Full Spectrum domination of the alleged GOAT

by socal1976 Fri 24 Jan 2014, 7:55 pm

First topic message reminder :

What we witnessed today as a one handed Nadal dismantled Federer is that Rafa was winning basically every pattern of play. His passing shots are better than Roger's volleys. FH to FH Nadal had the edge, BH to BH big edge for Nadal, fed FH to Rafa BH surprisingly the edge goes to Rafa. And of course Nadal FH to fed backhand was so lopsided as possible. Rafa serve overwhelms Fed's return while Rafa can break federer. In short we are seeing the most lopsided rivalry between two all time greats that I can remember. The final will be coronation and how fitting that Pete and Laver each first tier GOAT candidates could watch this dismantling of one Goathood in favor of the true Goat. Can we stop calling this matchup a rivalry it has not been one for 5 years now. This was like watching the Marines invade Grenada it was over before it began and by the afternoon the boys had busted out the beach towels and sun tan lotion.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 25 Jan 2014, 9:36 pm

But then if Fed's early coach hadn't died and he hadn't had a dodgy back from his early days and got mono for a short period, he might have done better himself.
Rafa's injuries have given him time off for mental recuperation from the grind of the tour than many other players complain about not getting, so that might have actually helped the successes on his return.
Would JMDP have knocked Rafa's total down by 1 or 2 if he hadn't been out for a year?
Or could Murray have won the USO last year if not for his bad back?

So it's completely unknown how things would have worked out. I don't think use of the terms 'probable' or 'would have' is justified. That's the only thing I take issue with.

by **laverfan** Sat 25 Jan 2014, 9:44 pm

lydian wrote:How many more times....Nadal's injuries have nothing to do with his playing style! His congenital foot bone deformity means he's had to wear orthotics since 2005 to take strain off that part of his foot. That results in his leg misaligning due to the creation of artificial supernation which puts strain on his knees. As does playing sport for anyone with super- or pro-nation. But for that bone deformity he'd likely have had a remarkably injury free career with a probable uplift in his achievements to date, partic. Slam wins and time at the top. But that's life, he's not done too shabbily though.

You are also asking what-if question. SoCal is also going down a What-if path. To what GOAL, the GOAT debate? Surgery was suggested, but declined, correct?

Yes, he has done very well. Could he have done better? Pure conjecture, and subjective extrapolation which has no basis in current reality. What if Nadal did not have a congenital foot issue, and chose to play Football, then what?

I see this as an argument of convenience to achieve a goal, whatever it may be.

For KR, if Kuerten at #66 can win RG, why cannot Baggy or Gonzalez get to slam finals, like Wawrinka, Berdych, Ferrer, et al.

As TRuffin has shown, selective facts can be used to prove any theory.

by bogbrush Sat 25 Jan 2014, 9:46 pm

kingraf wrote:Julius - yeah I was replying to Murdoch's post.

BB - If Raonic went through the big four in one year as a nineteen year old, I think questions about the quality of the big four would have merit...

Do you get the point though?

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 25 Jan 2014, 9:48 pm

There was guy in the States I read about (I really wish I could remember his name) - he was a junior along with Sampras and Agassi and used to beat them both without breaking sweat. He was tipped as the guy who would dominate the sport for the US and become a legend.
Before he could turn pro a back injury ended his career. But what if.....?

by socal1976 Sat 25 Jan 2014, 9:55 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:There was guy in the States I read about (I really wish I could remember his name) - he was a junior along with Sampras and Agassi and used to beat them both without breaking sweat. He was tipped as the guy who would dominate the sport for the US and become a legend.
Before he could turn pro a back injury ended his career. But what if.....?

Did he go on to win 14 slams, there are what if's and then there are sure things. If Nadal had better luck in injuries he probably would have done what he always has done and been a dominant force on the ATP. With Nadal the guy has an established track record on tour of absolute dominance we are not talking about some junior who could have been. We are saying a guy with 14 slams might have had 16 or 17 slams and his dominance of fed would have probably impacted fed's 17 count as well. Hardly a very big leap of faith and nothing like comparing a junior player to a guy with an established track record of dominance and excellence at the slam level.

by bogbrush Sat 25 Jan 2014, 9:56 pm

This whining about Nadals injuries is pathetic. Federer has carried a back problem his whole career, and it's spoilt swathes of his time just as emphatically as if he'd dramatically withdrawn. This 'no injuries' myth is weak thinking, picked up from superficial commentary. On top of that he had GF which messed him up for a good while.

