Does the 5 straight finals losses destroy Nadal's chance irreperably of being GOAT?

First off, I really don't care that much about who is or isn't considered GOAT. In fact, between Fed and Nadal if I had a preference it would be nadal because frankly his fans (and he himself) are more humble and not quite as overbearing in terms of being frontrunners. By the way not all Fed fans just the extremist variety. But, 2011 was set to be the year of Rafa, the man had all the pedigree coming into the season, with the hype surrounding the Rafa slam. And afterall he still did win Roland Garros in the spring. Yet, time is running out for a man that seemingly is still at his physical peak. Nagging injuries and the remarkable play of Novak Djokovic have put Nadal squarely on the defensive. If not for the 5 losses to Novak Djokovic, lets just say Novak 2010 shows up this season as opposed to the current version. Nadal would probably have 2 slams and a record haul of 5 or 6 master's going into the US open. He would be sitting at 12 slams with a dominant head to head against his main rival and a dominant lead in the all time Master's tally, a lengthy consecutive streak at #1, and a massive lead in points. Certainly, now Nadal has no chance of ever putting on a federesque or lendelian run of consecutive weeks at #1.

All of sudden the bull looks tentative against his serbian rival in finals. Now he has to answer the question of how he can be considered GOAT if he isn't even the best of his era, similar to what Roger had to deal with in regards to the head to head with Rafa. The chance that Rafa will get 16 slams frankly diminished a great deal with what we have witnessed in the seven months of the season so far. And most importantly the non-clay slams may become very difficult for Nadal to win in this era with Djokovic playing at or near this level. And most disconcerting for Nadal he can not just sit back and dominate the clay swing with peace of mind any longer like he could in Roger's heyday. Even many Rafa fans would be highly hesitant of calling Nadal a favorite against Djoko on clay at this point. So the question begs asking, has Nadal been eliminated from GOAT contention by what has transpired in early 2011?

I always been slightly sceptical of Nadal's claim to being the GOAT until he'd at least successfully defended another slam besides RG and won either the Australian or USO again. As you also point out socal, Nadal might need to be worried on clay too, which is not good. If RG goes, there's nothing left. In fact, to be quite honest, I see Djokovic winning RG next year, with the usual caveat that predicting a winner this far ahead is notoriously unreliable, even for me!

Can he be considered GOAT when he's lost to Djokovic 5 times? If they were just any 5 losses, yes. But they weren't. All of them were important finals, with the last one, the Wimbledon final, one of the biggest finals in tennis. Given that Nadal's next best surface after clay was grass, this does a lot of damage to his credibility of him being the GOAT. In your peak years, you dominate the slams, this is true of many of the greats but he isn't. If he wins the USO that changes things a little bit but not convincingly. If he finishes with 13 or 14 slams, I'd say no. It's the implications we draw from these losses about his future performances that suggest more losses on the way that undermines his claim to the GOAT than the 5 finals alone. After all, if he wins 3 slams next year and another 3 the year after, we'll all look at this year as a blip in Nadal's career and it won't damage his claim to GOAT dramatically.

Steady on guys, it is the middle of his career and although he has the measure of everyone else he is currently running second best to a player in the form of his life.

To answer the specific question "Does the 5 straight finals losses destroy Nadal's chance irreperably of being GOAT?" - Of course not. There isn't a single great player who dominated everyone from start to finish throughout his career. All the greats have been challenged and had to fight back.

At the end of Nadal's career we will look at his entire career, not eight months of it and see how many slams he won, how many masters and other titles, his overall win - loss %, weeks at No. 1 etc to see where he stands in comparison to those who went before him.

However, if at the end of his career his H2Hs with his biggest rival(s) is embarrassingly one sided then his chances of being considered the undisputed GOAT will be damaged beyond repair.

To put it in perspective, Djokovic would have to win the next 21 straight matches with Nadal without reply to leave Nadal with a H2H as embarrassing as 8-17

Well that certainly is the question lucius, how will nadal bounce back? Will he regain dominance of the rivalry with Djokovic? Or will someone else step up and take the baton from Novak leaving Rafa and Nole behind? Frankly, I don't think Nadal will ever be able to get the rivalry with Djokovic back to pre-2011 when Nadal was dominating the rivalry. Their matches feel like one guy has grown more and figured the other's game out. I think it will be difficult for Nadal to really gain stature in the GOAT debate until he wins more slams off of clay. Like you said lucius it is too soon to tell in some respects. But in other respects this was supposed to be Nadal's peak dominance 24-25, if he doesn't regain dominance soon then he may just find himself outside of his slam window. As has been documented the peak for tennis players is really 21-27. So at best Nadal has 2 more peak years left, as crazy as it sounds saying it about a 10 time grandslam champion at age 25.

