Rafael Nadal doesn’t usually have much to complain about at this time of year. Nadal won another tournament last weekend, this one in Barcelona over countryman David Ferrer. So far this clay season, Nadal has lost one set and extended his absurd record on clay to 103-1 since April 2005, before he won his first French Open title. In Rome this week, Nadal is the favorite to win the title for the fourth time in a row.

Yet ask Nadal how he feels about the clay in 2008 and you’re likely to see the usually pleasant and cheerful Nadal scowl and raise his voice. Clay, he believes, isn’t getting the respect it deserves, and he’s letting the folks who run the ATP Tour know about it.

Usually, the tournaments at the heart of the clay court season — Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, and Hamburg — take place over five weeks (one week per tournament with a week off between Barcelona and Rome). This year, and this year only, the tour removed the off week from the calendar when it decided to begin Monte Carlo a week later, in order to delay the two hard court Masters Series events (Indian Wells, Calif., and Key Biscayne, Fla.) by a week so that they would not compete with the NCAA basketball tournament (CBS broadcasts the Key Biscayne final, but the final would have coincided with the network’s NCAA coverage if not for the move). The decision made Nadal furious.

“We only have three Masters Series on clay during all the season, and we have three Masters Series in four weeks. So for us it’s terrible, that,” Nadal said. “We can’t have the calendar thinking about the college basketball, no? So we are 100% disappointed about this decision of the ATP. Finally the European players are, well, I don’t know, very angry about these decisions.”

In Barcelona last week, Nadal reiterated his complaints. “These people are destroying Europe and Europe used to be a foundation of the tour,” he said. “I have some e-mail conversations with these people, but it is true that they end up doing what they like and I am getting tired of it all.”

Nadal could lessen his burden by declining to play Barcelona, but it’s a popular event in his home country and he won’t pass it up. He could also skip Hamburg, as he did in 2004, 2005, and 2006 (that tournament is in litigation over the tour’s decision to downgrade it to a less prestigious event beginning next year). Nadal also could agree to a truce with the ATP, since the tour has banned best-of-five set finals and given the top eight seeds first-round byes in Masters events (as of last year, the top eight need only win five matches to take the title, rather than six). Two years ago, Nadal won Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and Rome — all three in best-of-five-set finals. He had an extra week off in the middle, but when he did play a tournament, he played more matches to win it and had to withstand a longer final (in 2005 and 2006, Nadal won five-hour finals in Rome). I don’t know that playing more tournaments in fewer weeks, but at a lower intensity, is better for an athlete’s health than playing at a higher intensity with an extra week of rest in the middle, but one can’t reasonably argue that it’s a definitively bad idea, either.

My guess is Nadal isn’t upset about the 2008 schedule per se, but two larger points. The first is that he and his fellow European players, who now dominate the tour, are angry that they must still follow decisions that, to their minds, are made by an agency (the ATP) based in Florida to the benefit of American tournaments (there are three Masters events in America, more than in any other country). The second is that the clay season isn’t long enough.

The first problem is complex and will become more complex in coming years if, as predicted, fewer American players grace the top rankings, and television rankings in America continue to decline. But Nadal is probably right about the length of the clay season. There are several good reasons for it to be longer, first and foremost being its ill-deserved reputation as the most demanding surface. Clay court matches perhaps last longer, on average, than matches on hard courts (though not by much), but the loose dirt is a lot easier on the body (perhaps you’ve noticed that most players slide on hard courts today, much to the dismay of their ankles and knees).

Fans of American tennis, at this point, must think that I have it in for our clueless-on-clay countrymen. But the problems the current top Americans have on clay have little to do with clay and everything to do with the players themselves (and if those players spent more time on clay, they would win more often — if Tim Henman can reach the semifinal of the French Open, so can Andy Roddick, albeit under the right circumstances). Clay is no longer a “specialty” surface; it can’t be when the best four players in the world — Roger Federer, Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and Nikolay Davydenko — are equally capable of winning on clay and hard courts. Nadal is nearly unbeatable on clay, but he doesn’t lose often on hard courts or grass. Djokovic has now reached the semifinals of each major. Last year, Davydenko reached the semifinals of the French Open and U.S. Open. Their games translate to every surface, and that’s a trend that’s likely to continue among top players for years to come.

There are myriad things wrong with the tennis schedule. It’s too long. At times, it’s too demanding of its players. At other times, it allows them too much freedom. Worst of all, it’s confusing even to ardent fans. The schedule will never be perfect, if only because there are too many competing interests — from tournament directors to players — tugging the tour in different directions. Under no circumstances, though, does it make sense to shorten a clay court season that is already too short. In a perfect world, there would be more clay, a little more grass, and a little less hard court. Just ask Nadal — but only if you have a few hours to listen.

Mr. Perrotta is a senior editor at Tennis magazine. He can be reached at tperrotta@tennis magazine.com.