So what? In my book that's how it falls. JMDP was poised to go to the top but got injured, and he's never come back. Had he never fallen might Fedal now have fewer Slams?

If they played faster, slider surfaces Nadal would be nowhere. If everything played like clay he'd be higher. If Connors hadn't run off a two Slam programme for years, if if if if.......

by **laverfan** Sat 25 Jan 2014, 10:00 pm

Perhaps Nadal's motivation is higher because he can play only 5 months of a season, what if he played 12 months, had no injuries and hence no motivation? What if he would metamorph into another Davy? chin

The What-If arguments are just that.

by socal1976 Sat 25 Jan 2014, 10:02 pm

bogbrush wrote:This whining about Nadals injuries is pathetic. Federer has carried a back problem his whole career, and it's spoilt swathes of his time just as emphatically as if he'd dramatically withdrawn. This 'no injuries' myth is weak thinking, picked up from superficial commentary. On top of that he had GF which messed him up for a good while.

So what? In my book that's how it falls. JMDP was poised to go to the top but got injured, and he's never come back. Had he never fallen might Fedal now have fewer Slams?

If they played faster, slider surfaces Nadal would be nowhere. If everything played like clay he'd be higher. If Connors hadn't run off a two Slam programme for years, if if if if.......

But we actually don't have to rely on what ifs because the guy has won 13 going on 14 slams. And Fed has had a bad back, but it has not resulted in him missing nearly as much time or as many big tournaments as Nadal's injuries that is clear and it is a fact. As I said most of Fed's statistical advantages come down to durability, that I suppose for some is part of the equation. But for me it does not really figure very heavily in assessing who is he better player.

by **laverfan** Sat 25 Jan 2014, 10:03 pm

socal1976 wrote: Hardly a very big leap of faith and nothing like comparing a junior player to a guy with an established track record of dominance and excellence at the slam level.

For the faithful, no leap is ever great. Wink

What if Wawrinka won AO tonight/tomorrow, and Nadal did not get #14 and did a Borg? laughing

by socal1976 Sat 25 Jan 2014, 10:05 pm

laverfan wrote:
socal1976 wrote: Hardly a very big leap of faith and nothing like comparing a junior player to a guy with an established track record of dominance and excellence at the slam level.

For the faithful, no leap is ever great.

What if Wawrinka won AO tonight/tomorrow, and Nadal did not get #14 and did a Borg?

Yes what if he was struck by lightening or a black hole opened up swallowing our entire solar system. Nothing in life is 100 percent laverfan.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 25 Jan 2014, 10:15 pm

socal1976 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:There was guy in the States I read about (I really wish I could remember his name) - he was a junior along with Sampras and Agassi and used to beat them both without breaking sweat. He was tipped as the guy who would dominate the sport for the US and become a legend.
Before he could turn pro a back injury ended his career. But what if.....?

Did he go on to win 14 slams, there are what if's and then there are sure things. If Nadal had better luck in injuries he probably would have done what he always has done and been a dominant force on the ATP. With Nadal the guy has an established track record on tour of absolute dominance we are not talking about some junior who could have been. We are saying a guy with 14 slams might have had 16 or 17 slams and his dominance of fed would have probably impacted fed's 17 count as well. Hardly a very big leap of faith and nothing like comparing a junior player to a guy with an established track record of dominance and excellence at the slam level.

There are no sure things with 'what ifs' - that's where your entire argument falls to pieces. 'Probably would have' - nonsense. There are too many variables and unknowns to justify saying that. It's lazy and convenient, but nothing more than that.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 25 Jan 2014, 10:17 pm

socal1976 wrote:
laverfan wrote:
socal1976 wrote: Hardly a very big leap of faith and nothing like comparing a junior player to a guy with an established track record of dominance and excellence at the slam level.

For the faithful, no leap is ever great.

What if Wawrinka won AO tonight/tomorrow, and Nadal did not get #14 and did a Borg?

Yes what if he was struck by lightening or a black hole opened up swallowing our entire solar system. Nothing in life is 100 percent laverfan.

Except for the sure things, presumably?

by socal1976 Sat 25 Jan 2014, 10:35 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:There was guy in the States I read about (I really wish I could remember his name) - he was a junior along with Sampras and Agassi and used to beat them both without breaking sweat. He was tipped as the guy who would dominate the sport for the US and become a legend.
Before he could turn pro a back injury ended his career. But what if.....?