I don't know icecold not when you look at it in the context of him losing at what should be his physical peak. We know that the tour is incredibly demanding and that Nadal has had injury problems. We also know that Nadal is in the middle of what should be his peak years, in the years that he should be piling up slams and weeks at #1. What we do know with Novak snatching the number #1, and most likely he is a lock to hold till Australia next year that Rafa will have a much more abbreviated tally for weeks at #1, when compared with other goat candidates.

Ha ha ha!

Did Federer's 5 straight loses to Nadal mean he should retire?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409

Did Djokovic's 5 straght loses to Nadal mean he would never beat him again?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=D643&oId=N409

Did Murray's 5 straight loses to Nadal mean he should just give up?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=MC10

Hawkeye, I would request that you reread my thesis, I never stated that he would never win again or that he would never win grandslams again. I think Nadal will lift more grandslams in the future and I am generally a fan of his. The question is more specific, when measured against the higher standard of elite goat status Nadal will be seen in retrospect to lack the lengthy dominant run at #1 that fellow goat candidates Fed and Sampras had. Remembering that Nadal has a lot of mileage on his legs, and that this should be physically speaking the peak of his dominance. Maybe he will find away to return to dominance in the rivalry, but barring severe injury or burnout issues with Djokovic I don't ever see him rising back to dominate the rivalry like before. Or all the other younger great players that are still growing like JMDP and Murray. But when you measure against the exacting standard of goathood the current trajectory of his career is not boding well. This should be the time of his career that he is dominating the tour, at least for him to be talked about as an equal to the likes of Fed and Sampras.

By the way Federer comparison isn't a good example, Roger could always rest on his laurels of 16 slams and the grandslam record to define his legacy. That is the whole point of this article, is Rafa in light of recent events a viable threat to 16 grandslams and goat status?

Nadal was never in contention for a GOAT discussion. Only the Rafa fans would put him along Laver Borg and Sampras. However Rafa could be talked as the best clay player ever....but strangely at his peak we are now coming to terms that Rafa is not even the greatest clay courter ever. That is a big blow to his clay record. Sure he won the French open this but he lost 4 sets to love to Novak in 2011 on his favourite surface while playing the best tennis of his life.

It would be like Federer losing 4 sets to love at his peak on HC or grass...simply unthinkable. Never happened.


Nadal will have a hard time explaining these losses. Simply beaten convincingly by a better shot maker! Noone can say that of Federer.

No, this has no bearing on being GOAT whatsoever.

It's the no of Slams that stops him for now.

Bogbrush that is my whole point, this last seven months surely has already impacted his slam total. He could go on a tear and win lets the next three slams and then this would be all mute, I agree there. But this was supposed to be his year, during his absolute golden years of his prime. And you don't get back 7 months of your prime. Nadal right now is in his middle age for a tennis player. To reach 16 slams he would have to dominate this year and possibly next year to have a shot at that number. Well this year is almost a wash conisdering he won one but lost the biggest prize. That leaves him with 2 more years to get to sixteen of prime tennis left. I don't think it is possible to get to 16 now. Or to get close to Roger's consecutive weeks run at #1. He was never going to catch that record but now he won't even be close.


Tenez I don't know, if not for the rise of Djokovic this year I think Nadal would be well on his way to goathood. Lets remember that Nadal has not dipped in form as much as some are claiming. Without Djokovic in those five finals he would be favored against most everybody else and probably would have two slams and 4-5 masters. And his lead in the race for #1 would be so great that he would virtually be guaranteed another year end #1 title. In fact, I think the chorus of Nadal goathood would be deafening, not just by his fans but by many observers if Nadal was able to turn in a year in 2011, that was the equivalent of 08 or 10.

Only if you belive that Novak is the GOAT !

I agree they'd be deafening. Deafeningly wrong, but with the attribute of being wrong really very loudly.

I can't stand the GOAT tag personally - it always ends up by diminishing one player's achievements in favour of another one. Does it really matter? It is largely subjective anyway amongst the elite of the game because there are all kinds of statistics to make such a claim for a number of players - sometimes it is which statistics you pick!

