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.

I've counted and he has only 3 slams OFF CLAY. Wimbledon is played on that very same surface... Factual.

     

Oh well, that means Federer's slam count just took a tumble too then having won 8 "clay" slams himself. Laughable.

Do people on here actually play or know about tennis? Have they ever played on a grass or clay court? Do they know the inherent differences no matter how much they try to slow grass? They need to remember that slower grass is still nothing like clay. Nothing at all.

Wimbledon became clay in 2008, before that it was quick grass. Some people on here are ignorant when its abundantly clear they are the same surface with the only difference being clay is harder to win service games.

LF, you didn't really add much to my points to be honest, kind of repeating them...what ifs and maybes make forums go around! Much of Nadal's injuries are through overplaying...and the right wrist injury - given he uses it far less than his left, is arguably nothing to do with overplaying, just one of those things.

Became clay in 2008? This gets better...please educate us why specifically 2008...because that's the year Nadal won it right? I presume it went back to non-clay during 2009 and 2012 right?

  

 Jm why cant you keep it zipped in your vain efforts to denigrate Nadal's achievements you are doing a great job of embarrassing yourself...making yourself look more idiotic with every word you write

Yeah, right wrist has got to be a fluke injury.

Maybe he should try a SHBH? I'm trying to conjour an image of Rafa playing that, and Fed playing a DHBH..... and I can't do it in either case!

Wimbledon was grass in 2008 when Roger won those tiebreaks. But you'll recall that it did get rather dark towards the end, and there were breaks in that match. Uncle Toni actually snuck on in disguise and painted on green clay. I have the video evidence if required.

Nope, Federer has won 2x on green clay as grass changed to it forever in 2008.
Name calling now Haddie, cos obviously you can't debate anything.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nope, Federer has won 2x on green clay as grass changed to it forever in 2008.
Name calling now Haddie, cos obviously you can't debate anything

    Oh excuse me why dont you ... I didn't realise you were attempting to debate... is that what you call it... I thought it was lets put another knife in Nadal and give it another little twist... you cant even get your facts right so there is nothing to debate JM..and as Lydian has already stated Nadal played on the same surface at Wimbledon as Federer played. I said you were making yourself LOOK idiotic... I never called you anything.

I don't really care about Federer, although it's obvious he's the best all round player of his generation. Who was it that spent all those weeks as number 2? More being number 2 than number 1!!!

   

Yeah that would be weird BB...likewise I can't imagine Sampras with a DHBH but he did just that until 16 years old. Conversely, Djokovic had a SHBH until his teens. Weird hey...

Anyway, rumour has it that Fed is reverting to DHBH...

Will we ever see a male player who uses both hands on each side?

Not since Santoro

The Special Juan wrote:Will we ever see a male player who uses both hands on each side?

Will we ever see a player (like a Badminton opponent I once had) who never had a back hand... he switched his racket from one hand to the other... only had a forehand...

Haddie-nuff wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Will we ever see a male player who uses both hands on each side?

Will we ever see a player (like a Badminton opponent I once had) who never had a back hand... he switched his racket from one hand to the other... only had a forehand...

Nadal could have done that seeing as he's right handed.  Was the badminton bloke any good though? It sounds tricky considering how quick paced badminton is.

The Special Juan wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Will we ever see a male player who uses both hands on each side?

Will we ever see a player (like a Badminton opponent I once had) who never had a back hand... he switched his racket from one hand to the other... only had a forehand...

Nadal could have done that seeing as he's right handed.  Was the badminton bloke any good though?  It sounds tricky considering how quick paced badminton is.

Yes he was he was brilliant... you just did not know how to serve to him..I played mostly mixed doubles and I hated it albeit I thought I had a good serve... but he made mincemeat of it

Haddie-nuff wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Will we ever see a male player who uses both hands on each side?

Will we ever see a player (like a Badminton opponent I once had) who never had a back hand... he switched his racket from one hand to the other... only had a forehand...

I can't see why not. If a Nadal, a right handed man, can play left handed he could surely have used his left hand forehand. Was this missed off Uncle Tonis master plan?

The advantages would be massive, not least the choice of service angle on both sides.

Hell, he'd even have evenly developed arms, something even club players like me lacked (I remember my right forearm developed far bigger than my left).

Haddie-nuff wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Will we ever see a male player who uses both hands on each side?