Did he go on to win 14 slams, there are what if's and then there are sure things. If Nadal had better luck in injuries he probably would have done what he always has done and been a dominant force on the ATP. With Nadal the guy has an established track record on tour of absolute dominance we are not talking about some junior who could have been. We are saying a guy with 14 slams might have had 16 or 17 slams and his dominance of fed would have probably impacted fed's 17 count as well. Hardly a very big leap of faith and nothing like comparing a junior player to a guy with an established track record of dominance and excellence at the slam level.

There are no sure things with 'what ifs' - that's where your entire argument falls to pieces. 'Probably would have' - nonsense. There are too many variables and unknowns to justify saying that. It's lazy and convenient, but nothing more than that.

Yes people make assumptions in every type of analysis. For example people don't rate Emerson as highly as his 13 slams would warrant because of the pro-am split and the fact that most of the best players were not playing in the slams. Raw numbers minus context and history and facts don't tell you very much. Nadal has 14 slams while having missed two years or more to injuries during his best years it is not an illogical conclusion to assume that if he had a couple of less injuries he would have improved on these numbers. Especially since every time he has comeback he has dominated and that he was the dominant over Federer at the time as well who was his top competition. In short there is every logical and rational basis to make this assumption. It simply is not a very large assumption frankly it is in fact illogical to assume that he wouldn't have won more or impacted fed's slams if he had the luck of injuries that fed or even Djoko has had.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 25 Jan 2014, 10:41 pm

It is a large assumption, because, as I have said, there are too many variables and unknowns to justify it. Thus to make that assumption is illogical and lazy.
I don't expect anyone to be diligent enough to consider all the variables and unknowns, so it's not lazy to not do that, but it is lazy to make the assumption without doing it.

It's no different from down-grading any given slam based simply on the average career performance of an opponent in the final. Lazy and convenient.

by bogbrush Sat 25 Jan 2014, 10:46 pm

socal1976 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:This whining about Nadals injuries is pathetic. Federer has carried a back problem his whole career, and it's spoilt swathes of his time just as emphatically as if he'd dramatically withdrawn. This 'no injuries' myth is weak thinking, picked up from superficial commentary. On top of that he had GF which messed him up for a good while.

So what? In my book that's how it falls. JMDP was poised to go to the top but got injured, and he's never come back. Had he never fallen might Fedal now have fewer Slams?

If they played faster, slider surfaces Nadal would be nowhere. If everything played like clay he'd be higher. If Connors hadn't run off a two Slam programme for years, if if if if.......

But we actually don't have to rely on what ifs because the guy has won 13 going on 14 slams. And Fed has had a bad back, but it has not resulted in him missing nearly as much time or as many big tournaments as Nadal's injuries that is clear and it is a fact. As I said most of Fed's statistical advantages come down to durability, that I suppose for some is part of the equation. But for me it does not really figure very heavily in assessing who is he better player.

What's the statistical difference in being impaired and turning up, and withdrawing? The apparent answer is one gets ignored, the other gets extra Slams credited. When I say the guys been impaired, I mean it's made a difference. Personally I scrub it all, but if you're going to be selective, or even worse actively distort facts, it's worth pointing out. I know you hate it, but Federer had GF in 2008. He's also wrestled with a back condition for many years. Del Potro was poised to take Slams from Fedal from 2010 onwards, and we know who that would have hurt more, but he got injured. If you want to rewrite injury history then do it all, but since that's absurd the only rational choice is to ignore it.

Just because you repeat something doesn't make it right. Federers record is down to smashing the crap out of people for ages, and still being able to beat guys like Djokovic & Murray at Wimbledon at 31 and past his best. If anything he could gave hoped for a sounder back and maybe some more glory, but then show me any top guy without injury regrets.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 25 Jan 2014, 10:52 pm

Djoko was unlucky as well. If he had sorted out his gluten-free diet and breathing issues earlier he probably would have taken slam or two off Rafa and/or Fed.

If Murray hadn't had ankle and back problems for the last 3 years he probably would have taken a slam or two off Djoko and/or Rafa.

See how easy it is when you don't put the required amount of thought into it?

by lydian Sat 25 Jan 2014, 11:09 pm

I just entered and lost a longish message on another thread, it didn't go in as a sign came up saying the website domaiun had expired...and this site is now a different web address... http://606v2.forumotion.co.uk/ ... What's going on?

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat 25 Jan 2014, 11:12 pm

I'm guessing someone forget to pay the bills! I think domains cost about £2 a year, so I doubt it's a cash-flow issue!

by lydian Sat 25 Jan 2014, 11:16 pm

It might take others a while to find the site again given www.606v2.com isn't working.

by bogbrush Sun 26 Jan 2014, 12:28 am

lydian wrote:It might take others a while to find the site again given www.606v2.com isn't working.

