Wilander agrees with the kid!

After Shanghai, Djokovic leads 9-7 and some of the sport's greats have no doubt where this rivalry is headed given Nadal's battered knees and Federer's age.

"Are they the next two? Yes, I would think so," said Mats Wilander, the former world No 1.

"I don't think Federer or Nadal are finished by any means, but on hard court, it's these two.

"Whereas the others [rivalries] are a bit one-sided, this one has never been one-sided.

http://www.thenational.ae/sport/tennis/tennis-new-dynamic-duo-is-djokovic-murray


I don't like to toot my own horn, ok lets not lie I do. For many years dating back to 08-09 in my sporadic appearances on old 606 as socalfootiefan and FA I was one of the first around to start using the golden age and generation for the muray/novak/and nadal era. Back then it looked like Berdy, Tsonga, and Gazza would play bigger roles but they couldn't keep up with the other three. For quite sometime as well, since the start of the year I have been saying that Murray and Djoko would be the two players that would most likely decide most of the major honors in the next few years. And now Wilander and many others are seeing and saying the same things. Well it is my duty to bring it to you first, before the geniuses in the tennis media catch on. Anyway interestng and somewhat controversial statement by Wilander, which frankly I agree with. He says on hardcourt these two are the best players now and who can argue with the 2012 USO champ (Murray) and the 2012 AO champ (Novak) as the two best hardcourt players on tour. So what do you think are federer and Nadal now 3 and 4 on a hardcourt like wilander is suggesting?

Wilander often talks a load of ****. Sometimes I think he's drunk. He also says what people want to hear as he is on this occasion. (Despite this I have to confess that I quite like him...) Also socal1976 are you referring to yourself as "the kid"?

Anyway back to Nadal and Federer as rivals and their ability on hardcourt. Having recently re watched this years AO semi featuring both players I can recommend to anyone who may have forgotten what these two bring to the court to do the same. Brilliant beautiful tennis! If that's what you enjoy watching no one can rival these two. Funny commentary by Wilander too.

hawkeye wrote:Wilander often talks a load of ****. Sometimes I think he's drunk. He also says what people want to hear as he is on this occasion. (Despite this I have to confess that I quite like him...) Also socal1976 are you referring to yourself as "the kid"?

Anyway back to Nadal and Federer as rivals and their ability on hardcourt. Having recently re watched this years AO semi featuring both players I can recommend to anyone who may have forgotten what these two bring to the court to do the same. Brilliant beautiful tennis! If that's what you enjoy watching no one can rival these two. Funny commentary by Wilander too.

Of course Fed and Nadal bring a great deal to the game Hawk, I don't think that is what Wilander is saying. What he is saying is that he views fed and Nadal to be behind Murray and Djoko on a hard court. Hardly the kind of statement one would think deserves accusations of alcoholism from our esteemed Hawkeye. I actually agree with that in that Djoko and Murray have won the last two slams on hardcourt and Novak has been to 5 straight hardcourt slam finals. But I know hawk that you have been afflicted with fedal myopia, other than that you are good poster yet unfortunately it seems you don't want to observe and enjoy this budding, great rivalry.

Oh PS of course I am referring to myself as the kid.

In my experience posters will believe the experts when it falls into what they want to believe. I mean when Wilander was critical of Murray I recall his quotes being used to prove a point. We all know what the vast majority of pundits (many of them ex-pros) think of men's tennis at the moment but those posters who don't see it that way only seeing it as them openly trying to market the game even if they make statements that belittle the era those ex-pros played in. I don't think that will ever change.

CaledonianCraig wrote:In my experience posters will believe the experts when it falls into what they want to believe. I mean when Wilander was critical of Murray I recall his quotes being used to prove a point. We all know what the vast majority of pundits (many of them ex-pros) think of men's tennis at the moment but those posters who don't see it that way only seeing it as them openly trying to market the game even if they make statements that belittle the era those ex-pros played in. I don't think that will ever change.

Yes it does seem to be the consensus opinion of the legends that this period of play is particularly strong and I don't remember in the early 2000s and late 90s people saying that, I honestly don't Craig. I mean was Mcenroe saying this was the greatest period when Hewitt and Ferrero were winning slams. Not just mceneroe, Laver and all the other top guys I have seen interviewed only say very exemplary things about today's champions and the modern tour. And I am talking about the competitive qualities and athleticism of the tour, as well as the ball stiking and tennis talent of these players. Agassi for example has called Djoko the greatest returner of all time. So in this current era we have the greatest player of all time still playing at a very high level, the greatest clay courter ever bar none, another all time great in Djoko considered by most experts as the greatest returner of all time and two youthful slam winners on the upswing in Del PO and Murray. Yet, it seems what some people want to focus on is whether or not Tommy Haas advances or not in this weeks ATP 250 event. Frankly, its mindboggling.

What do you think Craig are Federer and Nadal 3 and 4 in the world right now on hardcourt?

Sorry, but there's something about all this that is a bit odd.

Federer is 31 and soon to retire. Nadal has battered knees. And it's "controversial" and visionary to suggest that the other two leading players would be the main guys for a while?

Really?

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, but there's something about all this that is a bit odd.

Federer is 31 and soon to retire. Nadal has battered knees. And it's "controversial" and visionary to suggest that the other two leading players would be the main guys for a while?

Really?

Is Federer soon to retire though? He has made noises about wanting another crack at Rio in four years time so he may have years left in the tank yet. Roger's game evidently lacks the consistency it had when he was in his pomp but he can still produce his very best at times as we saw at Wimbledon to win a slam (only three months ago). As for Rafa Nadal is he really finished? Yes he has battered knees and suffered from them before and bounced back to great effect so lets not write him off either as that would be foolish.

Socal

If we are talking about the here and now - this instant then yes I would say Federer is third with Nadal fourth on hard courts.

Yes, but I think Wilander was saying more than that Murray and Djoko are the best on hardcourts right this instant. I think at least the reading I got from it is that Murray and Djoko, even in the near future when Rafa comes back are the best guys in the world on hard court. I mean with Nadal out right now that statement isn't very dispositive if it doesn't have implications for the future. The big problem in that belief from the other side is that Murray has rarely beaten Rafa in a 5 set slam match on hardcourt. There is a temporal sense to his phrase hence why he uses the term they are the "next two". So he is going beyond just making the statement for the here and now.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, but there's something about all this that is a bit odd.

Federer is 31 and soon to retire. Nadal has battered knees. And it's "controversial" and visionary to suggest that the other two leading players would be the main guys for a while?

Really?

Is Federer soon to retire though? He has made noises about wanting another crack at Rio in four years time so he may have years left in the tank yet. Roger's game evidently lacks the consistency it had when he was in his pomp but he can still produce his very best at times as we saw at Wimbledon to win a slam (only three months ago). As for Rafa Nadal is he really finished? Yes he has battered knees and suffered from them before and bounced back to great effect so lets not write him off either as that would be foolish.

Socal

If we are talking about the here and now - this instant then yes I would say Federer is third with Nadal fourth on hard courts.