Will we ever see a player (like a Badminton opponent I once had) who never had a back hand... he switched his racket from one hand to the other... only had a forehand...

Nadal could have done that seeing as he's right handed.  Was the badminton bloke any good though?  It sounds tricky considering how quick paced badminton is.

Yes he was he was brilliant... you just did not know how to serve to him..I played mostly mixed doubles and I hated it albeit I thought I had a good serve... but he made mincemeat of it

wish I had 2 forehands. I play a lot of badminton and my backhand is crap!

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Will we ever see a male player who uses both hands on each side?

Will we ever see a player (like a Badminton opponent I once had) who never had a back hand... he switched his racket from one hand to the other... only had a forehand...

I can't see why not. If a Nadal, a right handed man, can play left handed he could surely have used his left hand forehand. Was this missed off Uncle Tonis master plan?

The advantages would be massive, not least the choice of service angle on both sides.

Hell, he'd even have evenly developed arms, something even club players like me lacked (I remember my right forearm developed far bigger than my left).

BB this is what I was hinting at the other day when we spoke as to how Rafa got injured... was he trying such a development in his game.. knowing Toni nothing would surprise... certainly if you think about it it would save an enormous amount of running... taking the pressure off the knees..  It had occurred to me some time back why Rafa hadn't tried at least switching when he served or returned serve.

laverfan wrote:

@HE... Nadal is not playing due to an injury. It does not diminish his achievements one iota. If the goal is re-state them, it has been done countless times in many fora. Instead of looking back, look forward, and see what it brings. Any other player winning a title does not reduce Nadal's in anyway.

Of course Nadal's achievements are not diminished when he can't play or is injured during a slam. His achievements are safely in the bank. But all his injuries represent a lost opportunity. What's that book called about tennis? "A Hand Full Of Summers" and basically that's all a tennis career is. If a large chunk of that time is blighted by injury it is even less...

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Without clay Nadal only has

  As if RG isn't part of the slam calendar. Nadal has for the last decade reduced the slams that the rest of the field compete for annually to just 3. All players have a limited number of slams that they can compete for because a tennis career is so short. For 10 years which is basically a whole tennis career the number of slams that the rest of the field have had to share has been reduced by 25%. lol he has taken a slam hostage   

Haddie-nuff wrote: Ill be glad when he retires if only to shut those up that despise him so and then realise what the game will sorely miss

I'm not sure things work that way. Nadal has beat up on so many players (including some very populare ones) that he has left many of their crazy fans bruised (the fans maybe more than the players) that I doubt they will ever forgive  

HE they say there is a fine line that divides a cynic from a realist... your last comment however comes from a cynic.... the realism is... however much they will hate to admit it... they will know when Rafa retires that the game will never be the same no matter what they may think now.
Take away the three top guns in this sport and what have you got.
The hasbeens, the couldhavebeens, and the neverwouldhavebeens
Fans will die of boredom

I played 2 handed forehand when I was about 10/11 years old until it was coached out of me afterwards. As a result, my forehand became the weaker shot, since the 2 hands give more control. After years of practice my forehand seems to have eventually caught up.

Good for you HB  I only took up Badminton because (before the days of the DH) my wrists were not strong enough to cope with SH  I was a mere slip of a thing in those days   ... How I have envied the young people today that are taught that shot as being the norm. Badminton was a poor substitute but it never ever stopped me watching every Tennis game I could and wishing I could have played

Haddie-nuff wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Will we ever see a male player who uses both hands on each side?

Will we ever see a player (like a Badminton opponent I once had) who never had a back hand... he switched his racket from one hand to the other... only had a forehand...

I can't see why not. If a Nadal, a right handed man, can play left handed he could surely have used his left hand forehand. Was this missed off Uncle Tonis master plan?

The advantages would be massive, not least the choice of service angle on both sides.

Hell, he'd even have evenly developed arms, something even club players like me lacked (I remember my right forearm developed far bigger than my left).

BB this is what I was hinting at the other day when we spoke as to how Rafa got injured... was he trying such a development in his game.. knowing Toni nothing would surprise... certainly if you think about it it would save an enormous amount of running... taking the pressure off the knees..  It had occurred to me some time back why Rafa hadn't tried at least switching when he served or returned serve.

Ok, but at this stage of life I can't see it. Isn't it more likely he slipped over or something normal?