But regarding Nadal - yes he is looking out of sorts against Djokovic, but I will be interested to see if Djokovic can sustain this form at the end of this season - I would love to see him win the US, and I am sure he will but wonder if that is to be this year for the simple reason that it has been an incredible run of form and no athlete can be at his absolute peak all year. Having said all that, Djokovic really impressed me at Wimbledon because, unlike AO, I felt he won that while not being on top form all the way through the tournament - and that is what champions do, win tournaments when sometimes they have started out not at their best.

Rafa is a physical beast though, and I think he will be looking for revenge - he is never more dangerous than when backed into a corner, but I do agree that we will learn a lot more about him while we watch him try to solve the Novak dilemna.

The thing that worries me about Novak is the excessive sliding on that knee - he has covered an awful lot of miles this season, but I expected him to be tired before this and he has been magnificent.

Nadal - well you always expect him to find a way, and the holiday may well have helped his mental freshness. A lot of posters have said that his game hasn't looked so awesome this year - I think it has in the main, but the lapses during matches seem to be more of a slight weariness with the tour atm - his comment during RG about feeling sometimes like he had played tennis for 100 years, and his uncharacteristic surliness in one early interview at Wimbledon. I really don't like some of his box at all, his father thumped the edge of the box more than once during W final and looked really agressive - that boy is the golden goose for that large family and I wonder if he will be allowed off the treadmill when he wants to go?

Very interesting read socal.

The GOAT as you know will always rage on. People weightings on what factors are dominant in where they rate players, no. of titles, form, style, popularity, strengths,

If we live in the moment now is Rafa in contention for being the GOAT? Yes. I think it would be harsh to allow this season's form blemish what has been a terrific career so far.

Many Nadal fans will point to the fact he is not in form, whereas other people view it that Djokovic is buliding on something special. If I was a Nadal fan I wouldn't be too concerned because the US Open is upon us soon and that is where he could begin the journey of reclaiming his throne.

For me, next season would be best to judge in which direction his career will start to go.

time please

"that boy is the golden goose for that large family and I wonder if he will be allowed off the treadmill when he wants to go?"

I've never thought of it like that before. It would be difficult for a successful player to turn their back on a sport (if they were not enjoying it) if they felt obliged to support others with their income. Nadals family are relatively wealthy and even if he stopped playing now I would imagine both he and his family should be well set financially for life. But I suppose its difficult to know what sort of pressure this financial side brings.

I wonder how it affects other players. Djokovics family always look very intense in their support. I wonder how much personal financial implications add to this intensity. There have been times (for example the few months after the AO) when Murray looked and acted so unhappy I've wondered if he was in the wrong career. He really appears to dislike the media side of things and doesn't cope well with loss. This of course is not a critism of his tennis talent.

How difficult it would be for any of these players to stop playing. Added to this is the fact that players today all started at such an early age. It is not something that they could have chosen for themselves. It was something that was chosen for them. It would be sad to think there might be a few more Agassi like biographies coming out in the future.

Well I think Federer began by playing while his parents played at the tennis club in Basel and Djokovic began on the tennis courts outside his parents' restaurant. There is no doubt that both families were sporty, but the drive and desire, if you can believe everything that is written, to reach the pinnacles of the sport seemed to come from the players themselves.

I think the fact that Toni Nadal took his ambidextrous eight year old nephew and coached him to use his least favoured hand speaks volumes for avuncular ambition. I think I am correct in saying that Rafa still uses his right hand to play golf and other sports. Anyway, while he was clearly very talented and naturally ambidextrous, Toni decided to 'encourage' him to use only the left because of his own problems with lefties in his tennis career - that was obviously a brilliant decision, but it is uncomfortably close (for me) to the accounts of Mr Agassi and Mr Graf in 'Open' - how much life does Rafa have away from Toni and vice versa - it's not like they can really sack each other.

I agree with you about Andy, in fact I have said, several times, that I think if he could begin to enjoy his tennis he will make that longed for break through in the slam department. There is no doubt that he and Jamie were encouraged to take up the sport professionally by their mother who had wanted a longer tennis career, and that they missed a lot of average teenage life because of it. I think every parent who does this probably does if for the best of reasons, wanting success and stability for their children. AM has looked out of love with the game on and off for 2 years now, or maybe he is out of love with our expectations of him?