"Soon" as in measured in a short number of years. Sorry, didn't mean to imply it was imminent because I don't think it is.

Rafa is in a bad place and I doubt he'll be back to present the same kind of challenge across the whole tour that he used to. He'll remain a monster on clay though.

Hewitt was widely regarded as one of, if not the greatest returner/retriever the game had seen - at the time.
I distinctly remember the BBC commentator saying, after he beat Nalby to win Wimbledon - "This guy can win 10 Wimbledon's".
McEnroe even said, in 2009, that Hewitt could get back in the top 10 - http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/hewitt-can-crack-top-10-again--mcenroe-20090907-fd1c.html
Pat McEnroe said this about Hewitt - "A lot of young players -- like Marat Safin, Andy Roddick and Roger Federer -- could learn from Hewitt what it takes to win"
I fail to see how Hewitt has, to some people, come to represent a weak era.

By the way I think Nadal will be back and healthy but even when he does come back fit and healthy I think he will be behind Murray and Djoko from now on when comes to hardcourts. That doesn't mean he won't win some against them and even on a hardcourt but that the upper hand has shifted away from him. Still Murray has to beat him in a slam to make it stick now doesn't he. But if you go off comparing hardcourt records between the two Murray and Nadal over the last couple of years it isn't even close its way in Murray's favor.

Conversely JHM, I do think Leif Sheiras said before or after the final the other day that in his opinion Djokovic and Murray are the greatest returners of serve he has ever seen in the sport.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Conversely JHM, I do think Leif Sheiras said before or after the final the other day that in his opinion Djokovic and Murray are the greatest returners of serve he has ever seen in the sport.

It's not 'conversely' CC - I was referring to the general opinion of Hewitt 10, 12 years ago, so it's not a contradiction to what people are saying about Djoko/Murray now.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Conversely JHM, I do think Leif Sheiras said before or after the final the other day that in his opinion Djokovic and Murray are the greatest returners of serve he has ever seen in the sport.

It's not 'conversely' CC - I was referring to the general opinion of Hewitt 10, 12 years ago, so it's not a contradiction to what people are saying about Djoko/Murray now.

Yes granted of course. Point being that some see Djokovic and Murray as surpassing Hewitt in returning. Now that is a point in itself. Posters tend to berate Djokovic and Murray as being grinders/pushers and no more than that and tend to fall in love with other players games and feel is is superior. However, Djoko and Murray do have strings to their bow that surpasses those other players. That is the thing I enjot about the here and now - although the court conditions are constant each of the top players have varying strengths in different areas which makes for these very interesting match-ups.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Hewitt was widely regarded as one of, if not the greatest returner/retriever the game had seen - at the time.
I distinctly remember the BBC commentator saying, after he beat Nalby to win Wimbledon - "This guy can win 10 Wimbledon's".
McEnroe even said, in 2009, that Hewitt could get back in the top 10 - http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/hewitt-can-crack-top-10-again--mcenroe-20090907-fd1c.html
Pat McEnroe said this about Hewitt - "A lot of young players -- like Marat Safin, Andy Roddick and Roger Federer -- could learn from Hewitt what it takes to win"
I fail to see how Hewitt has, to some people, come to represent a weak era.

That statement is so noncommittal Julius, what exactly could they learn. I mean Lleyton Hewitt is a tough competitor Pat Mac doesn't call hewitt the greatest anything. Obviously, Johnny Mac was being overexuberant with the 10 wimbys by the way he doesn't have a crystal ball to see where Nadal and Fed would take the game. And at the time hewitt was the youngest number 1 in history. Interesingly even when healthy he was just basically hit off the court by the murray, nadal, murray class of players once they came in. So I don't see much in those statements. Hewitt in fact is one of the stronger two slam winners, he just is't a particularly good number 1.

True CC, but there have always been interesting match-ups throughout the history of tennis. That's why I don't understand why some people slag off certain players/eras. If you're a fan of tennis, rather than a casual observer who needs to recognise a 'star' before bothering to tune in, there has always been truly great tennis to watch.

socal1976 wrote:So I don't see much in those statements...

As Paul Simon said - a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

The point being that this may, or may not be the greatest era ever -almost impossible to judge.

The point that, I think, JHM is making is that citing Wilander's commentary as cast iron 'proof' for one's own argument is not to have the last word - as Julius says Hewitt was lauded in his time exactly as Djokovic and Murray are at the moment. Sampras was widely referred to as the greatest ever. Commentary with Dan Maskell was considerably less hyperbolic so I don't recall Borg at Wimbledon being heralded this way or the era that saw other giants of the modern game compete alongside him referred to as a 'golden era'.

It is not just in this sport - commentary is just more 'sensational' nowadays much as the media is.

If you believe these last two years have seen some of the greatest competition socal then that is the reality for you but you can't necessarily convince others by browbeating them about it.

time please wrote:The point being that this may, or may not be the greatest era ever -almost impossible to judge.

The point that, I think, JHM is making is that citing Wilander's commentary as cast iron 'proof' for one's own argument is not to have the last word - as Julius says Hewitt was lauded in his time exactly as Djokovic and Murray are at the moment. Sampras was widely referred to as the greatest ever. Commentary with Dan Maskell was considerably less hyperbolic so I don't recall Borg at Wimbledon being heralded this way or the era that saw other giants of the modern game compete alongside him referred to as a 'golden era'.

It is not just in this sport - commentary is just more 'sensational' nowadays much as the media is.

If you believe these last two years have seen some of the greatest competition socal then that is the reality for you but you can't necessarily convince others by browbeating them about it.

Timeplease honestly where do you get off calling me quoting people and posting it online with browbeating people? I am hardly in business with ATP I could care less if people are convinced or not, I like talking about tennis. You don't seem to think all the people moaning about S and V nostalgia and slow conditions as attempting to browbeat people with their ideas. You don't seem to be so offended by their constant stream of negativity and whinning. Or their radical ideas of changing the game they advocate that isn't browbeating. I suggest you reconsider your use of that terminology, if you got a problem with repetive posts and browbeating maybe next time the slow court advocates post the 100th thread on how the game stinks and things need to be sped up you might protest then. Maybe you just have problems with people repeating positions you don't agree with. I never said Wilander was the final word my argument is multifaceted and I have pointed to numerous things like for example the ever increasing prize money of a sport that is not hurting or struggling, and in need of very bad and counterproductive changes.

Whilst I appreciate where the commentators may be coming from, it is funny how they change from 1 story to the next depending on who's in the final. Watch if we have Federer Nadal in Australian Open final, they will suddenly change the record to "these are the 2 greatest players in our generation, Djokovic and Murray have a lot to learn" or something to that effect. I am still not very convinced Murray would have beat Nadal in USO semis in that windy condition.

socal1976 wrote:

time please wrote:The point being that this may, or may not be the greatest era ever -almost impossible to judge.

The point that, I think, JHM is making is that citing Wilander's commentary as cast iron 'proof' for one's own argument is not to have the last word - as Julius says Hewitt was lauded in his time exactly as Djokovic and Murray are at the moment. Sampras was widely referred to as the greatest ever. Commentary with Dan Maskell was considerably less hyperbolic so I don't recall Borg at Wimbledon being heralded this way or the era that saw other giants of the modern game compete alongside him referred to as a 'golden era'.