There's always a silver lining...... Wink

by lydian Sun 26 Jan 2014, 12:33 am

Lol...enforced absence wouldn't be the end of the world.

by **laverfan** Sun 26 Jan 2014, 12:43 am

lydian wrote:It might take others a while to find the site again given www.606v2.com isn't working.

Depending on what DNS servers you use (or your ISP uses), it will redirect to 606v2.forumotion.co.uk.

@SoCal… I am not espousing what-if analysis for impacting someone's historical performance. We use a lot of such analysis for future scenarios, that we jointly have not seen yet.

lydian wrote:Nadal's injuries have nothing to do with his playing style! His congenital foot bone deformity means he's had to wear orthotics since 2005 to take strain off that part of his foot.

As Lydian says, if Nadal's playing style is not responsible for his injuries, but his genetics are, then the self-same genetics are also responsible for his LH/RH/FH/BH and also for his RPM generation. The point that is being made, and repeatedly, is that such analysis is always subjective. There is no strict mathematical and rigorous model. It is an opinion which others may disagree with.

socal1976 wrote:He could have 40 slams and 4 CYGS and I would still not like him and be critical.

You have a thesis, and are willing to go beyond the rational, and resort to what-if (and faith can and does ask the faithful for non-rational leaps), to attain your objective. Please carry on. Let other arguments not deter you from your stated goal. Fan(atics) on any side notwithstanding.

This does remind me a bit of the HE v Murray.

by socal1976 Sun 26 Jan 2014, 2:29 am

Laverfan, I was explaining to Truffin I don't like fed the player for certain reasons that have nothing to do with him being GOAT or not and has everything to do with his attitude towards Djokovic when he was coming up. So you are taking my quote out of context.

by socal1976 Sun 26 Jan 2014, 2:34 am

bogbrush wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:This whining about Nadals injuries is pathetic. Federer has carried a back problem his whole career, and it's spoilt swathes of his time just as emphatically as if he'd dramatically withdrawn. This 'no injuries' myth is weak thinking, picked up from superficial commentary. On top of that he had GF which messed him up for a good while.

So what? In my book that's how it falls. JMDP was poised to go to the top but got injured, and he's never come back. Had he never fallen might Fedal now have fewer Slams?

If they played faster, slider surfaces Nadal would be nowhere. If everything played like clay he'd be higher. If Connors hadn't run off a two Slam programme for years, if if if if.......

But we actually don't have to rely on what ifs because the guy has won 13 going on 14 slams. And Fed has had a bad back, but it has not resulted in him missing nearly as much time or as many big tournaments as Nadal's injuries that is clear and it is a fact. As I said most of Fed's statistical advantages come down to durability, that I suppose for some is part of the equation. But for me it does not really figure very heavily in assessing who is he better player.
What's the statistical difference in being impaired and turning up, and withdrawing? The apparent answer is one gets ignored, the other gets extra Slams credited. When I say the guys been impaired, I mean it's made a difference. Personally I scrub it all, but if you're going to be selective, or even worse actively distort facts, it's worth pointing out. I know you hate it, but Federer had GF in 2008. He's also wrestled with a back condition for many years. Del Potro was poised to take Slams from Fedal from 2010 onwards, and we know who that would have hurt more, but he got injured. If you want to rewrite injury history then do it all, but since that's absurd the only rational choice is to ignore it.

Just because you repeat something doesn't make it right. Federers record is down to smashing the crap out of people for ages, and still being able to beat guys like Djokovic & Murray at Wimbledon at 31 and past his best. If anything he could gave hoped for a sounder back and maybe some more glory, but then show me any top guy without injury regrets.

Again if a player can play his injury is not quite as bad as someone who misses months of the season and goes through rehab and therapy to get back. It is a matter of fact and not conjecture that Federer showed up at these events and won numerous matches, I am sure in the 1000 matches he has played he has lost some match because he was not 100 percent physically and so has every other player including Nadal. But what we do know is that in terms of missing lengthy periods of the season and slams Nadal's injuries have been way more serious and this is not conjecture it is documented. He didn't show up for AO.

There is no conjecture one guy has played in a record number of slams in a row has always been fit enough to advance at worst a couple of rounds and the other guy has missed a laundry list of slams and masters to injuries. What I find illogical is to assume that this has not impacted Nadal's slam count and CV when you look at what he has done every single time he has comeback to play on tour.

by **laverfan** Sun 26 Jan 2014, 2:37 am

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, I was explaining to Truffin I don't like fed the player for certain reasons that have nothing to do with him being GOAT or not and has everything to do with his attitude towards Djokovic when he was coming up. So you are taking my quote out of context.

