Rafa's Remarkable But Injury Blighted Slam Record

First topic message reminder :

Starting at RG in 2008 when Nadal turned 22 and could be counted as a mature player his record in slams has been exemplary when he hasn't been injured.

2008 RG  Won beat Djokovic, beat Federer in final

2008 W Won beat Murray, beat Federer in final 

2008 US  Odd lost to Murray in semi's

2009 AO  Wonbeat Federer in final

2009 RG    Odd/injury Lost to Soderling

2009 W   Didn't play

2009 US   Lost to Del Potro

2010 AO   Retired injured against Murray

2010 RG   Won

2010 W    Won beat Murray in semi's

2010 US   Won beat Djokovic in final

2011 AO   lost to Ferrer

2011 RG   Won beat Murray, beat Federer in final

2011 W   beat Murray, lost to Djokovic in final

2011 US   beat Murray, lost to Djokovic in final

2012 AO   beat Federer, lost to Djokovic in final

2012 RG   Won beat Djokovic final

2012 W    Odd/injured lost to Rosol

2012 US   Didn't play

2013 AO   Didn't play

2013 RG   Won beat Djokovic in semi

2013 W    Odd/injured lost to Darcis

2013 US   Won beat Djokovic final

2014 AO   beat Federer, injured lost to Wawrinka in final

2014 RG   Won beat Murray, beat Djokovic in final

2014 W   Odd. lost to Kyrgios

2014 US   Didn't play

Of 27 slams played Nadal has won 11, lost injured or not played in 8, lost being questionably injured in 3, lost two "odd" matches and lost to Djokovic 3 times.

                      
                
            
    
      

To summarize - When Nadal enters and is fit he usually wins.

Djokovic's wins against Nadal at Wimbledon and the US in 2011 and the 2012 AO were stand out performances. In those tournaments Nadal still put out Federer and Murray twice on the way to defeat in the final.

Federer hasn't beaten Nadal in a slam since Wimbledon 2007 and has lost to Nadal 6 times since then.

Djokovic hasn't beaten Nadal in a slam since the 2012 AO  and has lost to him 4 times since then.

Murray beat Nadal with a retirement in the AO 2010 and has lost to him 5 times since then.

Others - notably Johnyjeep - have already debunked much of your of your skewed thinking  hawkeye, along with your (ahem) analysis and misguided extrapolation. But I'll give it my own shot, in the hope (albeit a probably vain hope) of getting you to finally take off those blinkers.

The very notion that Rafa "usually" wins the Slams that he enters was fundamentally flawed to begin with, purely because the record books say otherwise.

Firstly, it makes far more sense to go back to RG2005, ie his first Slam title, because we can safely say that once you win a Slam you're undoubtedly a highly-accomplished tennis player (ie as distinct from some sort of innocent naive rookie). We also have to put injuries, whether assumed/real/imagined, to one side in terms of 'evidence' because
a) injuries affect ALL players and are part & parcel of the sport
b) the degree to which they hinder a player during any given match can be highly variable, and sometimes can make no difference at all ; indeed we have all seen many, many cases where an injury can, paradoxically, affect an opponent more adversely than the injured player himself,  and
c) there is no absolutely no way of knowing what the result might have been if a player deemed by some to be injured had been fully fit. In the matches involving the likes of say Soderling, Del Potro, Rosol, Kyrgios, etc, these guys played so well that it's very possible that nobody could have been beaten them on the day.

Turning now to the actual numbers (ie the facts, the things we DO know) : Rafa has contested a total of 34 Slams since that first triumph at RG. Of those, he has won 14 and lost 20. Which means that when he enters Slams, he usually loses. And of course there's nothing remotely shameful, or indeed surprising, about that because it's exactly what happens with ALL other players. Rafa's hugely impressive record is of course better than (almost) everybody else's, but the fact remains that ALL players - even the very, very best - lose more Slams than they win.

There are times hawkeye (in fact many times) when you really would do better to put down your spade, simply because further digging is invariably counter-productive.