It is not just in this sport - commentary is just more 'sensational' nowadays much as the media is.

If you believe these last two years have seen some of the greatest competition socal then that is the reality for you but you can't necessarily convince others by browbeating them about it.

Timeplease honestly where do you get off calling me quoting people and posting it online with browbeating people? I am hardly in business with ATP I could care less if people are convinced or not, I like talking about tennis. You don't seem to think all the people moaning about S and V nostalgia and slow conditions as attempting to browbeat people with their ideas. You don't seem to be so offended by their constant stream of negativity and whinning. Or their radical ideas of changing the game they advocate that isn't browbeating. I suggest you reconsider your use of that terminology, if you got a problem with repetive posts and browbeating maybe next time the slow court advocates post the 100th thread on how the game stinks and things need to be sped up you might protest then. Maybe you just have problems with people repeating positions you don't agree with. I never said Wilander was the final word my argument is multifaceted and I have pointed to numerous things like for example the ever increasing prize money of a sport that is not hurting or struggling, and in need of very bad and counterproductive changes.

You're too sensitive socal - but I will retract browbeating if it keeps you happy. I don't have a problem with anyone's point of view - I was just (clumsily) saying that it is impossible for you to 'prove' yours.

I happen to agree with those that would like more variety in the conditions - but you see I don't regard that statement as 'moaning' or 'whining', it's just a point of view and incidentally one that your hero has talked about very recently.

Ok Timeplease sorry you didn't deserve that much of a snap for browbeating, I retract the whinning comment. I do have a bit of siege mentality lately, my apologies.

accepted

got to return the smiley to seal the deal. I actually don't oppose speeding up the courts a bit on some traditionally faster tournaments but unfortunately that isn't the extent of the ideas being put forward on the forum. Some of the ideas frankly are very damaging and dangerous to the game in my mind. With all due respect to the people who believe otherwise I honestly don't believe in their formula

Well I can't say I've read dangerous or damaging ideas socal so we'll have to agree to disagree.

From my point of view I liked the fact that variety in conditions meant that the majors all played differently - but that is personal choice.

The most compelling argument imo, and the one that Djokovic highlighted, is that the players just won't last as long if conditions decree that every time the top guys meet the match becomes a marathon because it takes many more shots to put away winners on the slow courts. I think this is really an issue with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray - at the moment the crowd does seem to love the long battles, but at what cost to the players?

It's great when clay plays slow, grass plays much quicker and perhaps one of the two hard court slams could be a fast surface while the other remains a medium slow? I think the top guys will still be the top guys, but we will see more variety of play from them because variety in conditions will allow them to express that, and also cut down on the wear and tear over the year. Perhaps the simplest and least expensive option is to revert to smaller balls and to agree a restriction on racquet size? I think that makes perfect sense, if you keep allowing the 'sweet spot' to increase and the balls to get bigger, of course everyone is going to make more returns and winners are harder to produce?

I know you are worried that if conditions are speeded up then we will see a dominance of the very tall, powerful servers but I don't think this is so. Did you see the article that Haddie posted on another thread that showed that slowed conditions meant that a guy like Cilic who moves poorly was able, because of his large wingspan, to reach a wide ball to his backhand with two hands still on the racquet rather than having to reach with one hand just because the ball travelled slowly on the courts. In faster conditions, Cilic would not have made some of these backhands because he just wouldn't have got his feet into position fast enough.

Here you go tp.. I´ll post it again


http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/10/smaller-ball/39748/

socal1976 wrote: You don't seem to think all the people moaning about S and V nostalgia and slow conditions as attempting to browbeat people with their ideas. You don't seem to be so offended by their constant stream of negativity and whinning. Or their radical ideas of changing the game they advocate that isn't browbeating.

Well that must be referring to me - so I guess posters like me are just "moaners", "whiners" and "negative" hey socal?
Your "siege mentality" at times knows no bounds.
You often appear quick to jump down people's throats if they dont agree with you.
Perhaps you can exercise a little more circumspection.

Wilander has good and bad things to say. Like all of us.
He's also sometimes sensationalist and jumps on the latest media bandwagon.
He once said Federer had no cojones for example. Yeah right Mats...you're the expert.
This time its jumping on the "Dynamic Duo" of Murray and Djokovic hobbyhorse because in the absence of Nadal and Federer they've met a few more times.
We forget that Nadal (who has significant leading H2Hs over all key players) has been AWOL for a long time and Federer is still #1 player.

Personally I find their match up the least interesting out of the Top 4 because they play similarly, and have similar outward characteristics in many respects. Tennis, and its popularity, thrives off contrasting styles...converging conditions will not create the great rivalries/contrasts of the future.

But of course, I must apologise for moaning, whining and browbeating about this again.

lydian wrote:

socal1976 wrote: You don't seem to think all the people moaning about S and V nostalgia and slow conditions as attempting to browbeat people with their ideas. You don't seem to be so offended by their constant stream of negativity and whinning. Or their radical ideas of changing the game they advocate that isn't browbeating.

Well that must be referring to me - so I guess posters like me are just "moaners", "whiners" and "negative" hey socal?
Your "siege mentality" at times knows no bounds.
You often appear quick to jump down people's throats if they dont agree with you.
Perhaps you can exercise a little more circumspection.

Wilander has good and bad things to say. Like all of us.
He's also sometimes sensationalist and jumps on the latest media bandwagon.
He once said Federer had no cojones for example. Yeah right Mats...you're the expert.
This time its jumping on the "Dynamic Duo" of Murray and Djokovic hobbyhorse because in the absence of Nadal and Federer they've met a few more times.
We forget that Nadal (who has significant leading H2Hs over all key players) has been AWOL for a long time and Federer is still #1 player.

Personally I find their match up the least interesting out of the Top 4 because they play similarly, and have similar outward characteristics in many respects. Tennis, and its popularity, thrives off contrasting styles...converging conditions will not create the great rivalries/contrasts of the future.

But of course, I must apologise for moaning, whining and browbeating about this again.

Oh Lydian I cannot agree more with everything you say. Wilander is such a bandwagonner.. he will jump the Murray/Djokovic bandwagon until a wheel drops off. These two are not one of my favourite rivalries by far.. and once Andy clrearly has Novak´s number asd Im sure he will, like Nadal has Feds, they wont be Socal´s either.

Haddie-Nuff, you say "once Andy clearly has Novak's number as I am sure he will." Are you suggesting this will be the case? Last time I checked Novak leads 9-7, and has won 2 of their 3 grand slam meetings.

Murray is definitely catching up and full credit to him. I definitely dont see either of these players ever having the other ones number like Nadal has had over Federer, it will always be tough to call a winner between them as they have very similar strengths.

The only place I would give Murray the edge is volleying. I would consider their serves to be about equal, Djokovic definitely has the better forehand, their returns are both incredible, both backhands are excellent. I think Djokovic is the more gutsy player, he has an amazing ability to hit the lines at crucial moments.

