Green clay is not real clay

Green clay is not real clay

Post by Raja » Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:14:23


No matter how much you pretend, red clay is much more difficult to
win. And Americans cant play on red clay that well. No wonder Connors/
Mcenroe/Sampras/Agassi won very few red clay titles.
 
 
 

Green clay is not real clay

Post by David » Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:28:56

Quote:

> No matter how much you pretend, red clay is much more difficult to
> win.

Every now and then you say something really absurd. There are two players and
one of them has to win.

 
 
 

Green clay is not real clay

Post by Raja » Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:51:40


Quote:

> > No matter how much you pretend, red clay is much more difficult to
> > win. And Americans cant play on red clay that well. No wonder Connors/
> > Mcenroe/Sampras/Agassi won very few red clay titles.

> You've been sucked in by the fallacy that some surfaces are 'easier'
> than others. People beat people, surfaces don't beat people. If you
> can't win on a surface the reason is across the net, not under your
> feet.

is that the reason Sampras won 7 wimbledon and 0 FOs?

 
 
 

Green clay is not real clay

Post by number_si » Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:05:29


Quote:
> No matter how much you pretend, red clay is much more difficult to
> win. And Americans cant play on red clay that well. No wonder Connors/
> Mcenroe/Sampras/Agassi won very few red clay titles.

The current American crop isn't much on clay, but I recall four RG
titles from Chang /Courier /Agassi.

Sweden had Borg and Wilander but none since; Noah is the only
Frenchman since the Musketeers; the Czechs had Kodes and Lendl, but
none since; now it is Spain's time.

The players you named -- Connors, Mc, Sampras, Agassi -- could play on
anything.  Sure, Sampras had his Delgados and Schallers and Blancos,
but as for Johnny Mac, wouldn't you be better off arguing that he was
a master on clay but was denied his RG title only by the great Lendl?

As for Connors, you know the history.  The WTT pros were banned from
RG in 1974, when Connors won the "grass slam".  It is one of the
stupidest things to happen in the open era.  In a huff, Connors had
DNPs for the next four years after that.  Finally playing in 1979, he
produced a series of quality finishes --

79  semis lost Pecci
80  semis lost Gerulaitas
81  1/4s lost Clerc
82  1/4s lost Higueras
83  1/4s lost Roger-Vasselin *
84  semis lost McEnroe
85  semis lost Lendl
86  DNP
87  1/4s lost Becker
88  DNP
89  1/4s lost Berger
90  DNP
91  Chang
92  Stich

* With losses in 72 to Solomon and 73 to Ramirez, the 83 loss to Roger-
Vasselin in the quarters is about the only time Connors ever had a
shock loss at RG in his entire career.  The Pecci result surprised
many, but shouldn't have.

 
 
 

Green clay is not real clay

Post by Raja » Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:23:03


Quote:

> > No matter how much you pretend, red clay is much more difficult to
> > win. And Americans cant play on red clay that well. No wonder Connors/
> > Mcenroe/Sampras/Agassi won very few red clay titles.

> The current American crop isn't much on clay, but I recall four RG
> titles from Chang /Courier /Agassi.

> Sweden had Borg and Wilander but none since; Noah is the only
> Frenchman since the Musketeers; the Czechs had Kodes and Lendl, but
> none since; now it is Spain's time.

> The players you named -- Connors, Mc, Sampras, Agassi -- could play on
> anything. ?Sure, Sampras had his Delgados and Schallers and Blancos,
> but as for Johnny Mac, wouldn't you be better off arguing that he was
> a master on clay but was denied his RG title only by the great Lendl?

> As for Connors, you know the history. ?The WTT pros were banned from
> RG in 1974, when Connors won the "grass slam". ?It is one of the
> stupidest things to happen in the open era. ?In a huff, Connors had
> DNPs for the next four years after that. ?Finally playing in 1979, he
> produced a series of quality finishes --

> 79 ?semis lost Pecci
> 80 ?semis lost Gerulaitas
> 81 ?1/4s lost Clerc
> 82 ?1/4s lost Higueras
> 83 ?1/4s lost Roger-Vasselin *
> 84 ?semis lost McEnroe
> 85 ?semis lost Lendl
> 86 ?DNP
> 87 ?1/4s lost Becker
> 88 ?DNP
> 89 ?1/4s lost Berger
> 90 ?DNP
> 91 ?Chang
> 92 ?Stich

> * With losses in 72 to Solomon and 73 to Ramirez, the 83 loss to Roger-
> Vasselin in the quarters is about the only time Connors ever had a
> shock loss at RG in his entire career. ?The Pecci result surprised
> many, but shouldn't have.

How the hell could he lose that dummy Gerulaitis
 
 
 

Green clay is not real clay

Post by David » Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:42:34

Quote:


>> 80 semis lost Gerulaitas

> How the hell could he lose that dummy Gerulaitis

Grand slam title winner.
 
 
 

Green clay is not real clay

Post by Fan » Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:42:51


Quote:
> No matter how much you pretend, red clay is much more difficult to
> win. And Americans cant play on red clay that well. No wonder Connors/
> Mcenroe/Sampras/Agassi won very few red clay titles.

lol
Agassi was a two time finalist before winning the French Open.
In at least one final to another American.
 
 
 

Green clay is not real clay

Post by Whispe » Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:07:21

Quote:



>>> No matter how much you pretend, red clay is much more difficult to
>>> win. And Americans cant play on red clay that well. No wonder Connors/
>>> Mcenroe/Sampras/Agassi won very few red clay titles.
>> You've been sucked in by the fallacy that some surfaces are 'easier'
>> than others. People beat people, surfaces don't beat people. If you
>> can't win on a surface the reason is across the net, not under your
>> feet.

> is that the reason Sampras won 7 wimbledon and 0 FOs?

Sampras was far more motivated to play his best at Wimbledon.