Lags, you explain it far better than I could!

invisiblecoolers wrote:Come on Lyd this is purely fan boyish , or you were joking when you said Nadal rarely complains about the injury after the loss.

No it isn't, and no I wasn't. Let's look at arguably the greatest loss of Nadal's career - RG09. After the match Nadal said...
"When I practised this morning I felt good. I felt very good, but it wasn't the case during the match. I didn't play my best. I played very short and I couldn't attack. I made it easy for him to play at his level. But I lost. I was not calm enough to face the important points, so I had to fight. But sometimes fighting is not enough. You have to play a good level of tennis."

No mention of injury.

However, in his book he went on to say...
"First it was my knees that went. I felt the first twinges in Miami, at the end of March. The pain got worse week by week, but I managed to keep playing through it until early May, in Madrid, when I couldn’t keep going anymore. Mind could no longer overcome matter and I took a break. I came back a couple of weeks later for the French Open. Maybe I should not have competed at Roland Garros, but I had won the championship the previous four years and I felt a duty to defend my crown, however unlikely the prospect of victory felt. Sure enough, I lost in the fourth round to Robin Soderling of Sweden, my first ever defeat in that tournament. I’d made a huge effort to be in shape for Roland Garros, battling to overcome both my parents’ separation and the pain in my knees, but now I knew that, debilitated in mind and body, I could no longer keep going. Terribly sad, I pulled out of Wimbledon. My knees were the immediate reason..."

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nadal straight away raised the issue of injury after his loss against Del Po, he didn't raise the issue as that serious when he was walking through most opponents till that match, he didn't even say anything about the injury before the start of the match, so how on earth the injury magically appeared during the match in which he was running like a rabbit, so you seriously buy the myth that somebody with a stomach tear of 26 inches  before the match could play the match like he did? even man of steel would bow to such statements.

You contradict yourself. You say he mentioned it after Del Potro but not before it...surely if he's as easy talking about injury as you suggest he would have mentioned it before? Oh, let me guess...Nadal, being the moaning, lying, sore losing scum-bag he is only brings up injury after his losses right? Er, except RG09 for one that is...

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nadal a great player? undoubtedly
Do Nadal top the list on giving excuses after a loss? Seriously not many who compete with him in this aspect either.

Lol, what a surprise to read this. How on earth will I sleep tonight being a fan boy...
For sure no other player has his words and actions poured over in more minutiae than Nadal.

invisiblecoolers wrote:The top players never liked to lose and always wanted to keep the opponents fear factor on them, Fed did on few matches on his prime, Pete did this on few matches on his prime, who would forget the Pete-Rafter controversy, Nadal and his team just over does it at times however.

His team for sure. Uncle Toni is always moaning. Like some forum posters, lol.

lydian wrote: However, in his book he went on to say...
"First it was my knees that went. I felt the first twinges in Miami, at the end of March. The pain got worse week by week, but I managed to keep playing through it until early May, in Madrid, when I couldn’t keep going anymore. Mind could no longer overcome matter and I took a break. I came back a couple of weeks later for the French Open. Maybe I should not have competed at Roland Garros, but I had won the championship the previous four years and I felt a duty to defend my crown, however unlikely the prospect of victory felt. Sure enough, I lost in the fourth round to Robin Soderling of Sweden, my first ever defeat in that tournament. I’d made a huge effort to be in shape for Roland Garros, battling to overcome both my parents’ separation and the pain in my knees, but now I knew that, debilitated in mind and body, I could no longer keep going. Terribly sad, I pulled out of Wimbledon. My knees were the immediate reason..."

Rather tragic.