He also has proven to adapt to all surfaces better than Murray. Lets remember that Djokovic has won Wimbledon and he has reached the final of French open where he nearly took Nadal to 5 sets. He also has reached about 4 French open semis and regularly featured in clay court masters finals, including getting the better of Nadal in two of them. He has proven to be the more consistent, reaching 53 ATP finals and winning 33.

Murray is the most improved player over the past year but I dont see him having Novak's number, they are very evenly matched in so many aspects of the game

time please wrote:The point being that this may, or may not be the greatest era ever -almost impossible to judge.

The point that, I think, JHM is making is that citing Wilander's commentary as cast iron 'proof' for one's own argument is not to have the last word - as Julius says Hewitt was lauded in his time exactly as Djokovic and Murray are at the moment. Sampras was widely referred to as the greatest ever. Commentary with Dan Maskell was considerably less hyperbolic so I don't recall Borg at Wimbledon being heralded this way or the era that saw other giants of the modern game compete alongside him referred to as a 'golden era'.

It is not just in this sport - commentary is just more 'sensational' nowadays much as the media is.

If you believe these last two years have seen some of the greatest competition socal then that is the reality for you but you can't necessarily convince others by browbeating them about it.

This is a great point; the infantisiation of commentary has become absurd, and much as I applaud the involvement of former players for their technical input, I do think it's added to that trend. Maskell had perspective; he knew that wetting himself over Johnny Macs volleys or Borgs groundies was only acceptable to a point; that Gonzales, Laver etc. were also greats who could play.

Most crucially, a real expert knows that the modern player of any era is using the equipment and conditions of the time, and that transplanting them forward or backward in time would see them play to a different standard. When I applaud Hewitt it's because I know that if he were up and coming right now, he'd be a total beast. He would relish these slower conditions, he'd compete people into the ground, he'd be fitter than he was back then because he'd know that was the game and he'd live up to it (anyone want to tell me Lleyton wouldn't put in what needs to be put in?). Hewitt would be at the top of this modern game not necessarily because what he turned in back in 2001 would put him there now, but because the man would be up to it and the conditions would be good for him.

Don't even start me with what Borg might be able to do today; there's every chance he'd be GOATing all over everyone!

It's got a lot to do with money and increased competition. Audiences are far less captive these days with more choice of 'home entertainment' that offers instant gratification - commentators no doubt want to reassure those watching that they are seeing history for fear (justified or not - I don't know) that otherwise they'll lose their audience to something else.

Ex pro's are used to needing to sell the tour vs. other attractions and don't drop the habit once in the commentary box. Nor do they have the perspective of a perceptive long-term commentator. Peter Allis, for all his faults, does it well in golf, but his likes are a dying breed.

slashermcguirk wrote:Haddie-Nuff, you say "once Andy clearly has Novak's number as I am sure he will." Are you suggesting this will be the case? Last time I checked Novak leads 9-7, and has won 2 of their 3 grand slam meetings.

Murray is definitely catching up and full credit to him. I definitely dont see either of these players ever having the other ones number like Nadal has had over Federer, it will always be tough to call a winner between them as they have very similar strengths.

The only place I would give Murray the edge is volleying. I would consider their serves to be about equal, Djokovic definitely has the better forehand, their returns are both incredible, both backhands are excellent. I think Djokovic is the more gutsy player, he has an amazing ability to hit the lines at crucial moments.

He also has proven to adapt to all surfaces better than Murray. Lets remember that Djokovic has won Wimbledon and he has reached the final of French open where he nearly took Nadal to 5 sets. He also has reached about 4 French open semis and regularly featured in clay court masters finals, including getting the better of Nadal in two of them. He has proven to be the more consistent, reaching 53 ATP finals and winning 33.

Murray is the most improved player over the past year but I dont see him having Novak's number, they are very evenly matched in so many aspects of the game

As I said he will... only two games behind now and clearly every match he plays Andy is getting better.
I do believe that Andy has gained an enormous amount of confidence this year. I am not a Murray fan but I do give credit where it is due. Im not going into the H 2 H with Nadal..And Ill reserve judgement until Nadal shows that he cannot return to the top. To all those who say, or think that he wont... dont put money on it yet

Don't even start me with what Borg might be able to do today; there's every chance he'd be GOATing all over everyone

----------------------------------

Even in his short shorts lol!!!

Haddie-nuff wrote:

slashermcguirk wrote:Haddie-Nuff, you say "once Andy clearly has Novak's number as I am sure he will." Are you suggesting this will be the case? Last time I checked Novak leads 9-7, and has won 2 of their 3 grand slam meetings.

Murray is definitely catching up and full credit to him. I definitely dont see either of these players ever having the other ones number like Nadal has had over Federer, it will always be tough to call a winner between them as they have very similar strengths.

The only place I would give Murray the edge is volleying. I would consider their serves to be about equal, Djokovic definitely has the better forehand, their returns are both incredible, both backhands are excellent. I think Djokovic is the more gutsy player, he has an amazing ability to hit the lines at crucial moments.

He also has proven to adapt to all surfaces better than Murray. Lets remember that Djokovic has won Wimbledon and he has reached the final of French open where he nearly took Nadal to 5 sets. He also has reached about 4 French open semis and regularly featured in clay court masters finals, including getting the better of Nadal in two of them. He has proven to be the more consistent, reaching 53 ATP finals and winning 33.

Murray is the most improved player over the past year but I dont see him having Novak's number, they are very evenly matched in so many aspects of the game

As I said he will... only two games behind now and clearly every match he plays Andy is getting better.
I do believe that Andy has gained an enormous amount of confidence this year. I am not a Murray fan but I do give credit where it is due. Im not going into the H 2 H with Nadal..And Ill reserve judgement until Nadal shows that he cannot return to the top. To all those who say, or think that he wont... dont put money on it yet

I won't be betting against Nadal getting up there again, certainly on clay, but I do feel that he's got to the point where even if he tries to maintain a full schedule involving big efforts in the HC tournaments we'll see more difference between his form during his peak period (April to July) and the HC-dominated parts of the calender (Jan-Mar, Aug-Nov). He's not yet maintained the same form right through all the slams in one season and I don't believe he's about to start doing that now.

Why do you think he is taking so long to come back. ?? So many times before Rafa was playing with those knees before they were fully recovered... hence he would get part the way through the season and it would start up all over again.
This time he was forced to stop.. if not it was surgery..which he and his doctor wished to avoid. During his treatment Rafa had to have all four wisdom teeth removed.. the medication for this halted the recover of the problem with Hoffer Syndrome... and set him back for a few weeks. He is abolutely determined that when he returns it will be that he feels no pain. If, as I am sure we all hope, that his knee is fully recovered he should have no problems. He knows he cannot choose the surface he plays if he wants to return to his place in the rankings which I believe is his goal. Should that not happen and Rafa cannot give of his best tennis I truly believe he will quit all together (which he obviously is trying to avoid)
He said in his interview on CNN that he does not want the subject of his knees to be the constant subject of conversation with him for the rest of his career.

