LK's Top 10 Tennis Moments of 2011 #7 - Rafa Makes It Lucky 7 at Monte Carlo

There is no doubt in the most un-biased tennis fan that Rafael Nadal is the greatest Clay Court player of all time. To some his game may seem one dimensional, but the guy is talented. 7 Monte Carlo titles tied in with 6 French Open titles also makes it the more remarkable. It would be like winning 7 Queens/Halle and then 5/6 Wimbledons. Federer himself won Halle 4 times between 2003-06 tying in with his 5 Wimbledon titles.

Rafael Nadal had by far his most spectacular year in 2010. Un-defeated on Clay. 3 Slams. More importantly than that the Golden Career Slam in the bag at the age of 24. He had quite the year and with the increased speed in his serve, it was an astounding year.

Back to Monte Carlo. Rafa had lost to Djokovic twice on the Hard courts of America in finals. This time in this tournament it was different as the Serb was not in the draw. Nadal got through the opening rounds with ease with straight set victories over Nieminen, Gasquet, Ljubicic. However in the semi finals lurked one Andy Murray. Someone who by all means was still hurting from his Australian Open demolition. Suffered 2 embarrassing exits from Miami and Indian Wells. Murray a wildcard and also through in straight sets on his route to the semi finals, his best at Monte Carlo. Both players played out quite a fantastic match. All talk before the match was of Murray and a 'knock' he had taken on his wrist and that he might not be even able to come out on court. He did. In the first set it was real cat and mouse stuff. Both players not letting up. Nadal seized his opportunity and took the first set. Some would've expected a straight sets victory. However, Murray wasn't done and romped through the second set 6-2. After Nadal was broken for the second time in the second set, he decided to save some reserves for a third set. The 3rd was a masterclass in the attacking tennis Nadal can play and he wrapped up the third set 6-1.

In the Final lurked David Ferrer. The man who put him to the sword at the Australian Open. This time though it was on Clay. Nadal was the overwhelming favourite. Despite a close encounter, Nadal came out on top in straight sets. 7 consecutive Monte Carlo titles. An achievement un-likely to ever be repeated again.

Although Monte Carlo is one of my very favourite tournaments, I was glad Nole pulled out.
Nadal won it in style (7 times in a row is some achievement...) and then everyone expected the tennis order to resume it's usual clay season mechanics:another Nadal clean-up.
Nole was not going to be denied and made a fantastic break-through by beating Nadal both in Madrid and Rome (after that grueling match against Murray in the semifinal).

And of course 6 Barcelona titles, 5 Rome titles. His W:L on clay in general is absolutely staggering when you consider how gruelling the surfaces is.
If he wins FO again to claim 7 titles and move beyond Borg there can be absolutely no doubt at all he's greatest of all time on that surface, although for many he's already earned that accolade.

Yes NITB, Nole did that this year on clay...lets see him do it for another 5-6 years.

Just to back up that clay W:L. It is incredible.

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

He could end up with 10+ at MC

7 consecutive titles at a tournament that big is a unique and amazing achievement.

Indeed emancipator, that would be 'ridiculous'.

Pos4St - amazing to see that he's more than 11% above the 3rd highest placed ever on clay (Lendl) for W:L, and 6.5% above Borg. For other surface types there's barely a % point difference between the top 3. Guess there's not really much doubt he's best ever on clay. People might point to Vilas and Muster having more clay titles but they are nowhere near the same level of quality.

legendkiller

Nice to see a sort of tribute to Nadal. It would have been nicer if it didn't include the statement that some find his game "one dimensional".

Also I disagree that 7 Monte Carlo and 6 French open titles is equivalent to winning Halle/Queens 7 times and Wimbledon 5/6 times. Halle and Queens are 250 events often used as a warm up to Wimbledon. Many players withdraw from these as a precaution for Wimbledon (including Murray...). Monte Carlo is a stand alone 1,000 event and also has more historical significance. Anyway not worth debating as no-one has achieved this particular double.

I also think far from never being achieved again it may well be repeated again next year.

My memories of the Monte Carlo semi this year between Nadal and Murray also differs a bit from yours. I remember the long delay before the start whilst Murray decided whether he was fit to play. I think it was 40 minutes. It was long enough that Nadal could have (according to the rules) asked for a walkover. Nadal was asked about it afterwoods and said he wouldn't have done that as it would have been disappointing for the crowd. Amazingly Murray came out and played probably one of his best sets ever. After Nadal got over this "surprise" he took control of the match.