Heh your guess is as good as mine ... probably better... but I think had that been the case he might have come "clean" (should I use that phrase ????)  I dunno its purely conjecture but he shows no other signs of it being a fall. Rafa has always said that he is constantly looking for ways to improve his game... he is playing against some very big servers these days and Rafa's own serve has never been a huge weapon .. his body serve is good but he usually reserves that for his second (get me out of here) serve.  I honestly dont know but Toni is such a crafty old s.o.d.  nothing would surprise me

lydian wrote:what ifs and maybes make forums go around!

I have yet to see a discussion of what-if-there-was-no-ProAm divide, perhaps because no one here can go back that far. . The OP is yet another GOAT thread, in a very thin disguise.

lydian wrote:Much of Nadal's injuries are through overplaying...and the right wrist injury - given he uses it far less than his left, is arguably nothing to do with overplaying, just one of those things.

I disagree. The injuries are a direct consequence of a specific playing style. For example, Federer technically should never have been a tennis player because of his back, but managed it for his entire career, and is still doing it. Lendl managed his back, but it eventually won. Sampras managed his Thalassemia. Overplaying is also a conscious choice. In Federer's specific there are two WOs in his entire career, and no retirements.

HM Murdoch wrote:IC, great effort on the Djoko excuses!

Do you want to take over as the main Djokovic cheerleader while JMDP is injured? I obviously need to go away and work on my game. 

yea, thinking of parttime   

Haddie-nuff wrote:HE they say there is a fine line that divides a cynic from a realist... your last comment however comes from a cynic.... the realism is... however much they will hate to admit it... they will know when Rafa retires that the game will never be the same no matter what they may think now.
Take away the three top guns in this sport and what have you got.
The hasbeens, the couldhavebeens, and the neverwouldhavebeens
Fans will die of boredom

This is tosh. To suggest that the game of tennis rests on three individuals, or even two or one, is nonsense.

The game will not miss Nadal and it will not miss Federer. Individuals might (and probably will going by this forum) . But the game won't. Much like it does not miss Sampras and it does not miss Borg and it does not miss Laver. Does Golf miss Nicklaus? Does athletics miss Carl Lewis?

The sport is bigger than any individual. Not the other way round. Someone else will come and fill the void. And I guarantee that someone will come along and in 10/20 years time we will probably be having exactly the same discussions about two other contrasting players who will have broken records held by both Federer and Nadal.

Records are there to be the broken. And they will be. Don Bradmans batting average being the exception that proves the rule. Whilst not under threat - averages are increasing. Sangakarra's average as a batsman only is north of 70. One day - someone will get close.

It is perfectly normal for a right handed person to be left handed at sport - but hopeless at playing sport with the your 'strongest' side. In some sports, again cricket, individuals can be left handed and right handed in different disciplines and even across different sports. Jimmy Anderson for example is a left handed batsman but plays golf right handed - and hits it miles. I heard a story that on one tour - Marcus Trescothick had seen enough of Jimmy smashing it miles at golf (playing right handed) and insisted that the next time he nets - he bat right handed (instead of left handed). After 10 balls they pulled him out of the net because he was incapable of defending himself and it was dangerous!

Hasn't Nadal even come out and said he has never been right handed at Tennis - even though he is right handed. I'm sure he has - in a book or something. To suggest at this stage of his tennis career he would contemplate switching any shot to right handed is pure fantasy.

Totally agree JJ.

The sport is the draw and always will be. It is still rolling along after the likes of Laver, Gonzalez, Connors, org, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras and Agassi have retired and will do exactly the same after Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have retired. New stars will come along who will attract a huge following and no doubt they will be vociferous is touting their favourite as a GOAT etc. And so the cycle goes on......

LF, are you actually agreeing, not disagreeing, with me by saying its a conscious choice because that's what I'm saying...

You talk about direct consequence of playing style...what does that mean, it's too generic. You fall into the same trap as the broader media about pointing to his so called attritional playing style. Do you think Nadal's playing style is any different to Djokovic or Ferrer? It isn't and yet they get far less injured. In fact, his technique is actually less extreme than theirs...he plays SW FH grip to their extreme Western. His retrieving from the baseline is no more extreme than theirs, and arguable does less retrieving these days with a more aggressive style and better serve. No, it's going deep week in, week out during the clay season followed by not time to recover before Halle/Wimbledon that kills Nadal...as it would any other player. He's merely a victim of his own success. Other players get more time off during clay season by virtue of not playing deep every week. What he needs to do is drop at least one event mid-clay season.