Djokovic and Murray do seem to be the top 2 on hard court on recent form, but whether that's permanent is less clear, and it's certainly not by a clear margin over the other 2 like Socal and Wilander seem to be implying. (PS One expert agreeing with you does not make you right, what if two experts disagree with you? You are a bit selective)

It's not that long ago that Federer bagelled Djokovic on a hard court, and Federer also still goes into the indoor hard season as the top player on indoor hard based on both last year's results and form over the last few years.

As for Murray, I don't believe he ever in his life played a single match on any surface as impressive as Rafa's performance in the AO09 final (not in the latter stages of a slam anyway) which is probably the best performance I've ever seen by anyone on a hard court. Yes, he does look set to overtake Rafa on hard, but so far he hasn't proved that, not in head to head anyway.

By the way, why do people never learn about writing off Rafa?
2005: Yes, he's won the French Open, but will never do well outside clay.
---> Rafa's response: Wins Wimbledon and reaches 3 Wimbledon finals.
2008: Yes, but he will never win on a hard court.
---> Rafa's response: Wins Australian Open.
2009: Yes, but that was a slow hard, he will never win on a fast hard court like the US Open.
---> Rafa's response: Wins US Open.
2009: Rafa is injured, he has dodgy knees, he is finished.
--- > Rafa's response: Returns to no 1 in 2010 with 3 slams and a clean up of the clay season.
2011: Rafa has lost 6-7 matches in a row against Djokovic. He will never beat him again even on clay.
--- > Rafa's response: Three consecutive wins aganst Djokovic in 2012 including a slam final.
2012: Rafa is injured. He is finished. He will never get back to the top again.
--- > Rafa's response: ? Watch this space ?

How can we be so sure he'll never get back to the top again. Not based on the history!

This is part of the transcript from Rafa´s blog and the interview with CN


:

“My big goal is to be in Australia, but I do not know when I will be able to return” "My big goal is to be in Australia, but I do not know when i will be Able to return"

Sidelined since June due to an injury, “Rafa” Nadal gave an exclusive interview in which he announced how he plans his return, his dream of winning in Rio 2016, the Messi-Cristiano debate and the possibility of being #1 again in 2013, Sidelined since June due to an injury, "Rafa" Nadal Gave In Which an exclusive interview how I've Announced plans his return, his dream of winning in Rio 2016, the Messi-Cristiano discussion and the Possibility of being # 1 again in 2013,

June 29, 2012 has become the last day that Rafael Nadal stepped on a professional tennis court and, until today, he has not been able to return: it was in the second round at Wimbledon, losing to Lukas Rosol, number 100 in the world, when his knee said enough. June 29, 2012 the last day've Become That Rafael Nadal stepped on a professional tennis court and, Until today, I have not been Able to return: it was in the second round at Wimbledon, losing to Lukas Rosol, number 100 in the world , When Enough said his knee. Now he's going through the days of recovery in search of his big goal: playing the Australia Open, which begins next January. Now he's going through the days of recovery in search of his big goal: playing the Australia Open, Which begins next January.

In an exclusive interview with CNN in Spanish, the world number 4 talked about his misfortunes due to injuries, the excitement to return, life without tennis, choosing between Messi and Cristiano and his main goal as a tennis player: giving his all to get to the Olympic appointment in Rio 2016. In an exclusive interview with CNN in Spanish, the world number 4 Talked About misfortunes due to his injuries, the excitement to return, life without tennis, Messi and Cristiano Between choosing and his main goal as a tennis player: giving his all to get to in the Rio 2016 Olympic appointment.

o The injury The injury or

“I did not get injured in the last match: I already had problems and we were putting patches on the knee. "I did not get injured in the last match: I already had problems and we were putting patches on the knee. Since I retired in the SF of Miami I have not been well. Since I retired in the SF of Miami I have not been well. I've been able to play with better or worse days, at Roland Garros I had a hard time, so did in Wimbledon, where I played infiltrated and that was a mistake. I've been Able to play with better or worse days, at Roland Garros I had a hard time, so did in Wimbledon, where I played infiltrated and That was a mistake. Then the pre-Olympics time came, I tried, I was not feeling well and that's what happened, I was putting patches until the knee said enough.” Then the pre-Olympics time came, I tried, I was not feeling well and that's what happened, I was putting Until the knee patches said enough. "

o Retirement Rumors or Retirement Rumors

“I never thought I would retire because of this injury. "I never thought I would retire Because of this injury. It is complicated when time goes by and it still bothers you and there is uncertainty about when you will heal, but that is one thing and a very different one is to think of retirement. It is complicated When time goes by and it still bothers you and there is uncertainty About When You will heal, but That is one thing and a very different one is to think of retirement. At no time doctors have told me anything close to that.” At no time doctors have told me anything close to that. "

o The return The return or

“I'll be back when I feel OK and fully recovered.” "I'll be back when I feel OK and fully recovered."

“It's very difficult to stop when you are in competition because you're in pain but you put temporary remedies and do everything possible to play the next day, but when you stop like I did, you think of being back when you feel the knee is really perfect”. "It's Very difficult to stop When You are in competition because you're in pain but you put temporary remedies and do everything possible to play the next day, but when to stop you like I did, you think of being back when you feel the knee is really perfect. "

“I should start gradually, with a lower intensity than that required by a Masters or a Davis Cup. We have to see how everything evolves, and otherwise we will wait what is necessary.” "Should I start Gradually, with a lower intensity than required by a Masters That Davis Cup or We have to see how everything evolves, and otherwise we will wait what is Necessary."

“The desire to return is huge but when one does not feel prepared, the desire is not the same. "The desire to return is huge but one does not feel When prepared, the desire is not the same. Right now I have no desire because I know the knee will hurt.” Right now I have no desire Because I know the knee will hurt. "

“Hopefully we will get over this soon. "Hopefully we will get over this soon. This is an attitude in life, we can not complain every day for everything that happens to us. This is an attitude in life, we can not complain every day for everything that happens to us. The world is not perfect and we can not expect it to be so because otherwise you're obviously going to be bitter probably many times in your life, since perfection is hardly achieved in anything. The world is not perfect and we can not expect it to be so you're obviously going Because Otherwise bitter probably to be many times in your life, since perfection is hardly Achieved in anything. I have to deal with the situation right now, which is not good for me, but is not bad either. I Have to Deal with the situation right now, Which is not good for me, but is not bad either. You have to look at it in the most positive way possible. You have to look at it in the MOST positive way possible. This break has been mentally tough for me because it was at a sweet moment in my career, with options to finish the year as world number one, but these things have to be accepted: every cloud has a silver lining, and who knows if this does not help me have a longer career, that is the goal. This break has been mentally tough for me because it was at a sweet moment in my career, with options to finish the year as world number one, but These things have to be accepted: every cloud has a silver lining, and who knows If This does not help me have a longer career, That is the goal. ” '

o Days of treatment or Days of treatment

“In the first nine weeks I could see no improvement and that's what is really complicated. "In the first nine weeks I could see no improvement and that's what is really complicated. During the past few weeks it has been when the news have been really better. During the past few weeks it has been When the news Have Been really better. Slowly the tendon is regenerating, but it still bothers me. Slowly the tendon is regenerating, but it still bothers me. I've lost muscle tone, I have to recover it, but the priority is to remove the pain and then get ready to compete and withstand competition. I've lost muscle tone, I have to recover it, but the priority is to remove the pain and then get ready to Compete and withstand competition. ” '

“I have had difficult times: for wanting to advance, I have receded a little.” "I have had Difficult times: for wanting to advance, I have receded a little."

