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

First topic message reminder :

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?

Positively 4th Street wrote:

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.

Hi both of you, it was me wot was the sensitive Fed Fan I didn't think you were being really critical anyway hawk - I am a great fan, but have sometimes winced at how certain things come out of his mouth - it's very Swiss - straightforward, sometimes to the point of bluntness!

Agree the press are something else - they wrote the narrative of the greatest ever etc then leapt on the imagery of Rafa as Fed's Nemesis - when he is actually a very tricky Achilles Heel, but hardly (cross fingers) Fed's doom unless we want to be totally melodramatic. The new narrative is the fall of superman and the ascendance of the Serbinator

Some of it is entertaining, and some is very, very lazy journalism indeed

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.

I disagree here with hawkeye. I think you are drawing way too much from Roger's lone performance at the FO. He played really well, but lets remember that he was down a break late in the 4th set and if he lost that 4th set it would be a different story. And of course he did catch a terribly rusty Djokovic in the 1st two sets. Roger played great and capitalized but one good match in a grandslam semi doesn't make a season. Roger is still great but people are building a whole mountain out of one inspired performance, which frankly I have not seen Federer play that way before or since the WTF of last year almost 8 months ago.

Well timeplease, I disagree with you as well on the quote about "lazy journalism". When looked at it from the prism of having a shot at GOAT this year has been disastrous for Nadal. Now I agree these goat discussions are not always fair, and this is no slight to Nadal the man is a 10 time champion. But the question can fairly be asked, in tennis when it goes for great champion it goes quick. ARe we watching Borg in 81? I think Rafa can still be among the very best for several more years, but what chance he had at getting to 16 and clear goathood are probably finished.

Hey socal - I was talking about the fickleness of the media - not people debating the 'goat' issue on a forum.

Personally, I don't like the goat debate because, as I have said, I think it is a subjective choice between the elite players and different sets of statistics - but I understand that other people do want to debate it enthusiastically.

Fair enough, I tend to agree about GOAT talks, but there isn't much to talk about during this summer break in the schedule. I still think Rafa can be a great player for years to come just that it will now be next to impossible to get to 16.

socal1976 wrote:

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.

I disagree here with hawkeye. I think you are drawing way too much from Roger's lone performance at the FO. He played really well, but lets remember that he was down a break late in the 4th set and if he lost that 4th set it would be a different story. And of course he did catch a terribly rusty Djokovic in the 1st two sets. Roger played great and capitalized but one good match in a grandslam semi doesn't make a season. Roger is still great but people are building a whole mountain out of one inspired performance, which frankly I have not seen Federer play that way before or since the WTF of last year almost 8 months ago.

Oh great to see the myth of Fognini is still being peddled. Don't you ever get tired of being scorned by the whole board for that ridiculous idea?

"he was down a break late in the 4th set and if he lost that 4th set it would be a different story". Yeah, and if my Auntie had balls she'd be my Uncle.

If one wishes to entertain the concept of "GOAT," and many "world's best" former players have stated that you simply cannot do this between vastly different Eras, then the whole concept is about a completed body of work.

To put it another way, once a player has FINISHED their career, then one can look at where that player might lay, in terms of "GOAT," by the cognescenti of the game of tennis.

There's alot of interesting perspectives, opinions and comments in this thread, but also quite a lot of ridiculous statements.

Whatever Djokovic does from his very next tournament on, doesn't take away from what he has achieved the past 8 months; what it signifies in the context of the sport of tennis, will only become apparent as the rest of this season, subsequent seasons and his career as a whole, transpires.

As an individual "fact," Nadal losing to Djokovic in 5 finals this year to date, doesn't necessarily mean much as it stands, aside from the reality of current rankings and who is holding which title(s).

Connors won 3 Major titles in 1974, then lost them all in their respective finals in 1975 - but then went on to finish as World No 1, for four seasons after the 1975 tour was finished, garnering another 5 Major titles.

My point here is simply that 8 months or even a full season on it's own, doesn't define an entire career. There is much that can and will happen that will bring forth the whole picture of where this run of Djokovic's form stands, in the history of the sport.

McEnroe's streak finished with his loss to Lendl, having been up two sets to love, and twice being up a break in a subsequent set. He went on to win the next two Majors in devastating fashion and....never won another Major singles title again. Based on what people saw at the Wimbledon and US Open of 1984, I am sure many well versed people in the sport of tennis, were predicting all kinds of scenarios. That which came to pass was, that McEnroe never won another Major singles title. I doubt anyone was stating that as an opinion of what was to come.