"Does the 5 straight finals losses destroy Nadal's chance irreperably of being GOAT?"

Absolutely not.

How can it, who knows what lies ahead!

Similar question - Can Novak continue his remarkable form, the answer is very unlikely.

I would think Rafas record at the FO will continue and if he plays for another say four years and continues to win this plus picking up a few other slams enroute then how far off will he be from being "the Goat"!!!

You must be living on Mars if you think he's going to win another 4 French Opens, absolutely no chance of it. If he's lucky, 2 or 3, but definitely not 4. Rafa will win more slams, but the question is will he win them by getting past Djokovic? That's where Nadal's problems begin, regardless of if his form or fitness go downwards. I'm pretty certain that if Djokovic faces Nadal @ RG, he will beat him and let's be honest, Federer is not going remain a constant threat on clay of all surfaces to stop Djokovic. The premise you're relying on is that Nadal continues to own RG, I don't think that's going to be true next year.

Isn't the point about great players is that they hit the right form for the grand slams? Djokovic doesn't need to carry on winning all the masters tournaments, he can just continue to maul Nadal @ the slams, which he's now proven he can do. In many ways, what damages Nadal's GOAThood is that there's a player who can beat him @ the slams where he has done the best (not to mention on the surface he does best on). This is what happened to Federer, although it was limited to Wimbledon/grass and then spread to the Australian Open/hardcourts. It's still early days to see the effect on Nadal, only the USO might give us an idea and I definitely think he'll lose that (depending on the draw). My only question is, will Nadal reach the final, or go out before the final? That will give us a real measure of where Nadal is post Wimbledon.

He's still a top player BUT remember that when they go, they usually go fast, and even more so when they are physical players.

Look back at guys and check when they won their last Slam. For most of them, at the time, nobody would have believed it was their last.

The way I see this is that the USO is the very last chance for Nadal to keep his fast diminishing chances alive to one day catch up with Federer. And I don't see him very much as a favourite for this USO, nor for the next AO.

bogbrush wrote:He's still a top player BUT remember that when they go, they usually go fast, and even more so when they are physical players.

Look back at guys and check when they won their last Slam. For most of them, at the time, nobody would have believed it was their last.

That is the thing that worries me about Nadal's future slam ambitions. Has he had his wilander or borg moment, are we watching Borg in 81, or wilander after his epic 3 slam run? Remembering that few grandslam champions win very many titles in their late 20s, especially one who has had a history of leg injuries. If Nadal wanted the goat title, he would have to win big this year and next year to give him a chance at 6 more slams. He has to rebound and rebound fast.

Have to agree with Lucius' commentary in that now unlike in the fed era Nadal can't even take the clay court swing for granted. Djokovic has proven that he can measure up with Nadal all on the surfaces. Other poster's have commented on the fact that Novak does slide a lot on hardcourt and he too is a physical player. I agree that like all great runs of play this must come to an end eventually as well. I think it was time please who mentioned all the sliding Novak does and the issues of his knee. But if i had to bet one of the two breaking down physically first it would be Rafa. Djokovic for all of his niggling injuries has played an average of about 85 matches a year each of the last 4 years.

bogbrush wrote:He's still a top player BUT remember that when they go, they usually go fast, and even more so when they are physical players.

Look back at guys and check when they won their last Slam. For most of them, at the time, nobody would have believed it was their last.

As for Novak with the amount of running/sliding that he does on court to return "impossible" balls at times, I would think he has as much chance of picking up injuries as Rafa or any other "physical" player.

However hopefully not.

Sportslover, I would disagree with Novak having as much a chance as Nadal of picking up an injury. First off I wish both players to be healthy. If you look at Djokovic people have this perception that Novak was frail physically. In light of this Djokovic has average 85 matches a year for each of the last 4 seasons. In fact 2009 he had more wins and more matches played than any other player on tour. His biggest issues in the past were respiratory and allergy issues which he seems to have worked out. The knee currently is taped but he has done a very good job this season of pacing himself, skipping Rotterdam, Monte Carlo, Queens, and now washington DC to pace himself for the big events.

socal - Physical or not you cannot rule out injury to any tour player.

As you say Novaks problems in the past lay mainly with breathing, now that has disappeared but never say never to it returning or for some other ailment to materialise.

Rafa also had knee problems, with tapes in evidence, however not seen as of late, but the same applies to him and others such as Del Potro with wrist problems.

Understand Ferrer has now developed a wrist problem also and may miss the USO.