“I was disappointed not to be in the tournaments I wanted, so I prefer to go day by day.” "I was disappointed not to be in the tournaments I wanted, so I prefer to go day by day."

“I feel better every week, but it still bothers me. "I feel better every week, but it still bothers me. I'm following a very specific work day by day and we are in the stage closest to the recovery.” I'm Following a very specific work day by day and we are in the stage closest to the recovery. "

o The Davis Cup final (16 to 18 November) or The Davis Cup final (16 to 18 November)

“I see difficult to be able to play it. "I see Difficult to Be Able to play it. I have been three or four months without training on court. I have been three or four months without training on court. I wanted to return for the London Games and the US Open, but the results were not as positive as we expected.” I wanted to return for the London Games and the U.S. Open, but the results Were not as positive as we expected. "

“I would be thrilled to be able to be [in DC], but first we have to see if I can get ready tennis and physically wise and if I were ready, it would be necessary to see if I'm the right choice because there is a very well prepared team for a very difficult competition, but that's a decision that I would not take, but the captain would.” "I would be thrilled to be able to be [in DC], but first we have to see if I can get ready tennis and Physically wise and if I were ready, It Would Be Necessary to see if I'm the right choice Because there is a very well prepared team for a Very difficult competition, but that's a decision I would not take That, but the captain would. "

o Australia and the great goal of his career or Australia and the great goal of his career

“My desire is to be in the Australian Open and be competitive.” "My desire is to be in the Australian Open and be competitive."

“Brazil 2016 is not a deadline, but a great goal. "Brazil is not a 2016 deadline, but a great goal. I was disappointed not to be in London, I hope that was not my last chance. I was disappointed not to be in London, I Hope That was not my last chance. I'll work hard to get to Rio in a position to compete.” I'll work hard to get to Rio in a position to compete. "

o The top of the ranking o The top of the ranking

“It is not impossible to go back to number one. "It is not impossible to go back to number one. What is likely is that maybe I'll become number 6, 7 or 8, depending on how I start the year because I have been for a long time without competing, therefore during the second six months of the season my points are zero, which means that I will have accumulated the amount of points that currently allow me to be number 4 during the five or six first months of the season, that's where I can lose points. What is likely Is that maybe I'll Become number 6, 7 or 8, Depending on how I start the year Because I have been for a long time without Competing, Therefore During the second six months of the season my points are zero, Which I Will Have That means the amount of points accumulated That currently allow me to be number four five or six During the first months of the season, that's where I can lose points. During the second half of the year I can only add: I can be number one, the fact that I have added no point in the last six months has no impact for me being able to finish as number one next year. During the second half of the year I can only add: I can be number one, the fact That I have added no point in the last six months has no impact for me being Able to finish as number one next year. Where it does affect is that it is impossible for me to be number one in the first six months, but being number one at the end of the year is possible. Where does it Affect Is that it is impossible for me to be number one in the first six months, but being number one at the end of the year is possible. ” '

o Do you change your schedule to take care of your body? Do you change or your schedule to take care of your body?

“Some things are pure logic: the most complicated courts to my knees, my feet, for all the joints are the hard courts. "Some things are Pure logic: the most complicated courts to my knees, my feet, for all the joints are the hard courts. When I recover we will have to choose the schedule and priorities. When I recover we will Have to choose the schedule and priorities. It's very complicated, if one wants to be in the first ranking positions, to stop playing on hard courts because 6 out of the 9 Masters 1000 are on cement, 2 out of the 4 Grand Slam are on cement… We will see, for me the priority is to have a long career: if it means having to go a little further down in the rankings but your career is longer… Although I'm not announcing anything, it may be an option. It's very complicated, if one wants to be in the first ranking positions, to stop playing on hard courts Because 6 out of the 9 Masters 1000 are on cement, two out of the four Grand Slam are on cement ... We will see, for me the priority is to have a long career: if it means having to go a little further down in the rankings but your career is longer ... Although I'm not announcing anything, it may be an option. ” '

o Will he change his aggressive style of play to avoid further injury? or Will he change his aggressive style of play to avoid injury Further?

“I'm not good enough to change my style. "I'm not good enough to change my style. Those who follow me know that my style is very different today from when I started, but that is not because I have adapted my game due to my injuries, but it is the evolution of someone who is working every day to be better and more complete on every surface. Those who follow me know That my style is very different today from when i started, but That is not Because I have adapted my game due to my injuries, but it is the evolution of someone who is working every day to be better and more complete on every surface. ” '

“If I play differently, it will be another Rafa Nadal in the results. "If I play Differently, it will be another Rafa Nadal in the results. You are the way you are and play the way you can, with your style. You are the way you are and play the way you can, with your style. Changing my style of play is impossible, what I know how to do is what I do every day in a tennis court” . Changing my style of play is impossible, what I know how to do is what I do every day in a tennis court. "

o Life without tennis or Life without tennis

“To lead a normal life I have no pain and that's important because life has more important things than tennis. "To lead a normal life I have no pain and that's important Because you have more important things life than tennis. I am enjoying things I could not before, but my mind is focused in returning.” I am enjoying things I could not before, but my mind is focused in returning. "

“The only concern for me would be if I had no desire to return, but that is not my case. "The only concern for me would be if I had no desire to return, but That is not my case. I think I have the motivation and desire, mine and of my tream, to get out of this situation. I think I have the motivation and desire, mine and of my tream, to get out of this situation. To get back to where I was before this break and where I hope to be in a few months. To get back to where I was Before This break and where I hope to be in a few months.

Sorry that it has repeated itself in transferrence but I hope you get the gist.

That is freaking me out, I suggest it's worth the 3-4 minutes required to edit out the duplication. Sure people would appreciate it!

Ill do so HB... but you could try asking couldnt you ... I could have posted it in Spanish of course perhaps that would have helped

“My big goal is to be in Australia, but I do not know when I will be able to return”

Sidelined since June due to an injury, “Rafa” Nadal gave an exclusive interview in which he announced how he plans his return, his dream of winning in Rio 2016, the Messi-Cristiano debate and the possibility of being #1 again in 2013,

June 29, 2012 has become the last day that Rafael Nadal stepped on a professional tennis court and, until today, he has not been able to return: it was in the second round at Wimbledon, losing to Lukas Rosol, number 100 in the world, when his knee said enough. Now he’s going through the days of recovery in search of his big goal: playing the Australia Open, which begins next January.