Sorry to nit pick. It was nice to see someone that I didn't think was a Nadal fan pay tribute to him.

Hawkeye,

The delay was actually 15 minutes before they went out on court. Posters on here have often said about Nadal's game being too one dimensional. Proof is in the pudding on that score. Winning Queens/Halle and Wimbledon would be an equivialent. You forget also that the Grass season is shorter than the clay season so it does make the same achievement if not higher due to the time frames. Players at a 250 event can still expect to meet the same calibre of player than they would in a 1000 event.

Murray played some outstanding tennis and some even question had Murray been fitter he might have taken Nadal out.

I remember Murray was slightly injured for that match

I agree Nadal was vulnerable at MC this year (Murray would not have had a chance if he played the guy that beat Verdasco the year before for the loss of just 1 game), but then he's looked vulnerable all year on clay, and elsewhere too.

Its not just about Halle/Wimbledon, lets not forget Nadal has won the holy trinity of clay Masters prior to and including the French Open...for which Nadal is the only one to win the 'clay slam'. This is a remarkable and unique achievement.

I dont think he's a 1-dimensional player at all. Infact I think he plays a much more allcourt game than many of the top 20, and even more so than Djokovic. Nadal comes to the net more and has greater touch there, plays with more slice, and varies his serve more. However, this year his lack of, or brittleness of confidence has made him stick to the baseline more, or even 3-4 metres behind it, and has been playing loads of midcourt balls. Its bizarre that his game seems to have gone really backwards vs 2010 when he was a much more aggressive player and at times almost unplayable.

I'll agree that Murray is not yet close to Nadal in his stride on clay. His achievements just on clay are as insane as Feds achievements in terms of uniqueness and what it will take for anyone to repeat it.

I too am not convinced that Djokovic owns him now as from some of the matches I watched a shot here or there could have changed the outcome. Wimbledon and the clay matches weren't so close but the hard court matches were a lot closer.

I'll disagree about his game though. I still think he's just a very good player with amazing fitness. By very good I mean his shotmaking talent is on a level with say Gasquet but I don't think it's anywhere near Fed's.

His shotmaking doesnt compare to Fed's (who's does?) and the man himself would agree but he brings other things to the table that Federer doesnt.
10 slams, OG, DCx3 and 19 TMS dont lie...1-dimensional players just dont win that amount of stuff. I tell you, if that's 1-D tennis, then most tennis players would gnaw off theirleft or right arms to have had the success he's had.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I'll agree that Murray is not yet close to Nadal in his stride on clay. His achievements just on clay are as insane as Feds achievements in terms of uniqueness and what it will take for anyone to repeat it.

I too am not convinced that Djokovic owns him now as from some of the matches I watched a shot here or there could have changed the outcome. Wimbledon and the clay matches weren't so close but the hard court matches were a lot closer.

I'll disagree about his game though. I still think he's just a very good player with amazing fitness. By very good I mean his shotmaking talent is on a level with say Gasquet but I don't think it's anywhere near Fed's.

Just want to comment on that first line. Is anyone claiming that Murray is close to Nadal on clay? If so that is laughable!

No one is claiming he's close just that he gave Nadal a close match for a while this year.

lydian wrote:Indeed emancipator, that would be 'ridiculous'.

Pos4St - amazing to see that he's more than 11% above the 3rd highest placed ever on clay (Lendl) for W:L, and 6.5% above Borg. For other surface types there's barely a % point difference between the top 3. Guess there's not really much doubt he's best ever on clay. People might point to Vilas and Muster having more clay titles but they are nowhere near the same level of quality.

Indeed lydian. That's exactly what struck me, the separation between 1 and 2, then between 2 and 3 on clay is startling. If that was grass it could be put down to the short season and smaller numbers but this is over 100s of matches. For me he is already the best ever on clay, but I would love to see him get a 7th RG just to emphasise it.

[quote="Is anyone claiming that Murray is close to Nadal on clay? If so that is laughable![/quote]

Remember, Murray played a very nice match against Djokovic on clay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ37c1m7ByA