When Rafa writes "The pain got worse week by week, but I managed to keep playing through it until early May, in Madrid, when I couldn’t keep going anymore." it shows that the problem was not so much the injury - which was probably initially the same sort of niggle that causes a lot of players to miss tournaments, but that he keeps playing and makes it worse until he can't play anymore - i.e. mis-management of his body and bad decision making is the ultimate cause. Part of being a better 'player' is making the right decisions off court to maximise your potential. Rafa falls short in that department, hence there is no 'excuse' for his losses, no bad luck involved (for the most part).

laverfan - really not sure that the set of circumstances outlined in that quote is best described as "tragic"

His parents were going through a separation, and his knees were giving him grief - though nothing so serious as to prevent him from accomplishing many more great things in the game since then, including an unprecedented haul of RG titles. Add to that, a level of global adulation that very few could hope to achieve at ANY point in their lives ; having a 'job' that is the envy of countless millions ; and a bank account balance of telephone number proportions.

So .....some difficult circumstances health-wise, and a sad development within the family.

But "tragic" ..........??? Really ?

A bit of perspective please !

Oh Lydian cool take a chill Beer , Fan Boyish is not a comment to be upset of, everybody is a fan of some fav player.

Ok lets get objective now

lydian wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nadal straight away raised the issue of injury after his loss against Del Po, he didn't raise the issue as that serious when he was walking through most opponents till that match, he didn't even say anything about the injury before the start of the match, so how on earth the injury magically appeared during the match in which he was running like a rabbit, so you seriously buy the myth that somebody with a stomach tear of 26 inches  before the match could play the match like he did? even man of steel would bow to such statements.

You contradict yourself. You say he mentioned it after Del Potro but not before it...surely if he's as easy talking about injury as you suggest he would have mentioned it before? Oh, let me guess...Nadal, being the moaning, lying, sore losing scum-bag he is only brings up injury after his losses right? Er, except RG09 for one that is...

On Nadal's loss in FO 2009, I am not sure what Nadal nor his team told press conference after the loss, so I haven't commented on it and not going to comment on it, but I can assure Nadal fans played their regular injury card which you will accept as well that they did.

On Del Potro game, you are clearly confused here or trying to confuse everybody, ain't that pretty clear that after the loss he and his team blamed the injury for it, what is difficult there to understand and what are you defending there?  

Lydian wrote:Nadal a great player? undoubtedly
Do Nadal top the list on giving excuses after a loss? Seriously not many who compete with him in this aspect either.
Lol, what a surprise to read this. How on earth will I sleep tonight being a fan boy...
For sure no other player has his words and actions poured over in more minutiae than Nadal.

This is why I called you Nadal fan, you already got angry even before reading the next quote  

The below quote is really difficult for any Nadal fan to digest but injury rubbish is more difficult for us to digest , and Nadal and his team has abused it in the past, I can certainly guarantee that rate has gone down from the player itself however not from the team or his fans. Even Nadal knows that the press and fans hated him in the past for injury excuse abuse.

invisiblecoolers wrote:The top players never liked to lose and always wanted to keep the opponents fear factor on them, Fed did on few matches on his prime, Pete did this on few matches on his prime, who would forget the Pete-Rafter controversy, Nadal and his team just over does it at times however.

His team for sure. Uncle Toni is always moaning. Like some forum posters, lol.[/quote]

Glad we are atleast on the same page in one.  

lags72 wrote:Others - notably Johnyjeep - have already debunked much of your of your skewed thinking  hawkeye, along with your (ahem) analysis and misguided extrapolation. But I'll give it my own shot, in the hope (albeit a probably vain hope) of getting you to finally take off those blinkers.

The very notion that Rafa "usually" wins the Slams that he enters was fundamentally flawed to begin with, purely because the record books say otherwise.

Firstly, it makes far more sense to go back to RG2005, ie his first Slam title, because we can safely say that once you win a Slam you're undoubtedly a highly-accomplished tennis player (ie as distinct from some sort of innocent naive rookie). We also have to put injuries, whether assumed/real/imagined, to one side in terms of 'evidence' because
a) injuries affect ALL players and are part & parcel of the sport
b) the degree to which they hinder a player during any given match can be highly variable, and sometimes can make no difference at all ; indeed we have all seen many, many cases where an injury can, paradoxically, affect an opponent more adversely than the injured player himself,  and
c) there is no absolutely no way of knowing what the result might have been if a player deemed by some to be injured had been fully fit. In the matches involving the likes of say Soderling, Del Potro, Rosol, Kyrgios, etc, these guys played so well that it's very possible that nobody could have been beaten them on the day.