In an exclusive interview with CNN in Spanish, the world number 4 talked about his misfortunes due to injuries, the excitement to return, life without tennis, choosing between Messi and Cristiano and his main goal as a tennis player: giving his all to get to the Olympic appointment in Rio 2016.

o The injury

“I did not get injured in the last match: I already had problems and we were putting patches on the knee. Since I retired in the SF of Miami I have not been well. I’ve been able to play with better or worse days, at Roland Garros I had a hard time, so did in Wimbledon, where I played infiltrated and that was a mistake. Then the pre-Olympics time came, I tried, I was not feeling well and that’s what happened, I was putting patches until the knee said enough.”

o Retirement Rumors

“I never thought I would retire because of this injury. It is complicated when time goes by and it still bothers you and there is uncertainty about when you will heal, but that is one thing and a very different one is to think of retirement. At no time doctors have told me anything close to that.”

o The return

“I’ll be back when I feel OK and fully recovered.”

“It’s very difficult to stop when you are in competition because you’re in pain but you put temporary remedies and do everything possible to play the next day, but when you stop like I did, you think of being back when you feel the knee is really perfect”.

“I should start gradually, with a lower intensity than that required by a Masters or a Davis Cup. We have to see how everything evolves, and otherwise we will wait what is necessary.”

“The desire to return is huge but when one does not feel prepared, the desire is not the same. Right now I have no desire because I know the knee will hurt.”

“Hopefully we will get over this soon. This is an attitude in life, we can not complain every day for everything that happens to us. The world is not perfect and we can not expect it to be so because otherwise you’re obviously going to be bitter probably many times in your life, since perfection is hardly achieved in anything. I have to deal with the situation right now, which is not good for me, but is not bad either. You have to look at it in the most positive way possible. This break has been mentally tough for me because it was at a sweet moment in my career, with options to finish the year as world number one, but these things have to be accepted: every cloud has a silver lining, and who knows if this does not help me have a longer career, that is the goal. ”

o Days of treatment

“In the first nine weeks I could see no improvement and that’s what is really complicated. During the past few weeks it has been when the news have been really better. Slowly the tendon is regenerating, but it still bothers me. I’ve lost muscle tone, I have to recover it, but the priority is to remove the pain and then get ready to compete and withstand competition. ”

“I have had difficult times: for wanting to advance, I have receded a little.”

“I was disappointed not to be in the tournaments I wanted, so I prefer to go day by day.”

“I feel better every week, but it still bothers me. I’m following a very specific work day by day and we are in the stage closest to the recovery.”

o The Davis Cup final (16 to 18 November)

“I see difficult to be able to play it. I have been three or four months without training on court. I wanted to return for the London Games and the U.S. Open, but the results were not as positive as we expected.”

“I would be thrilled to be able to be [in DC], but first we have to see if I can get ready tennis and physically wise and if I were ready, it would be necessary to see if I’m the right choice because there is a very well prepared team for a very difficult competition, but that’s a decision that I would not take, but the captain would.”

o Australia and the great goal of his career

“My desire is to be in the Australian Open and be competitive.”

“Brazil 2016 is not a deadline, but a great goal. I was disappointed not to be in London, I hope that was not my last chance. I’ll work hard to get to Rio in a position to compete.”

o The top of the ranking

“It is not impossible to go back to number one. What is likely is that maybe I’ll become number 6, 7 or 8, depending on how I start the year because I have been for a long time without competing, therefore during the second six months of the season my points are zero, which means that I will have accumulated the amount of points that currently allow me to be number 4 during the five or six first months of the season, that’s where I can lose points. During the second half of the year I can only add: I can be number one, the fact that I have added no point in the last six months has no impact for me being able to finish as number one next year. Where it does affect is that it is impossible for me to be number one in the first six months, but being number one at the end of the year is possible. ”

o Do you change your schedule to take care of your body?

“Some things are pure logic: the most complicated courts to my knees, my feet, for all the joints are the hard courts. When I recover we will have to choose the schedule and priorities. It’s very complicated, if one wants to be in the first ranking positions, to stop playing on hard courts because 6 out of the 9 Masters 1000 are on cement, 2 out of the 4 Grand Slam are on cement… We will see, for me the priority is to have a long career: if it means having to go a little further down in the rankings but your career is longer… Although I’m not announcing anything, it may be an option. ”

o Will he change his aggressive style of play to avoid further injury?

“I’m not good enough to change my style. Those who follow me know that my style is very different today from when I started, but that is not because I have adapted my game due to my injuries, but it is the evolution of someone who is working every day to be better and more complete on every surface. ”

“If I play differently, it will be another Rafa Nadal in the results. You are the way you are and play the way you can, with your style. Changing my style of play is impossible, what I know how to do is what I do every day in a tennis court” .

o Life without tennis

“To lead a normal life I have no pain and that’s important because life has more important things than tennis. I am enjoying things I could not before, but my mind is focused in returning.”

“The only concern for me would be if I had no desire to return, but that is not my case. I think I have the motivation and desire, mine and of my tream, to get out of this situation. To get back to where I was before this break and where I hope to be in a few months. ”

--------------------

Best I can do

Haddie-nuff wrote:Why do you think he is taking so long to come back. ?? So many times before Rafa was playing with those knees before they were fully recovered... hence he would get part the way through the season and it would start up all over again.
This time he was forced to stop.. if not it was surgery..which he and his doctor wished to avoid. During his treatment Rafa had to have all four wisdom teeth removed.. the medication for this halted the recover of the problem with Hoffer Syndrome... and set him back for a few weeks. He is abolutely determined that when he returns it will be that he feels no pain. If, as I am sure we all hope, that his knee is fully recovered he should have no problems. He knows he cannot choose the surface he plays if he wants to return to his place in the rankings which I believe is his goal. Should that not happen and Rafa cannot give of his best tennis I truly believe he will quit all together (which he obviously is trying to avoid)
He said in his interview on CNN that he does not want the subject of his knees to be the constant subject of conversation with him for the rest of his career.

I get all that (and I've read the transcript), but the reality is that he is unable to find a way to stop tennis being harmful to his knees. He has to wear shoes which compensate for a problem with his feet and increase the onus on his knes. For him playing tennis is an explicit payoff - however good he gets the knees during this off period, when he starts playing again he'll start harming the knees again. No doubt his greater understanding of the problem and his longer rest means that he has a better starting point than on previous returns to the game and he can receive more treatment and do more work between matches to ameliorate the harmful effect of tennis on his knees than in the past. However, I don't get from the interview that anything radical is going to be changed in how he plays and therefore what tennis does to his knees when he's playing. That is especially if, as he says, he can't change the way he plays and he's going to give it all on HC as before.

He's proved doubters wrong in the past. And whilst I expect him to be back close to the top of the game, I'd be truly astonished if by more sophisticated management of what is an unchanged underlying problem he achieves what he's never achieved before, namely a season in which he brings his top form to all 4 Slams.