Nadal started playing with 2 hands on the racquet on both sides.
Toni asked him to pick left or right...Nadal preferred left and the rest is history.

I cannot remember any other era of tennis where there was even a suggestion of A GOAT in tennis... and I have seen tennis since there were no professionals... No one held the kind of records we are talking about today and I doubt anyone here will live long enough to see one player hold the FO title (at the least) as many times.as Nadal. so whilst you may argue on some of my points not everything is "tosh" as you so quaintly put it. I still think we miss the Bjorgs,and the Agassis and the Connors of tennis there has been nothing to replace them. The game will be in the hands of those players over 6"6" who can serve in excess of 150 an hour and hold the record amount of aces in one match that is what fans will have to look forward to.

laverfan wrote:

lydian wrote:what ifs and maybes make forums go around!

I have yet to see a discussion of what-if-there-was-no-ProAm divide, perhaps because no one here can go back that far. . The OP is yet another GOAT thread, in a very thin disguise.

lydian wrote:Much of Nadal's injuries are through overplaying...and the right wrist injury - given he uses it far less than his left, is arguably nothing to do with overplaying, just one of those things.

I disagree. The injuries are a direct consequence of a specific playing style. For example, Federer technically should never have been a tennis player because of his back, but managed it for his entire career, and is still doing it. Lendl managed his back, but it eventually won. Sampras managed his Thalassemia. Overplaying is also a conscious choice. In Federer's specific there are two WOs in his entire career, and no retirements.

I just don't see how you can say the injuries are a direct consequence of his playing style. There is literally no evidence for that. Sadly, some people are just more injury-prone than others. That seems to be the case with Nadal.

In relation to Federer, I am sure his perfect technique helps in limiting injury. However, I think it has to be acknowledged that he has also been fortunate that his body has held up so well. Your post implies that avoiding injury is primarily a question of playing style. I think my view would be that its largely a question of luck combined with managing a sensible playing schedule. I would regard the actual playing style as relatively unimportant.

Haddie-nuff wrote:I cannot remember any other era of tennis where there was even a suggestion of A GOAT in tennis... and I have seen tennis since there were no professionals... No one held the kind of records we are talking about today and I doubt anyone here will live long enough to see one player hold the FO title (at the least) as  many times.as Nadal. so whilst you may argue on some of my points not everything is "tosh" as you so quaintly put it.  I still think we miss the Bjorgs,and the Agassis and the Connors of tennis there has been nothing to replace them. The game will be in the hands of those players over 6"6" who can serve in excess of 150 an hour and hold the record amount of aces in one match  that is what fans will have to look forward to.

You are so extremist. And ultimately yearning for a time that doesn't exist anymore. Not much can be said other than time stand stills for no man. I'm not sure what you mean by 'replace' to be honest and what an acceptable form of replacement would look like to you?

Medical/Sport science has evolved dramatically and it is well documented that the human race is getting bigger. Basically all athletes are bigger and stronger. Across all sports. The average size of the person on tour I would wager will steadily increase. As will the power/weight of a shot - though this can be controlled, and I believe it is, by making surfaces more durable. To deny this is pretty futile. That being said, when has the 'biggest' person (relatively speaking) on tour been the dominant player? Look back at the list of No.1 if you need to. Basically this has never happened. And there have always been statistical outliers in terms of size in any generation. If a player was average size and served at 150mph would that be acceptable? Is it the speed of the serve that bothers you or the size of the man? I would hazard a guess that the length of rallies in terms of shots at all GS has increased over the last couple of decades. So quite why suddenly you think the serve is going to dominate is beyond me.

Haddie-nuff wrote:I cannot remember any other era of tennis where there was even a suggestion of A GOAT in tennis... and I have seen tennis since there were no professionals... No one held the kind of records we are talking about today and I doubt anyone here will live long enough to see one player hold the FO title (at the least) as  many times.as Nadal. so whilst you may argue on some of my points not everything is "tosh" as you so quaintly put it.  I still think we miss the Bjorgs,and the Agassis and the Connors of tennis there has been nothing to replace them. The game will be in the hands of those players over 6"6" who can serve in excess of 150 an hour and hold the record amount of aces in one match  that is what fans will have to look forward to.