No player knows what is around the corner unfortunately, just ask Lleyton Hewitt!

Sportslover, no question as to the truth of the maxim. I mean the standards at the top of the men's game are very exacting and any player can suffer injuries. But if you look at the past track records of the top players, outside of Federer Novak has been the most durable. He has generally been less injury proned than both Nadal and murray over the course of his career. Plus Novak is like plasticman, he must do a lot of yoga, which i think for any pro athlete is a must. Plus how light he is also helps. If Novak was even 5 or 10 pounds overweight all that sliding on hardcourt would quickly result in a knee injury.

There is a saying in equestrianism: all horses have glass legs!

Another words, however talented your horse is, however much you paid for him, he is as liable to injury as the next one.

Hopefully all players will remain fit and healthy. People have short memories, there was this kind of talk (even famously from Sampras) after AO 2009 that Fed (on13) would struggle to reach the elusive 14th major and that Nadal (on 6) was much more likely to do so. We know what happened next! Only Rafa stood in Fed's way at that time and once he was sidelined, there was no-one else stepping up.

The fact is (much as I would love Murray to step up) only Djokovic is standing in Nadal's way atm. Of course, bogbrush is right - that is how it begins with the gradual eroding of the cloak of invincibility, but I don't believe we are looking at Nadal's downfall just yet. In fact, Nadal who was always an aggressive retriever in his early career is usually very solid and dominant centrally on the baseline in most rallies now - it is only really Novak who always seems to have him constantly on the run. Murray must sprint miles in his matches with Rafa - until Rafa runs more in the match than Andy, the result will remain the same!

I am yet to be convinced about the rest of the pack with regards to any sort of consistency or the mental strength to challenge at the sharp end of a major - the 30 year old Fed is nearly 3,000 points clear of his nearest rival, isn't he (rushes off to check haven't imagined this) who in turn is comfortably clear of the next.

Firstly let's see how the USO works out and then we can see what value your original article "heading" may have.

Maybe we will all get a surprise here.

Well that is true timeplease. No one is invulnerable to injury and it can't be forseen. In my analysis I actually am assuming that both players remain healthy. If Novak was to go down to injury I am sure that Rafa would clean up titles during that period. But I think again when trying to look at the situation you look at the track record of the players, and Novak has been pretty healthy in his career from start to finish other than the allergy issues. Assuming good health of both players I still stand on my thesis. I don't think Rafa can get even close 16 at this point. (barring some unforseen Djoko injury)

mmmmm, well unless Djokovic is going to completely dominate, I don't see who is going to stop Nadal picking up a good few more slams - I think I am assuming that health permitting and on current form, the spoils will be shared amongst the two of them.

Djokovic alone is not going to stop Nadal (unless he has lost the desire) - that is my point.

sportslover wrote:Firstly let's see how the USO works out and then we can see what value your original article "heading" may have.

Maybe we will all get a surprise here.

You mean one like Fed winning the USO title?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

sportslover wrote:Firstly let's see how the USO works out and then we can see what value your original article "heading" may have.

Maybe we will all get a surprise here.

You mean one like Fed winning the USO title?

all round from me if he did

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

sportslover wrote:Firstly let's see how the USO works out and then we can see what value your original article "heading" may have.

Maybe we will all get a surprise here.

You mean one like Fed winning the USO title?

Unlikely but one never knows

It's more likely that Fed wins the USO 2011 than Nadal winning 4 more French Open titles as you seemed to suggest SP!

My order of favourites for the USO @ the moment would be:

Djokovic
Federer
Nadal

By the way, I'm not writing off Nadal, but we do need to look carefully at each of the 3's past performance and even though Federer hasn't won the US) since 2008, his record is impressive (especially recently than any other slam), 2 points from winning in 2009 & match points to get into the final last year. Nadal's post Wimbledon record, along with Djokovic's is fairly flaky. However, because of Djokovic's great form, I have him on top for winning and because it will take a lot for Federer to win these days. I can easily see Nadal going out in the semis or quarters, on the back of knowing there's now a good chance he will meet Djokovic in a final and his hard court performance has always been weaker than on the other two surfaces. If Nadal is looking for a bounce back I don't think the USO is going to provide it. In many respects, the USO is the most open slam for the top three, but if you have to find the weakest, I'd say Nadal on balance.