I wouldn´t argue with the greater part of what you say. Rafa was nearly sidelined completely in 2005 with the congenital foot problem he suffers with and a severe stress fracture...he thought his career was over and so I honestly believe that what he has achieved in his career thus far has been a bonus. He loves what he does and has always said that he has felt priviledged that his profession is also the love of his life. I think we have all been aware of the fact that over the last couple of years Rafa has "modified" his game but he will never be able to change it completely. As we know and as Agassi said "His game writes checks that his body cannot cash" I never believe that Rafa would go on much beyond 28yrs old and I still fear that he wont.
But I do know having read his book that Rafa will continue only whilst he can play the best he can possibly be. I do not think he will settle for half measures..I dont think he has that sort of mindset. He plays ever match like its his last and sadly for him and indeed me one day it will be.

I think Henman Bill is right, Nadal will be back. There is just something about that guy, he is so resilient and his determination to succeed is second to none. Can you imagine how tough it is for a guy like him to sit back and watch all these great matches and not being able to be a part of it.

I can assure you that once he recovers, the hunger this guy will have to prove to everybody he is still a top player will drive him on. I just hope that his injury heals to allow him to do so. Whether you are a fan of Nadal or not, the game suffers without him. I think he will dig deep and come back fighting and I look forward to it.

Yes this isnt like a normal injury.
The problem isnt with his knees per se, its his feet that causes the problem.
Clearly he needs more recovery time between events so they'll have to space out his calendar better to allow inflammation build up to damp down.

If he can implement a much better calendar then there is no reason why he cant play on for 3-4 more seasons...he's proved himself anyway, he doesnt need to flog his body anymore. Just focus on slams, key Masters, DC...etc. He doesnt need small HC events, or even smaller clay events. He needs time inbetween events!

Yes I agree he'll come back with a point a prove..i.e. that he's still relevant and of course "a champion". But it will take a fair amount of time to become match sharp again after such a long time out, to just get used to the speed of the game again...practicing is nothing like playing matches!

I also think Rafa will be back and challenging to win slams in 2013. He has battled back before and so leads me to believe he can do it again.

lydian wrote:Yes this isnt like a normal injury.
The problem isnt with his knees per se, its his feet that causes the problem.
Clearly he needs more recovery time between events so they'll have to space out his calendar better to allow inflammation build up to damp down.

If he can implement a much better calendar then there is no reason why he cant play on for 3-4 more seasons...he's proved himself anyway, he doesnt need to flog his body anymore. Just focus on slams, key Masters, DC...etc. He doesnt need small HC events, or even smaller clay events. He needs time inbetween events!

Yes I agree he'll come back with a point a prove..i.e. that he's still relevant and of course "a champion". But it will take a fair amount of time to become match sharp again after such a long time out, to just get used to the speed of the game again...practicing is nothing like playing matches!

Chronic conditions like Nadal's are always difficult, and yes there will always be issues with him compensating for the problem with his feet. I wonder if he's actually spending a bit more time with his shoe manufacturers, biomechanics experts and foot specialist to see if they can find a better solution to the issues (otherwise there's always amputation and being the Oscar Pistorius of tennis...)

Agree that a bit of judicious scheduling has to be the way forward - I assume the ATP allows someone with a condition like this to skip a few tournaments without penalty. It will make returning to #1 more difficult, but I'm not sure that's a huge motivator for Rafa - I think he's more motivated by winning big titles than with the ranking (as long as he is playing enough to maintain a position in the top 4, it's not a big issue).

Pretty sure we'll see him back and competing at something very close to his best by the clay season.

lydian wrote:

socal1976 wrote: You don't seem to think all the people moaning about S and V nostalgia and slow conditions as attempting to browbeat people with their ideas. You don't seem to be so offended by their constant stream of negativity and whinning. Or their radical ideas of changing the game they advocate that isn't browbeating.

Well that must be referring to me - so I guess posters like me are just "moaners", "whiners" and "negative" hey socal?
Your "siege mentality" at times knows no bounds.
You often appear quick to jump down people's throats if they dont agree with you.
Perhaps you can exercise a little more circumspection.

Wilander has good and bad things to say. Like all of us.
He's also sometimes sensationalist and jumps on the latest media bandwagon.
He once said Federer had no cojones for example. Yeah right Mats...you're the expert.
This time its jumping on the "Dynamic Duo" of Murray and Djokovic hobbyhorse because in the absence of Nadal and Federer they've met a few more times.
We forget that Nadal (who has significant leading H2Hs over all key players) has been AWOL for a long time and Federer is still #1 player.

Personally I find their match up the least interesting out of the Top 4 because they play similarly, and have similar outward characteristics in many respects. Tennis, and its popularity, thrives off contrasting styles...converging conditions will not create the great rivalries/contrasts of the future.

But of course, I must apologise for moaning, whining and browbeating about this again.

Lydian, I got a little upset about the browbeating comment, if you do see the follow up to Timeplease I apologized and retracted that comment. So I extend that on the whining and moaning comment. Again what you proposes just gives the big server and attack player and advantage at on all surfaces, it does not make the clay play slower and the grass play faster. The things you propose would just favor the attacker on every surface. Basically across the board federization of conditions on grass, hardcourt, and clay.

Henman Bill wrote:Djokovic and Murray do seem to be the top 2 on hard court on recent form, but whether that's permanent is less clear, and it's certainly not by a clear margin over the other 2 like Socal and Wilander seem to be implying. (PS One expert agreeing with you does not make you right, what if two experts disagree with you? You are a bit selective)

It's not that long ago that Federer bagelled Djokovic on a hard court, and Federer also still goes into the indoor hard season as the top player on indoor hard based on both last year's results and form over the last few years.

As for Murray, I don't believe he ever in his life played a single match on any surface as impressive as Rafa's performance in the AO09 final (not in the latter stages of a slam anyway) which is probably the best performance I've ever seen by anyone on a hard court. Yes, he does look set to overtake Rafa on hard, but so far he hasn't proved that, not in head to head anyway.

By the way, why do people never learn about writing off Rafa?
2005: Yes, he's won the French Open, but will never do well outside clay.
---> Rafa's response: Wins Wimbledon and reaches 3 Wimbledon finals.


2008: Yes, but he will never win on a hard court.
---> Rafa's response: Wins Australian Open.
2009: Yes, but that was a slow hard, he will never win on a fast hard court like the US Open.
---> Rafa's response: Wins US Open.
2009: Rafa is injured, he has dodgy knees, he is finished.
--- > Rafa's response: Returns to no 1 in 2010 with 3 slams and a clean up of the clay season.
2011: Rafa has lost 6-7 matches in a row against Djokovic. He will never beat him again even on clay.
--- > Rafa's response: Three consecutive wins aganst Djokovic in 2012 including a slam final.
2012: Rafa is injured. He is finished. He will never get back to the top again.
--- > Rafa's response: ? Watch this space ?

How can we be so sure he'll never get back to the top again. Not based on the history!

Henman Bill it is hard to rate Nadal that highly on hardcourt I mean are we basing this on his performance at the AO in 09. I may be wrong I am going off memory here but the man hasn't won a hardcourt title since e USO 2010. How can you rate a player better on hardcourt over the current USO champion who has not won a title on the surface in 2 years? No one is counting him, I think when he does comeback he will be in the fight for #1. However I am less than enthusiastic.