I have no beef with your dislike for the Basel Bungler/Swiss Shanker.

If you dislike Cibulkova, then I may invite you to a duel with kitchen knives in my back yard. Laugh

(that too despite the second set bagel from Li Na).

Have a Macallan on the rocks for me. Cheers! guinness

by socal1976 Sun 26 Jan 2014, 2:39 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:Djoko was unlucky as well. If he had sorted out his gluten-free diet and breathing issues earlier he probably would have taken slam or two off Rafa and/or Fed.

If Murray hadn't had ankle and back problems for the last 3 years he probably would have taken a slam or two off Djoko and/or Rafa.

See how easy it is when you don't put the required amount of thought into it?

Yes Novak as well would have probably been there faster if he had properly diagnosed and treated his respiratory issues sooner. Federer as well had a bout of mono and chronic back issues. Yet both player have basically played an average of 75 to 80 matches for the last 6 seasons. So both guys have had superior luck when it comes to injuries. If Nadal was fat Dave and obviously didn't put in the work and kept getting injuries than that is one thing. But as Lydian has shown over and over again that he has congenital foot issue that could have doomed his career before it even got going. It isn't his lack of fitness training or his playing style. To me Fed's statistical edge is basically down to his superior durability and luck with injuries, which to me when analyzing a player is simply not that important.

by socal1976 Sun 26 Jan 2014, 2:40 am

laverfan wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, I was explaining to Truffin I don't like fed the player for certain reasons that have nothing to do with him being GOAT or not and has everything to do with his attitude towards Djokovic when he was coming up. So you are taking my quote out of context.

I have no beef with your dislike for the Basel Bungler/Swiss Shanker.

If you dislike Cibulkova, then I may invite you to a duel with kitchen knives in my back yard. (that too despite the second set bagel from Li Na).

Have a Macallan on the rocks for me. Cheers!

I don't use rocks anymore but sure thing.

by **laverfan** Sun 26 Jan 2014, 3:15 am

socal1976 wrote:What I find illogical is to assume that this has not impacted Nadal's slam count and CV when you look at what he has done every single time he has comeback to play on tour.

Apart from the 2004 RG, Nadal has played at RG from 2005-2013 (winning all except 2009).

What has he missed? AO, W, USO.

1. Let us look at AO…

2004 (R32), 2005(R16), 2006(NA), 2007(Q), 2008(S), 2009(W), 2010 (Q - RET), 2011 (Q), 2012 (F), 2013 (Withdrawn - Stomach Virus).

2006 USO was lost to Youzhny, IIRC. Do you think he could have won 2006 ~~USO~~ AO? 2010 is the only RET, so where is the significant impact of injury on AO?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=580#

2. Let us look at W…

2005 (R32), 2006 (~~R64~~F), 2007 (F), 2008 (W), 2009 (Withdrawn), 2010 (W), 2011 (F), 2012 (R64), 2013 (R128).

Where is the injury impact on W? Do you want to give Nadal W 2009 after his loss to Soderling at RG 2009? Even in a parallel universe, unlikely.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=540#

3. Let us look at USO…

2003 (R64), 2004 (R64), 2005 (R32), 2006 (Q), 2007 (R16), 2008 (S), 2009 (S), 2010 (W), 2011 (F), 2012 (Withdrawn), 2013 (W).

If he had lost in R64 at W 2012, do you want to give him USO 2012?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=560#

Let us assume, in a what-if scenario, that we give Nadal the slams where he withdrew (not RET) from, which are 2009 W, 2012 USO. If you want to give him RG 2004, you can (I think it is too early - Gaudio had won all their 2004 matches - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=G374).

This would make his slam count to 15, 8 of which are RG.

You can also tell by this, where he never made it to meet Federer, so the impact on Federer slam count is rather illogical.

There is claim that Nadal had the beating of Federer on HC and Miami and Dubai 2006 are oft cited. But look at HC slams performance in the same years.

KR has pointed out Federer losing to Canas twice in a row. IMVHO, Miami and Dubai fall in the same category for Federer losing to Nadal.

PS: 2013 AO is officially not a "knee" injury.

by naxroy Sun 26 Jan 2014, 3:36 am

sorry but he made final in wimbledon 2006 too

by socal1976 Sun 26 Jan 2014, 3:45 am

laverfan wrote:
socal1976 wrote:What I find illogical is to assume that this has not impacted Nadal's slam count and CV when you look at what he has done every single time he has comeback to play on tour.