No, the game won't go that way.

Who really misses Borg, or Connors? Most don't remember them. We might as well ask if we miss Tilden.

Maybe we won't get 9 RG's, maybe that'll be because there's more competition and that'll be good. But eventually all records fall*, everyone gets eclipsed. That's how it works.


* except Bradman. And Phil "The Power" Taylor.

lydian wrote:You talk about direct consequence of playing style...what does that mean, it's too generic. You fall into the same trap as the broader media about pointing to his so called attritional playing style. Do you think Nadal's playing style is any different to Djokovic or Ferrer?

This is not media, but Agassi, himself a professional player. The one who has anointed Nadal the 'GOAT'.

lydian wrote:It isn't and yet they get far less injured. In fact, his technique is actually less extreme than theirs...he plays SW FH grip to their extreme Western. His retrieving from the baseline is no more extreme than theirs, and arguable does less retrieving these days with a more aggressive style and better serve.

This is not about technique. Nadal's Autobiography has the famous passage about 70% v 85% certainty of winning a point that you may want to reconsider.

lydian wrote:No, it's going deep week in, week out during the clay season followed by not time to recover before Halle/Wimbledon that kills Nadal...as it would any other player.  He's merely a victim of his own success. Other players get more time off during clay season by virtue of not playing deep every week. What he needs to do is drop at least one event mid-clay season.

What do you mean by other players? There are many others who play QFs/SFs regularly and who are in the Top 10 currently. Do all of them have injury issues? Ferrer for example is far less injured than Nadal, despite his style being even more attritional than Nadal.

Born Slippy wrote:There is literally no evidence for that. Sadly, some people are just more injury-prone than others. That seems to be the case with Nadal.

In Nadal's biography, there is a quote about professional sport being injurious to public health. A chess player is less prone to physical injury, than say a tennis player. What evidence is necessary to prove it? Golf is less risky than Tennis. Do we need to count number of per player injuries per sport to find such evidence? Some people are more prone than others and repeatedly pursuing a sport can aggravate and make such injuries chronic. If a player does, it is a conscious decision.

http://www.forbes.com/2002/08/07/0807sport.html

People thinking Nadal is unlucky with injuries need to look at why it happens to him. It stems from his technique and ONLY having his uncle telling him what to do, he needs a new input in his coaching team.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:People thinking Nadal is unlucky with injuries need to look at why it happens to him. It stems from his technique and ONLY having his uncle telling him what to do, he needs a new input in his coaching team.

I thought Roig provided input as well.

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:

@HE... Nadal is not playing due to an injury. It does not diminish his achievements one iota. If the goal is re-state them, it has been done countless times in many fora. Instead of looking back, look forward, and see what it brings. Any other player winning a title does not reduce Nadal's in anyway.

Of course Nadal's achievements are not diminished when he can't play or is injured during a slam. His achievements are safely in the bank. But all his injuries represent a lost opportunity. What's that book called about tennis? "A Hand Full Of Summers" and basically that's all a tennis career is. If a large chunk of that time is blighted by injury it is even less...

Nadal gets injured coz of his play, he would not have got anywhere near this tally had it not been his give all approach on the field, so while you take the glory coz of the style you need to take the side effects of it as well.

In simple terms Nadal deserved what he got and nothing is a lost opportunity in reality, he indeed over achieved his numbers with both luck and perseverance .

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Without clay Nadal only has

  As if RG isn't part of the slam calendar. Nadal has for the last decade reduced the slams that the rest of the field compete for annually to just 3. All players have a limited number of slams that they can compete for because a tennis career is so short. For 10 years which is basically a whole tennis career the number of slams that the rest of the field have had to share has been reduced by 25%. lol he has taken a slam hostage   

To make the matters simple, we have to divide Tennis as 4 different sport

1]Clay , 2] Grass, 3] Hardcourt 4] Indoors

in 1]Clay - Nadal is the Goat and Federer would be in top 10-15 max based on arguments and stats.

in 2]Grass - Federer and Sampras are GOATs , Nadal would be in top 10-15 based on arguments and stats.

in 3]Hardcourts - Federer is the GOAT based on stats and Nadal would be in top 10-top 20 based on arguments and stats.

in 4]Indoors - Its actually difficult to say who the GOAT is but certainly not Federer and Nadal, Federer would be in top5 -top 10 Max and Nadal would be in Top 25 max.