Nadal doesn't have to play another clay court match, (playing many and losing alot of them, is a different proposition) his current numbers strongly support the claim that he is the greatest clay court player to have played the game. Borg is legendary as a clay court player, however in 11 tries he never won the US Open, though it was played on clay courts (albeit not European red clay) for three years when he was a "world beater." He lost four finals for cryin' out loud.

As for dropping Nadal's French Open titles and rendering him as irrelevant in a possible GOAT discussion; take Federer's 6 Wimbledons away, and he has 10 Majors - 2 behind Emerson, 1 behind Borg and 4 behind Sampras. McEnroe's four US Opens, Becker's 3 Wimbledon's, etc., etc.,

You can go round and round, with all kinds of similar "logic," or rationale, but it will not have any kind of validity to the history of the sport as it stands. Woulda, coulda, shoulda has never added ranking points, titles or prize money to anyone's statistics.

At this point, one could naturally suggest Djokovic is the favourite for the US Open but the next 3 weeks, will tell us much more of the reality of such a suggestion; but even were Djokovic to win each hard court event he plays from now till then, it doesn't engrave his name on the US Open trophy. Each event is it's own entity, and the US Open will be won by whomever plays the best tennis during that specific time period.

We have a great situation with not only the "Top 4" right now, but also with a "2nd string cast" of players who are capable, not necessarily of winning the whole shebang, but who could do serious damage to the top 4 seeds.

Would be interesting to get to the semis of Flushing and find none of the Top 4 there - stranger things have happened indeed!!

Spot on post yloponom. A lot of sense and well-written. Kudos.

ylopnom, a very good post. Of course even I concede that a great deal of the discussion on this thread is speculation. Nobody here has a crystal ball, I don't know what Novak's form or Nadal's form will be in 6 months or a year even. But I think if there is something to take away from this is that in the exacting view of a goat debate, Nadal already had to maintain a neck breaking pace of grandslams to catch fed at 16. Now with losing this wimby, which should have been the second most likely slam for Nadal to garner after the french that now his task may not be possible. Remebering that very few players win multiple slams from their late 20s on. Getting one slam out of the last three is great for anyone, but to be able to get into the stratosphere of 16 this pace won't get it done.

bogbrush wrote:
Oh great to see the myth of Fognini is still being peddled. Don't you ever get tired of being scorned by the whole board for that ridiculous idea?

"he was down a break late in the 4th set and if he lost that 4th set it would be a different story". Yeah, and if my Auntie had balls she'd be my Uncle.

No BB, I don't. I never claimed that novak would have won that match without fognini or that Roger had no chance, all I said was that it took the edge off of his play for 2 sets and that he played at a much lower level early in that match then he had on average during the streak. Hardly as conspiratorial as you make it. And in no way do I care about the scorn of you and your minions.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
Oh great to see the myth of Fognini is still being peddled. Don't you ever get tired of being scorned by the whole board for that ridiculous idea?

"he was down a break late in the 4th set and if he lost that 4th set it would be a different story". Yeah, and if my Auntie had balls she'd be my Uncle.

No BB, I don't. I never claimed that novak would have won that match without fognini or that Roger had no chance, all I said was that it took the edge off of his play for 2 sets and that he played at a much lower level early in that match then he had on average during the streak. Hardly as conspiratorial as you make it. And in no way do I care about the scorn of you and your minions.

Yeah, that's the theory that is setting new standards for stupidity.

I guess your view is that Nole the Goldilocks of mens tennis. If he has a hard match the round before, he's tired. If he has the match off he's rusty. So is it only really fair to judge him when he has a rigorous 3 setter, or perhaps a light 4 setter with a lapse of concentration in the 3rd? I mean, not too hot and not too cold, but "just right"?

bogbrush wrote:If he has a hard match the round before, he's tired. If he has the match off he's rusty. So is it only really fair to judge him when he has a rigorous 3 setter, or perhaps a light 4 setter with a lapse of concentration in the 3rd? I mean, not too hot and not too cold, but "just right"?

yeah, this is were you keep losing me socal - Novak has been the outstanding player of the year - he doesn't need an excuse for why he lost one match to one of the greatest players ever. On the day, however, it was Roger who was the outstanding player.

Having an unexpected bye, or an exhausting 5 setter just when you don't want it are part of tennis - and I am pretty sure that Roger himself won one Wimbledon with an inconvenient bye one year (was it 2007?).