Apart from the 2004 RG, Nadal has played at RG from 2005-2013 (winning all except 2009).

What has he missed? AO, W, USO.

1. Let us look at AO…

2004 (R32), 2005(R16), 2006(NA), 2007(Q), 2008(S), 2009(W), 2010 (Q - RET), 2011 (Q), 2012 (F), 2013 (Withdrawn - Stomach Virus).

2006 USO was lost to Youzhny, IIRC. Do you think he could have won 2006 ~~USO~~ AO? 2010 is the only RET, so where is the significant impact of injury on AO?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=580#

2. Let us look at W…

2005 (R32), 2006 (R64), 2007 (F), 2008 (W), 2009 (Withdrawn), 2010 (W), 2011 (F), 2012 (R64), 2013 (R128).

Where is the injury impact on W? Do you want to give Nadal W 2009 after his loss to Soderling at RG 2009? Even in a parallel universe, unlikely.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=540#

3. Let us look at USO…

2003 (R64), 2004 (R64), 2005 (R32), 2006 (Q), 2007 (R16), 2008 (S), 2009 (S), 2010 (W), 2011 (F), 2012 (Withdrawn), 2013 (W).

If he had lost in R64 at W 2012, do you want to give him USO 2012?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=560#

Let us assume, in a what-if scenario, that we give Nadal the slams where he withdrew (not RET) from, which are 2009 W, 2012 USO. If you want to give him RG 2004, you can (I think it is too early - Gaudio had won all their 2004 matches - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=G374).

This would make his slam count to 15, 8 of which are RG.

You can also tell by this, where he never made it to meet Federer, so the impact on Federer slam count is rather illogical.

There is claim that Nadal had the beating of Federer on HC and Miami and Dubai 2006 are oft cited. But look at HC slams performance in the same years.

KR has pointed out Federer losing to Canas twice in a row. IMVHO, Miami and Dubai fall in the same category for Federer losing to Nadal.

PS: 2013 AO is officially not a "knee" injury.

Good analysis I think Nadal would have been a strong favorite for wimby 09 if not for injury, if you say his slam count would be 15 that is fine it still puts him much closer to Fed's count. And lets remember he also missed AO 2013 which he would have been second favorite for. In short, he also had losses to Darcis and Soderling at slams which injury played a role. Not to mention the weeks at number #1 and masters he would have most likely enjoyed. No way Fed finishes 09 as #1 the way Nadal was playing prior to his leg injury. Especially in light of how he came back in 2010.

by naxroy Sun 26 Jan 2014, 4:00 am

what happened happened.... nadal lost with soderling in roland garros 2009 when he had won 3 of the previous 4 slams prior to that, nobody expected it and most of us thought he would repeat wins at paris and london, but it didnt happen and thats it.

as for his break after rosol 2012, I have no reason to think he would have won usopen or australian open 2013.

by TRuffin Sun 26 Jan 2014, 5:00 am

If we're going to play the what if game with nadals injuries, assuming he would have won some more slams/titles because as SoCal says- we can base the assumption on him winning so much when he was healthy- then we need to do the same for Laver and give him all those majors/Titles that he missed out on because of the split tour in his day. IF laver had been able to play those tournies- we can assume that he would have dominated those as well and his career stats would dwarf those of fed and nadal. Federe himself brings this up when people try to put him ahead of laver. Laver was robbed of a huge amount of titles because if circumstances, just as nadal MAY have been. As laver fan showed, it seems to be overblown what nadal may have been able to win, but I can tell you- the real laver missed a lot! I read once that under the modern ranking system- if had been in effect at that time- laver had a run of 7 years in a row as #1! So why aren't we giving laver the same courtesy of what if that nadal fans and others trying to give him Goat give Nadal. Have any of you seen Laver play live? I did. And the guy was every bit the beast for his era that nadal is and every bit the talent genius that federer is.

Federe deserves some what ifs too! He'll, let's just give titles to everyone because of circumstances. Smh

by naxroy Sun 26 Jan 2014, 5:25 am

goat by numbers:

slams, masters, wtf, weeks at number 1, davis cups, rivals category...

nadal has had impressive slam count, as well as masters and david cups. hes had great rivals (federer, djokovic, murray, delpotro...) but he lacks weeks at number 1 and WTFs

untill 2008 number 1 was impossible, but once he got it, he lost it quite fast in 2009. then got it back in 2010, but djokovic appeared and again lost just a year later again, also his 2012 injury... now he has it again, but djokovic is a significant menace to end as number 1 in 2014...
I doubt he will even reach mcenroe´s 170s, and for some reason I got the feeling that nole has a chance to gain more weeks as number 1 than nadal.