Lucius, can't see Nadal winning the USO this year either, I think he may lose before the final. Although this season he had a pretty good run of getting to 2 finals at IW and miami. The USO is a little faster than those two courts however. Nadal to me is at a real crossroads, and it will be interesting to see if he can change something to get back the advantage. In my mind for Nadal to have any chance of getting goat status he will need to win majors off of clay to do it and he will have to go on a real run of slam success real soon.

No... not yet anyway.

If Djokovic ends up winning 60-70% of his future clashes with Nadal, over the next 3-4 years, then that would really make Nadal's fans GOAT arguments look silly...

Remember his Wimbledon victory over Nadal was the first time he has beaten him in a GS over bo5 sets match, when you consider that Novak has won Federer 3 times in bo5 sets and against Nadal only once, then it says alot about how good Nadal is..

He will have to stop going with the moonballing though if he is to beat a player like Djokovic, it is clearly ineffective against such a great returner....

I don't think the 5 defeats in themselves 'destroy' Nadal's chances. The ramifications for the future may see to it that this was viewed as the time when it began to become mission impossible. Time will tell, too much premature speculation on here as usual. I always thought it was a tough ask, unless Nadal could start to win regular slams on hard courts. He's a touch underrated on that surface for me, he's won 2 of the last 6 he's played, but is more vulnerable.

There's only one GOAT, if there's one at all. Nadal has had a terrific career so far, seems a tad harsh for him to be deemed a failure for not matching Federer's record.

Tenez wrote:Nadal was never in contention for a GOAT discussion. Only the Rafa fans would put him along Laver Borg and Sampras. However Rafa could be talked as the best clay player ever....but strangely at his peak we are now coming to terms that Rafa is not even the greatest clay courter ever. That is a big blow to his clay record. Sure he won the French open this but he lost 4 sets to love to Novak in 2011 on his favourite surface while playing the best tennis of his life.

It would be like Federer losing 4 sets to love at his peak on HC or grass...simply unthinkable. Never happened.


Nadal will have a hard time explaining these losses. Simply beaten convincingly by a better shot maker! Noone can say that of Federer.

I think the French Open will be remembered more than Rome/Madrid. Also don't agree that Nadal was playing the 'best tennis of his life'. Nadal's clay record stands up to any scrutiny, Borg lost matches on clay too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records#Winning_Percentage

I've read for a while that Nadal's game doesn't lend itself to longevity, which I happen to agree with. However, he is now claimed to be at his peak currently, but already in decline on another thread, whilst also being so physical so that he matured early. All very conflicting. Nadal has now won slams across 6 years and 7 tennis seasons (2005-2011 inclusive), only one year fewer than Federer. That's already pretty impressive.

If it werent for the French Open, then Nadal wouldn't really be in contention for the GOAT nametag...

1xAO
1xUS
2xWimbledon

Kinda suggests he is 1 dimensional.... without kind draw at USO he would still be looking for the elusive slam to give him the full collection..

Positively 4th Street

"I think the French Open will be remembered more than Rome/Madrid."

Of course it will. Didn't Federer say something dismissive about the 3 clay masters last year when Nadal made a clean sweep of them? Something like "the clay season will be judged on who wins the French". The thing is he was correct. The narrative at the moment is that Djokovic is unbeatable. Because the FO doesn't fit this narrative it is being dismissed or conveniently forgotton.

In the uncertain future, when all that happens now is but memories and mist, the 5 losses to Djokovic will be but a footnote in the statistician's cradle, barely noted or commented on, compared to Nadal's majestic career thus far.

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind....no hang on, that's been done.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:If it werent for the French Open, then Nadal wouldn't really be in contention for the GOAT nametag...

1xAO
1xUS
2xWimbledon

Kinda suggests he is 1 dimensional.... without kind draw at USO he would still be looking for the elusive slam to give him the full collection..

5 finals at Wimbledon would suggest otherwise. Akin to saying Federer has no pedigree at Roland Garros, which is also flawed logic. Churlish to pin the US Open win on the luck of the draw, all players get some breaks now and then. No one ever had tough draws for every slam win, a win is a win and shouldn't be denigrated.

He had a bye into the final..

Positively 4th Street wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:If it werent for the French Open, then Nadal wouldn't really be in contention for the GOAT nametag...

1xAO
1xUS
2xWimbledon

Kinda suggests he is 1 dimensional.... without kind draw at USO he would still be looking for the elusive slam to give him the full collection..

