roddick, in his words, "hitting the crap out of the ball," and watch someone lay down ace, after ace to get out of trouble, like Sampras (no offense to the great Sampras) and then we'd have a great levelling, and then we'd have a more exiting game?

oops, I meant Linex...

"Liron: we are not warriors, our opponents just choke in our presence!!!"

Ha!

Ryan: Actually, Krajicek has a higher winning % on clay (59.8, 79-53) than Puerta (58.7, 108-76) and similar results at the FO (22-10, 1 SF, 1 QF) versus 12-6 (1 Final).

fmplayer: on Nadal's results in the last couple of years, he's clearly number one on clay, number two on grass, and top five or six on hard courts. How many "hardcourt specialist" players would love to be a "claycourt specialist" just like Nadal?

Which isn't to say that he is not trying to improve his all-court game - he clearly is.

I far prefer Pete's term for someone like Nadal, which is "claycourt expert".

*The molten core of my opinion is: great players are great movers; clay allows many not-so-great movers (as well as players who aren't great servers or returners) to enjoy better results - and challenge superior players - on clay.*

i´m not sure i can buy this. at least it doesn´t "feel" like the whole picture, jejeje.
i understand your point about clay giving more time cause it slows everything down.
but very fast surfaces can have their own way of rewarding poor movers, they do it just differently imo.
you can be a very poor mover and still have your best results on very fast grass or fast indoor carpets - if you have a big serve and big groundies which allow you to play first strike tennis.
if you can hit an ace you don´t have to move to the return at all. in my book this is an even bigger "reward" than the "the return is slowed down hence you can run it down more easily and your poor movement doesn´t make you suffer" reward of clay.
manatees don´t win big on clay. just ask lindsay davenport. and i think this is a "hole" in your clay is for the sucky movers concept.

but i liked this piece (though it was one of those which are kinda difficult to read for non-native speakers ;)),i´m just not sure "the molten core" of your opinion tells it all.

Wow, thanks Schwab--I mean Sam. :)

That's insane! Looks like Krajicek is a clay court specialist--I mean expert, just like Puerta.

Actually, they're both just clay court duds.

Puerta-Almagro Wimbledon Final '08!!!

Sam,

Of course he does, but that's only because Mariano couldmn't be torn away from sniffing glue or magic players long enough to play tennis.

--Liron

Ryan: ;-) Krajicek wasn't great on clay, but played decent on the stuff from what I recall. I remember him taking out

Ros: To follow up on your post, here is Nadal's record by surface (before Monte Carlo):
Clay 133-13 91%, 18 titles
Hard 121-46 72%, 5 titles
Grass 19-7 73% 2 Wimbledon finals
Carpet 2-6 25%

Beckham, it is alright I understood you were talking to me. My name is Lina, and friends over the years have nicknamed me "linex", "linatz", and like my cousin Magdalena also "lines". The funny thing is that they all pronounce it in the English way, perhaps because all my long time friends and cousins were brought up in English primary schools ...

Sorry, meant taking out Bruguera in straight sets in Barcelon (1994) shortly before Burguera won his second French Open.

Liron: LOL

Bissy,

Good points. I though of Andy Roddick while reading your post. Is it fair to say that grass courts disguise his mediocre movement and court positioning?

--Liron

Clay is great, grass is great. People will play on anything.

Karlovic won a tournament on three surfaces in 2007, including clay, so that must mean something.

And I don't personally find his game ugly, his serve is effortless, I like watching it for its aesthetic qualities, the same as I like to watch Henin's backhand.

" Is it fair to say that grass courts disguise his mediocre movement and court positioning? "

Nah, his movement looks mediocre there too.

Yes, Pierre, Karlovic won in clay, but in the green clay of Houston were he beat Mariano Zabaleta in the final now that he is ranked out of the top 100. Ah he beat Blake there in Houston. I do not see Karlovic winning in Barcelona, Valencia or Buenos Aires.

its 5:30 here--i'm outie 5000. thanks for the great discussion folks.

Sam,

Yes, but is it less of a liability on grass?

--Liron

That looked like the REAL Roger today, controlled aggression, brilliant shots and moving great!!!! I hope this continues, I'm so happy to watch Roger play great again.

Linex: I don't see Karlovic winning on slow clay either. The fact that he won on any surface, to me means that things are not too slow.

Just like the fact that Hewitt won Wimbledon 6-1, 6-3, 6-2 means things are not too fast.

So I would conclude that tennis is in a Goldilocks state where things are just right.

"with Novak Djokovic insisting on playing the third wheel"

It is not Novak who is "insisting" - the facts say that. There are three on the top. Or maybe even four, as Davidenko shows consistency over the years.

But, for people who can't stand Eastern Orthodox (Serbs and Russians), it is hard to deal with this. Bodo is one of those people, and that is why I enjoy reading his writing (mediocre otherwise) - to see his hidden anger, frustration with the big change in the game of tennis. To easily uncover the concealed hatred.

I have passed the stages when I was upset with this. I am having fun reading "cunning" authors like Bodo. Keep up the good work!

arbiter, you'd be hard pressed to find an american who's more pro djokovic than bodo. see his "perfect player" thread.

I wonder how Davydenko is going to feel after that battle against Andreev today...altough the guy seems super fit

I am tired of people comparing Federer's failure to win the French to Sampras. It's a totally different situation. Federer hasn't won on clay, not because there's anything wrong with him or with clay, but because he happens to be playing at the same time as Nadal. Nadal is the best clay-court player since Borg, maybe the best ever. That's why Federer hasn't won the French.

Sampras is a totally different story. Sampras couldn't win on clay because his game depended very heavily on his serve, far more so than McEnroe or Edberg who both had chances to win the French despite being net-rushing players. That's why Roddick isn't a factor on clay either. With the bite of his serve reduced, his overrated forehand just isn't enough for him to dictate play and he doesn't move well enough to counterpunch. If you take away all his service winners and winners hit on the first ball after weak returns, how many winning groundstrokes do you think Roddick actually hits? A lot fewer than Nadal or even Ferrer, I'll wager.

All you have to do to debunk the idea that "creative" players can't win on clay is look at the other side of professional tennis where the most creative top woman has dominated Roland Garros for years. And on the men's side many of the most successful players on clay are excellent tactical players and shotmakers--Guillermo Coria in his prime being a good example. If you don't think he was creative, you weren't paying attention.

Syd,

I am glad someone else mirrored my take on Mr. Bodo's piece.

"That he, as well as his buddy, Pete Sampras, haven't won the French makes a pretty good case for the argument that there's more wrong with clay than there is with Federer or Sampras"

AHHHHHH.

The joy of comparing Pete S to RF on clay. If you are in fact in need of glasses.

RF : 3 straight SFs or better (2 straight finals, lost in 4 sets)
career not over, could make it 4 in a row...or more
Multiple titles on the stuff

PP : 1 lonely SF, gets blown out (didn't he get bageled?).

Ridiculous comparison.

Thanks Evie.

L Rubin - the slower bounce surely allows for bad movement. Sam Querrey did well in Monte Carlo and said the slower movement of the ball off the court gave him more time to get in position. That Americans are brought up on hard courts that demand quick moves and less time to react.

Can anyone explain what Roger is doing in that picture? He appears to be in one doubles alley hitting toward the other.

arbiter--Pete did call Nole "the perfect player," (or something similar).

JR: hee! I was totally wondering the same exact thing: "Where the heck on the court is Federer and where is hitting to?"

Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic have played on clay before. 2006 Masters Series Monte Carlo R16. Federer d. Djokovic 6-3,2-6,6-3.