French Open 2007

[Van Basten II]

I think the point that Dan is trying to make is that you have be strong on many surfaces to be considered great.

And i do agree with him on that point. Where we do disagree is what kind of performance should we expect of someone to be considered good on any other surface.

My feeling is that being a finalist on Wimbledon shows a strong command of that surface and you can take away the label one-dimensional at that point.

Thank you for identifying my main point.

Where we part ways is the significance of being a finalist one time at Wimbledon. Kevin Curren was a runner-up once. Cedric Pioline, too (who reached exactly two Grand Slam finals in his career and was a top Ten player despite only winning five titles over all). Someone named Chris Lewis lost to McEnroe in the 83 finals - that proves he mastered grass?

Win a Slam that isn't played on clay - then I'll give him credit as something other than a clay court master.

Pioline or Lewis were not very good on other surfaces and they never won big competitions in any other surface. They were good players who had a hot hand that year. You can not compare Nadal to the fellows you mentionned in terms of level

Nadal has dominated what is considered one of the toughest surface to play and seems to be constantly the number two player in other surfaces only to be beaten by a not so crappy player called Federer.

Edited June 14, 2007 by Van Basten II

[AndrewHill]

p.s. Roddick is not even in this league.

Yup. -_- And I think this will become more evident as time goes by.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Holy Ghost

[BruceW]

Roddick has been basically like a baseball pitcher with only a fast ball. Eventually everyone sits and waits on it......