5 finals at Wimbledon would suggest otherwise. Akin to saying Federer has no pedigree at Roland Garros, which is also flawed logic. Churlish to pin the US Open win on the luck of the draw, all players get some breaks now and then. No one ever had tough draws for every slam win, a win is a win and shouldn't be denigrated.

no Cause Wimbledon is simply very slow nowadays. 2 retrievers were in the finals this year. You'd never have that in the 90s. So Wimbleodn is not a reference anymore for grass tennis...sadly.

hawkeye wrote:Positively 4th Street

"I think the French Open will be remembered more than Rome/Madrid."

Of course it will. Didn't Federer say something dismissive about the 3 clay masters last year when Nadal made a clean sweep of them? Something like "the clay season will be judged on who wins the French". The thing is he was correct. The narrative at the moment is that Djokovic is unbeatable. Because the FO doesn't fit this narrative it is being dismissed or conveniently forgotton.

I have to defend TMF here - I think he if often accused of delivering a slight when if you listen to the quote in the full context of the interview, that's not always the case. In this particular instance, the press were goading him about his disastrous showing on clay and the whole 'decline' conversation was in full swing. As per usual, this put Federer onto the defensive and he (quite rightly) said that it was all about RG - implying, my clay season isn't over yet - he was defending, not attacking. Though, I do agree, he can sometimes be dismissive but not without being poked and prodded into it by an interviewer.

Tenez wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:If it werent for the French Open, then Nadal wouldn't really be in contention for the GOAT nametag...

1xAO
1xUS
2xWimbledon

Kinda suggests he is 1 dimensional.... without kind draw at USO he would still be looking for the elusive slam to give him the full collection..

5 finals at Wimbledon would suggest otherwise. Akin to saying Federer has no pedigree at Roland Garros, which is also flawed logic. Churlish to pin the US Open win on the luck of the draw, all players get some breaks now and then. No one ever had tough draws for every slam win, a win is a win and shouldn't be denigrated.

no Cause Wimbledon is simply very slow nowadays. 2 retrievers were in the finals this year. You'd never have that in the 90s. So Wimbleodn is not a reference anymore for grass tennis...sadly.

Does that mean Federer is also one-dimensional? If all the surfaces are similar then that can be the only conclusion. I concur that Wimbledon and Roland Garros are more similar than in the past, that is not even worth debating, but not as close as some would believe. Otherwise how do we explain such lop-sided records such as Federer's 6 Wimbledons and solitary RG crown and Nadal's near mirror-image of 2 Wimbledons and 6 RG titles. This suggests that there is still enough difference that particular styles will suit one more than the other, and that the player's ability on a given surface is the deciding factor.

Good posts P-4th-St, good to read some rational reasoning on here.

lydian wrote:Good posts P-4th-St, good to read some rational reasoning on here.

Cheers Lydian. I'm hoping rationality might prove contagious. Some stuff on here is so one-eyed it beggars belief!

time please

You don't have to defend Federer (from me anyway). I didn't mean to be critical with that FO sort of quote... and I did say I thought he was correct. I like his honesty and the way he handles criticism. Its crazy how some of the press appear desperate to write him off.

Nadal winning the FO doesn't fit the narrative of Djokovic as the new dominant number one. But neither does Federer beating Djokovic in a very high quality match in the semis and then going on to play one of his best FO final matches against Nadal. Far from being in decline he played better than he did during his "peak" in 2008 or 2007. To some its as if this years French Open never happened.

hawkeye wrote:time please

You don't have to defend Federer (from me anyway). I didn't mean to be critical with that FO sort of quote... and I did say I thought he was correct. I like his honesty and the way he handles criticism. Its crazy how some of the press appear desperate to write him off.

Nadal winning the FO doesn't fit the narrative of Djokovic as the new dominant number one. But neither does Federer beating Djokovic in a very high quality match in the semis and then going on to play one of his best FO final matches against Nadal. Far from being in decline he played better than he did during his "peak" in 2008 or 2007. To some its as if this years French Open never happened.

hawkeye - I didn't take it as you criticising Federer, he was spot-on in this instance. For the top guys Masters series wins are nice to have but slams are career-defining. I'm certain Nadal wouldn't trade his French Open win for Madrid or Rome, or both. The other events are about jockeying for position and a poterntial psychological advantage but the real stuff is decided at Roland Garros. As an aside, I thought Federer was magnificent in the semi-final.