Turning now to the actual numbers (ie the facts, the things we DO know) : Rafa has contested a total of 34 Slams since that first triumph at RG. Of those, he has won 14 and lost 20. Which means that when he enters Slams, he usually loses. And of course there's nothing remotely shameful, or indeed surprising, about that because it's exactly what happens with ALL other players. Rafa's hugely impressive record is of course better than (almost) everybody else's, but the fact remains that ALL players - even the very, very best - lose more Slams than they win.

There are times hawkeye (in fact many times) when you really would do better to put down your spade, simply because further digging is invariably counter-productive.

Have to say choosing 2008 makes sense to me. That is when he first won a slam off clay and when he first made number 1. From that point on, apart from 2011, he has arguably been the player to beat in every slam.

Whilst agreeing with your points (a) to (c), I do also think injuries affect some players more than others and that has to be taken into account in judging their careers. Let's take a hypothetical scenario. We have two twins. One has freakish health and never misses a slam for 15 years. He wins 1 per year. The other is desperately unlucky with his health. Over that same time-frame he is only healthy enough to play 12 slams and wins all of them - beating his brother every time. The healthy brother has technically had the more successful career but no one would seriously argue that he was the better player.

Obviously lines are far more blurred than that in real life and HE's view of Rafa's odd defeats is ridiculous but I do think we have to take his bad luck with injuries into account to some degree when assessing his career.

The difference in Rafa's comments straight after the Soderling match is interesting. I watched that entire match and did not think Rafa played badly. He moved superbly and there was no sign of any injury. I seem to recall also watching him maul his previous opponent. Soderling played a once in a lifetime match which was, just, good enough to beat him.

His comments after the match reflect the match I watched. Even those in his book do not actually say he had problems with his knees during that match. I wonder if those in his book are more a retrospective view of how he justified not playing his absolute best on the day?

Could be right Born. I think all players 'justify' their defeats to themselves in some way - in order to keep the necessary belief that they'll win next time.

It's possible not everything in Rafa's book is accurate - for example for the Wimby 2008 final he said he knew Fed was physically shot after the 4th set and all he had to do was wait for him to fold i.e. he won the final set based on stamina. Not sure everyone believes that either

I think the most realistic comments that hold most merit are ones said in post-match interviews as you speak as you see it. Comments formulated on defeats months or years later are often clouded by self-analysis and trying to offer reasons for defeat to prepare for future challenges. I feel in post-match comments they are much more still in match mode and thoughts are usually fresh and forthright.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Could be right Born. I think all players 'justify' their defeats to themselves in some way - in order to keep the necessary belief that they'll win next time.

..........................................

Yep, can definitely see the rationale behind this mental strategy by players - not least those who have just suffered a) a disappointing (perhaps even humiliating ?) big match loss, and b) at the hands of someone they fully expected to beat. It does make sense from a psychological & indeed motivational perspective.

Mind you, I can't help thinking that when it comes to 'justification' for losses, the players themselves are as mere amateurs in comparison to (some of .... ) their most loyal fans, and the sheer variety & originality of theories/explanations offered by such fans. Not that anyone in particular springs to mind .....  

CC - agree with your comments overall ; although I guess there are also occasions when the reverse is the case - ie when the bitter disappointment of a bad loss could perhaps cloud one's thinking immediately after the match and that a short passage of time & reflection can in fact bring better perspective. Varies by player I'd say.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Could be right Born. I think all players 'justify' their defeats to themselves in some way - in order to keep the necessary belief that they'll win next time.

It's possible not everything in Rafa's book is accurate - for example for the Wimby 2008 final he said he knew Fed was physically shot after the 4th set and all he had to do was wait for him to fold i.e. he won the final set based on stamina. Not sure everyone believes that either

Well, Fed was so physically shot that he succumbed, er....9-7 !