so nadal is a great player, who will have his place in the top 10 best players of all time, but difficult to be the goat as he never really dominated more than his rivals in the same time.

since 2005 (his brakthrough) to 2014 he has been the best man in the circuit in 2008, 2010 and 2013, while federer was better than him in 2005,06,07 and 09 and djokovic was better than him in 2011 and 2012

by **laverfan** Sun 26 Jan 2014, 11:26 am

laverfan wrote:
socal1976 wrote: Hardly a very big leap of faith and nothing like comparing a junior player to a guy with an established track record of dominance and excellence at the slam level.

For the faithful, no leap is ever great.

What if Wawrinka won AO tonight/tomorrow, and Nadal did not get #14 and did a Borg?

Today's AO 2014 finals results show how unpredictable it can be, injuries or not.

by bogbrush Sun 26 Jan 2014, 11:45 am

socal1976 wrote:
laverfan wrote:
socal1976 wrote:What I find illogical is to assume that this has not impacted Nadal's slam count and CV when you look at what he has done every single time he has comeback to play on tour.

Apart from the 2004 RG, Nadal has played at RG from 2005-2013 (winning all except 2009).

What has he missed? AO, W, USO.

1. Let us look at AO…

2004 (R32), 2005(R16), 2006(NA), 2007(Q), 2008(S), 2009(W), 2010 (Q - RET), 2011 (Q), 2012 (F), 2013 (Withdrawn - Stomach Virus).

2006 USO was lost to Youzhny, IIRC. Do you think he could have won 2006 ~~USO~~ AO? 2010 is the only RET, so where is the significant impact of injury on AO?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=580#

2. Let us look at W…

2005 (R32), 2006 (R64), 2007 (F), 2008 (W), 2009 (Withdrawn), 2010 (W), 2011 (F), 2012 (R64), 2013 (R128).

Where is the injury impact on W? Do you want to give Nadal W 2009 after his loss to Soderling at RG 2009? Even in a parallel universe, unlikely.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=540#

3. Let us look at USO…

2003 (R64), 2004 (R64), 2005 (R32), 2006 (Q), 2007 (R16), 2008 (S), 2009 (S), 2010 (W), 2011 (F), 2012 (Withdrawn), 2013 (W).

If he had lost in R64 at W 2012, do you want to give him USO 2012?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=560#

Let us assume, in a what-if scenario, that we give Nadal the slams where he withdrew (not RET) from, which are 2009 W, 2012 USO. If you want to give him RG 2004, you can (I think it is too early - Gaudio had won all their 2004 matches - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=G374).

This would make his slam count to 15, 8 of which are RG.

You can also tell by this, where he never made it to meet Federer, so the impact on Federer slam count is rather illogical.

There is claim that Nadal had the beating of Federer on HC and Miami and Dubai 2006 are oft cited. But look at HC slams performance in the same years.

KR has pointed out Federer losing to Canas twice in a row. IMVHO, Miami and Dubai fall in the same category for Federer losing to Nadal.

PS: 2013 AO is officially not a "knee" injury.

Good analysis I think Nadal would have been a strong favorite for wimby 09 if not for injury, if you say his slam count would be 15 that is fine it still puts him much closer to Fed's count. And lets remember he also missed AO 2013 which he would have been second favorite for. In short, he also had losses to Darcis and Soderling at slams which injury played a role. Not to mention the weeks at number #1 and masters he would have most likely enjoyed. No way Fed finishes 09 as #1 the way Nadal was playing prior to his leg injury. Especially in light of how he came back in 2010.

Now let's do Federer....

AO 2008 obviously he would have eon without the GF.
W 08 was so close that again being GF free would have made the difference (and reduced Rafa by 1).
Outside that we have a number of events where Federer played while impaired by back issues. Hard to analyse specifically, but let's throw 1 at least in.