If you're right and it did throw him off his stride, he had better toughen up a bit quick!

Good of you to still find the energy to discuss tennis with Socal.

he is one of the few tennis fans who comes up regularly with the strangest ideas thanks to a very poor sense of observation.

1 - Bigger tennis balls favours the servers...and don;t slow the game.
2 - Weak eras linked to sharing of slams.
3 - A player who rises above his peers has to belong to a weak era...unless it;s Djokovic of course.
4 - Djokovic's recent rise to number 1 is due to his serve more than his sudden improved fitness.
5 - Fails to see that the game has gone strongly physical and that is what he calls "strong era".
etc....
I could go on about the Fognini non sense but frankly I don't even want to waste anymore time on this as Socal is not prepared to change any of his views anyway.

Strange. Federer is on an even worse streak, does that hurt his GOAT argument? 4 straight grand slam final losses to Nadal. I think you have to look at it over a certain period of time and more crucially at the end of their careers.

Exactly S_A. In 20 years' time people will look back and assess Fed and Rafa on what they achieved i.e. what is in the 'Win' column.
Few will remember Rafa's 5 losses to Nole as anything more than a footnote in his career, possibly a fraction more if it turns out to be a downhill turning point in Rafa's career. But even if that's the case, he'll be remembered for his prior achievements, not a few months in 2011.

Tenez wrote:Good of you to still find the energy to discuss tennis with Socal.

he is one of the few tennis fans who comes up regularly with the strangest ideas thanks to a very poor sense of observation.

1 - Bigger tennis balls favours the servers...and don;t slow the game.
2 - Weak eras linked to sharing of slams.
3 - A player who rises above his peers has to belong to a weak era...unless it;s Djokovic of course.
4 - Djokovic's recent rise to number 1 is due to his serve more than his sudden improved fitness.
5 - Fails to see that the game has gone strongly physical and that is what he calls "strong era".
etc....
I could go on about the Fognini non sense but frankly I don't even want to waste anymore time on this as Socal is not prepared to change any of his views anyway.

1. Well you again misconstrue what you read and draw what you like. I did not say bigger tennis balls don't slow the game down. Back on old 606 someone produced a study that indicated that the big balls actually increase serving accuracy, and do not decrease serving pace in terms of the radar gun. If you have a problem with the analysis of those scientists that someone else produced I would take that up with them. However slower balls do effect the game, don't dispute that at all. All I say is that players win with the conditions and tech that they are given and so it doesn't matter that much.

2. No the slams were shared in the 80s, weak eras are linked to a lengthy laundry list of weak #1s many of them who couldn't win more than a slam.

3. No, as I have said Roger was great in both eras and would probably be the strongest player of any era. However he didn't have much competition till the rise of Rafa in 05.

4. Again you make up my argument and then argue against it, a very effective if not dishonest strategy. If you read my post I am reiterating what the man himself has said, that it is a variety of factors, including fitness. But the serve is one of those factors and maybe the most important. What you fail to mention is the mountain of improved serving #s by djokovic when comparing 2010 to 2011. Call me crazy for actually listening to what the player says and examining his serving numbers and actually watching the guy play.

5. Again make up my argument and then argue against what you want, wrong again. I have never denied that tennis has a strong physical element, never, not once. It isn't bridge or chess, when have I denied the important physical aspect of tennis. I just stated that the top players need to be both physical and be great ball strikers, you are the one denies the obvious and claims that Nadal is somehow not that good at hitting a tennis ball.

AGAIN TENEZ YOU ARE 0-5, in the future please at least honestly portray my positions I know that isn't normal for you, but without question I will hold you to the record.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Strange. Federer is on an even worse streak, does that hurt his GOAT argument? 4 straight grand slam final losses to Nadal. I think you have to look at it over a certain period of time and more crucially at the end of their careers.

Good point SA, but here is the difference Roger is 30 and has already carved out his legacy. This would be the equivalent of another player rising up in 2005 or 06 and whipping Roger for a year. It would certainly impact the number of grandslams and the total legacy. Again I want to reiterate people of course will always remember Nadal as a great champion at the very pinnacle of the game. But here I am asking a more specific question, because this is his prime years when he really needed to make progress in hunting down the 16 titles, and because it was a tough ask to begin with, this recent losing streak may not leave him enough time to attain goathood or get close enough to 16 slams.