Depends who you believe sfp. Rafa's explanation was that the only thing Fed had left was his serve and that he knew a) Fed was too spent to break Rafa's serve and b) if Rafa waited long enough Fed's serve would go too.

JuliusHM - seem to remember that Fed had quite a few 30-30s on the Rafa serve in that last set and that the standard was very high. Could have gone either way, although Rafa showed great mental strength considering he'd chucked away the tiebreak in the 4th set, squandering MPs.
Older posters will recall just how well Borg played in similar circumstances in the final set of the Wimbledon 1980 "tiebreak final" against Johnny Mac.

I'd say the reality of what happened that day is ultimately very, very simple and that no complex explanations are required. It turned out to be one of those rare, truly close, Finals that genuinely could have gone either way, and which is in the end came down to just a couple of points. And Rafa was the guy who got them  

Stats alone certainly don't always tell the true story of a match but in this case I firmly believe they do - the various numbers are as tight as they could be.

sfp - written just before your own ....!

As well as the Borg-in-1980 and Rafa-in-08 examples of mental strength, we had this summer a similarly worthy effort from Djoko who put away the disappointment of the 4th set at Wimbledon against Fed to go on to win in 5. Mind you, I wonder what would have happened if Fed had not missed that smash at 15-15 at 4-4 in the 5th

sirfredperry wrote:JuliusHM - seem to remember that Fed had quite a few 30-30s on the Rafa serve in that last set and that the standard was very high. Could have gone either way, although Rafa showed great mental strength considering he'd chucked away the tiebreak in the 4th set, squandering MPs.
  Older posters will recall just how well Borg played in similar circumstances in the final set of the Wimbledon 1980 "tiebreak final" against Johnny Mac.

I'm not making a case for what did/didn't happen - I'm just pointing out Rafa's opinion of that final set.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Depends who you believe sfp. Rafa's explanation was that the only thing Fed had left was his serve and that he knew a) Fed was too spent to break Rafa's serve and b) if Rafa waited long enough Fed's serve would go too.

Rafa is partially right and partially not, at times Fed did look exhausted and had the 5th set be post poned the next day Fed would have had more chance to win that it happening on the same day, both players knew that, it didn't happen and Rafa won, may be thats what Rafa wanted to convey and ended up saying something else.

Did he really look exhausted.....?? You may be right  -  and if I ever watch a full re-run of that match, I will make a point of looking out for the signs.

I only question it because, although Federer has over the years just occasionally looked frustrated (whether with himself or because of certain aspects of an opponent's play) one thing I have never seen is any significant sign of physical exhaustion. But of course it will inevitably become much more of a feature as Father Time catches up ......

lags72 wrote:Did he really look exhausted.....?? You may be right  -  and if I ever watch a full re-run of that match, I will make a point of looking out for the signs.

I only question it because, although Federer has over the years just occasionally looked frustrated (whether with himself or because of certain aspects of an opponent's play) one thing I have never seen is any significant sign of physical exhaustion. But of course it will inevitably become much more of a feature as Father Time catches up ......

+1

Federer exhibits little emotion and reaction on court with respect to physical exhaustion, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get exhausted, the best examples are 2008, he really looked spent force on most of the matches on the tail end of the season.

Well, agreed, there's no doubt that he exhibits remarkably little emotion or reaction on court (no hands on knees or head bowed) but .......your description of 'spent force' towards the tail end of that season has got me a tad perplexed .....

I reckon the USO can be considered 'tail end' but he had enough left in the tank to beat both Djoko and Murray en route to winning it. And then his beloved Basel too, even later in the year, Nalby in the final there.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Depends who you believe sfp. Rafa's explanation was that the only thing Fed had left was his serve and that he knew a) Fed was too spent to break Rafa's serve and b) if Rafa waited long enough Fed's serve would go too.

It sounds reasonable, after all he was there and would feel the weight of shots. It wouldn't be a surprise either, given Federer had difficulties following his dose of GF early that year.