Honestly I hope this solves your question  

hawkeye wrote: But all his injuries represent a lost opportunity. What's that book called about tennis? "A Hand Full Of Summers" and basically that's all a tennis career is. If a large chunk of that time is blighted by injury it is even less...

Burnt fingers at a Japanese steakhouse also represent a lost opportunity. Every match lost is a lost opportunity for the loser to have potentially won. Every match won is a lost opportunity to be at the beach/fishing/golfing/jet-skiing/anything else but Tennis.

IIRC, Federer went shopping in NY after his loss to Djokovic after 'the shot'.

In Nadal's specific case, has he ever withdrawn from RG? Perhaps you have an explanation why 'other' slams are considered expendable, but RG is not (2004 is probably an exception).

I am not sure what 'large chunks' of injury time are you referring to.

While he is not noted for his contributions to tennis theory, Murray Walker had a phrase that he used from time when commentating on Formula 1 - "in order to finish first, first you have to finish ..."

In the case of tennis you could interpret that as the importance of managing your body to give yourself a chance to win by being available and competitive through every round.

laverfan wrote:

Burnt fingers at a Japanese steakhouse also represent a lost opportunity. Every match lost is a lost opportunity for the loser to have potentially won. Every match won is a lost opportunity to be at the beach/fishing/golfing/jet-skiing/anything else but Tennis.

IIRC, Federer went shopping in NY after his loss to Djokovic after 'the shot'.

In Nadal's specific case, has he ever withdrawn from RG? Perhaps you have an explanation why 'other' slams are considered expendable, but RG is not (2004 is probably an exception).

I am not sure what 'large chunks' of injury time are you referring to.

  You do throw some unusual information into a debate! What has Federer's consolation shopping trip got to do with injury withdrawals and losses? But I hope he had a nice time and forgot about Djokovic's interesting high risk strategy for a short while...

Nadal's record at slams when he plays and isn't injured demonstrates what huge opportunities he has lost. Look at my chart and you will see the evidence. The losses nearly all have   attached to them apart from Djokovic's 3   What makes Rafa's slam record remarkable but injury blighted is that it is either remarkable OR injury blighted. Other players have won slams and had injuries but the majority of slams will have ended by a more usual contested loss.

I have no idea what you mean implying that Nadal gets injured when he is playing a slam he considers expendable   If you include 2004 he has two   attached to RG. It could have been 11!          



Of all the GOAT debates the one that argues that Federer is the better player because he has had less injuries IMO is the weakest. Any argument for who is the best player should first and foremost be based on their performance on the court. I could beat both Federer and Nadal in succession if they both withdrew injured  

laverfan wrote:Burnt fingers at a Japanese steakhouse also represent a lost opportunity.

That is a fantastic phrase, I may have to appropriate it for my own usage in the future LF

Who has ever suggested that Federer is the better player because he has fewer injuries?

You truly are deluded.

You say any argument about who is best should be decided by peformances on the court.

Yet, here you are doing your best to highlight all the times Nadal has not been on court. Why feel the need to share that information or even make it a factor in any discussion?

Who has the better overall achievements in tennis from time spent on court between Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal?

At this moment it is Roger Federer. Hands down.

I trust from now on you will never ever refer to any episode or tournament when Nadal has not been on court.

Oh and please stop referring posters back to your OP as though it is irrefutable proof that Nadal has only lost 3 times in majors since RG 2008. It is entirely your opinion and hopelessly incorrect at that. I mean how you discount some losses as odd and don't count is evidence enough for us not to take you seriously.

Have you not noticed yet that no one, including Rafa fans, agree with it?

Outplayed by Murray '08 US Open.
Hit off the court by Soderling FO '09.
Outplayed and was going to lose vs Murray aus '10.
Outplayed by Rosol, no sign of injury. w '12.
Was a set and a break down before Nadal got injured aus '14.

hawkeye - I wonder have you ever considered basing your topics/posts more on fact than random subjective views & musings ?

I readily acknowledge that web forums by definition carry a lot of personal opinion ; but equally, I can say with some certainty that if you were to devote greater attention to simple historical evidence rather than unconvincing attempts to dress up past results with shoulda/coulda/woulda waffle, then your contributions would be a) a lot more credible, and b) mercifully, a lot shorter too.

Give it a go.