See how silly it all is?

by lydian Sun 26 Jan 2014, 11:52 am

Oh I agree, speculation is fine but we never know "something" would definitely have happened if they were fully present. I also feel sorry for THAT match point vs Djokovic at USO...11? A final on faster HC vs Nadal could have gone either way...plus shame they didn't get to meet in all slam finals. I'm happy to let it lie. We're too fixated on numbers in general...given the fullness of their careers its hard to define where they sit in greatness terms by simple slam count alone. Nadal & Federer for me stand loft the game - why try to separate them - then there's the rest from Open Era. Laver is the outlier...from a time when tennis was different.

by **laverfan** Sun 26 Jan 2014, 12:01 pm

naxroy wrote:goat by numbers:

slams, masters, wtf, weeks at number 1, davis cups, rivals category...

nadal has had impressive slam count, as well as masters and david cups. hes had great rivals (federer, djokovic, murray, delpotro...) but he lacks weeks at number 1 and WTFs

untill 2008 number 1 was impossible, but once he got it, he lost it quite fast in 2009. then got it back in 2010, but djokovic appeared and again lost just a year later again, also his 2012 injury... now he has it again, but djokovic is a significant menace to end as number 1 in 2014...
I doubt he will even reach mcenroe´s 170s, and for some reason I got the feeling that nole has a chance to gain more weeks as number 1 than nadal.

so nadal is a great player, who will have his place in the top 10 best players of all time, but difficult to be the goat as he never really dominated more than his rivals in the same time.

since 2005 (his brakthrough) to 2014 he has been the best man in the circuit in 2008, 2010 and 2013, while federer was better than him in 2005,06,07 and 09 and djokovic was better than him in 2011 and 2012

Thanks, Nax. clap

As Lydian says, separating Fedal is a disservice to Tennis History.

by Gerry SA Sun 26 Jan 2014, 12:30 pm

Not really one to really talk about injuries

But I'd point out Nadal sustained an injury against Ferrer in Melbourne in 2011, stomach muscle IIRC in the second match of the game, he was obviously went on to lose.

And the 2009 US Open he had torn the same muscle, but this time in don't think he would beaten Del Potro, as the argentine was outstanding.

My two cents.

by **laverfan** Sun 26 Jan 2014, 4:08 pm

Gerry SA wrote:Not really one to really talk about injuries

But I'd point out Nadal sustained an injury against Ferrer in Melbourne in 2011, stomach muscle IIRC in the second match of the game, he was obviously went on to lose.

And the 2009 US Open he had torn the same muscle, but this time in don't think he would beaten Del Potro, as the argentine was outstanding.

My two cents.

The abdominal muscle tear @USO 2009 (and perhaps the same injury being aggravated at AO 2011) could be a factor in those two specific loses, but taking care of the your own athletic body, is to a large extent a personal responsibility. Especially for the Top 4, who have access to some wonderful medical facilities and doctors.

Hewitt suffered injuries, as did Nalbandian, as did Norman (Wawrinka's coach), Muster's injury was horrific.

As Nadal himself says, being a professional athlete is not good for an individual's health. How much does one push oneself physically towards the pursuit of a goal?

I personally know some US Navy Seals. Like Sumo wrestlers, very tough mentally and physically, some go over the edge emotionally. Public does not see all of it. Human body is very brittle and requires constant care. Despite congenital aspects, it is always possible to choose alternatives.

Nadal's biography documents the grief when he was told that playing Tennis was almost impossible, but he still chose to pursue it. It is a very high price to pay and is a constant emotional drain, as was visible today.

by lydian Sun 26 Jan 2014, 5:01 pm

Nearly all pros are constantly carrying niggles...it's just a question of what flares up from time to time.

by **laverfan** Sun 26 Jan 2014, 5:45 pm

lydian wrote:Nearly all pros are constantly carrying niggles...it's just a question of what flares up from time to time.

The challenge is one of managing and frequency.

If it is a daily occurrence, like Diabetes or Asthma, it is a chronic condition and must be managed. Pursuing an activity which aggravates it is not medically advisable. For example food intake, working in a dusty environment, etc.

If it is a frequent, but manageable condition, can activities be chosen that allow the specific conditions not to worsen.

If Pros carry such conditions, it should not cause disappointment, when these do flare up.

by Guest Sun 26 Jan 2014, 6:19 pm

It happens.
Sampras was poised to take slam 13 at the us open in 98 or 99 i think, but his back went and he couldnt compete, dealt with it, and did it the next year.
Rafa will deal with it, and move on, again.

by **laverfan** Sun 26 Jan 2014, 7:35 pm

I hope so. It would be unfair, not unprecedented though, to have careers hurt by chronic conditions, congenital or otherwise.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 26 Jan 2014, 7:45 pm

If Krajicek had remained uninjured Sampras wouldn't have been poised to take slam 13 at the USO in 98 Smile

by invisiblecoolers Sun 26 Jan 2014, 9:26 pm

By the theme of the article we can now come to a safe conclusion that Rosol is a bigger name than Rafa and Darcis is equally talented as Rafa and finally Davydenko as the GOAT .

All hail the new GOAT ,wait Donkey.

by Sponsored content