Nadal: under-appreciated or overrated ?

by It Must Be Love Tue 25 Nov 2014, 11:07 pm

First topic message reminder :

Nadal remains probably the most polarising figure in tennis today. He's one of the most popular sports stars in the world, a global icon who has fans in every corner of the earth, and along with his arch rival Roger Federer has brought tennis to new heights.

Of course the answer to the title of this thread will depend largely on people's opinion of Nadal. Huge fans of him like ~~Emancip~~ me might say he's vastly under-appreciated, while people who hate his guts will say he is hugely overrated by tennis fans in general.

Now I think it's time to set a few things straight, I'll be frank. I'll try to simply stick to stats here, this isn't really an opinion piece.
Firstly in terms of Grand Slams Nadal has the second most of all time of male singles. He is joint with Sampras, but only Federer has more Slams than him.
Few people don't have Bjorn Borg as one of the greatest of all time. Well Nadal has won as many slams off clay as Bjorn Borg, and more Slams overall. Yes it is true that the surfaces are more similar in speed compared to the past, but that is not Nadal's fault- and it really is speculation to assume how he would do if he had to adjust his game radically to adapt. He has good hand-eye coordination, and fantastic mental strength, so that isn't a bad place to start anyhow.
I hear talk of 'Federer era' followed by a short 'Nadal era' and then another longer 'Djokovic era'. Let's get another thing clear. As of this point, Nadal has 7 more Grand Slams than Djokovic, double him; while Federer has 3 more Grand Slams than Nadal. The gap between Djokovic and Nadal will narrow, but at the moment Djokovic needs 4 more slams to even get to the point where's he's 3 slams away from Nadal.

Staying away from opinion based era debates, I don't think anyone will be too quick to argue that Nadal has had very easy opponents. Infact in 12/14 slams he's won he's had to beat Djokovic or Federer, and sometimes both. Off clay, 4 out of his 5 Slams he's had to face either Djokovic or Federer.
Not only that but he's had to do all of this facing injury every few years; which as a fan really is annoying. The reasons for the injuries are probably a mixture of playing style and congenital factors, and they have taken previous time away from Nadal's career. Consequently this has meant that for his titles his ranking record has not been great. A crucial part of having a good ranking is being able to stay healthy for the whole year, and even the most deluded person will not argue that Nadal's strength is 'keeping healthy for the whole year'. So to rub the salt in the wounds people could point to his poor ranking record and his 0 pointers in USO 2014, AO 2013 etc.
When he does play he does a good job though, as I've said before his W/L ratio isn't too shoddy.

So what do people think ? Under appreciated by tennis fans, especially those who don't like his style of play, or overrated ?

(btw I must add, if you simply want to discuss whether he is or is not GOAT or someone else is, there is a sticky for that; this is a more Nadal centric thread and hope people can stick to that)

by It Must Be Love Wed 26 Nov 2014, 4:23 pm

hawkeye wrote:Maybe it is but the way his game is belittled and some of the outright nasty things that are said about him can leave a sour taste. I've sometimes wondered if there is some insidious racism going on. The way not just "fans" but those in the media are constantly referring to English not being his first language inferring he's less intelligent and some of the ways his game is described have left me feeling a little uncomfortable. I would hope I'm wrong.

I do think there's some truth with that unfortunately, but certainly a minority of people who have those motives

by lydian Wed 26 Nov 2014, 8:26 pm

Good discussion, not much to add other than he needs to consistently revert to the aggressive style of play he had to up around 2006. Still, winning 12/14 slams since 2006 can't be sniffed at.

Agree that FH is one of THE shots in the history of tennis along with Sampras' serve. It is a totally unique shot. My regret for him is being born with a deformed foot bone...had he not had so many issues because of (correcting) it his slam success would arguably have been higher. Like LK says, he's not under appreciated by coaches or players, they recognise his unique attributes. But like all things, his strength sometimes becomes his weakness...plus he's suffered increased bouts of confidence crises later in life. He's human after all...and many confidence issues caused by a failing body. However, he's rebounded from injury 2-3 times at a level most other players could never replicate such is he will to win which must be considered amongst the highest ever seen on a tennis court. This will to win is at the very heart of Nadal's success as it's driven his need to improve his whole career from young boy to seasoned pro. It would be great to see him experiment with a new coach but it will never happen.

by CAS Wed 26 Nov 2014, 8:47 pm

I agree that Nadal has one clear tactic, thats to get high on the backhand so his opponent cannot hit any winners or be aggressive, then either wait for a short ball or wear him down and wait for the error as his incredible net clearance which allows to take little risk.

You could argue he's a one trick pony but its pretty much impossible to stop, his forehand has got to be the most effective shot in tennis. Federer's hits more winners, looks more beautiful but Rafas also takes out a players legs, a long with being able to make up angles I didn't know existed.

I've never been keen on Nadal, seems a nice guy off it but his style always frustrated me, felt like he could be outplayed but still stay in a match because of his defence and spin messing with his opponent. However, he never ceases to amaze me how he plays one point at a time in big moments having the highest concentration in the game.

Despite all this I actually like watching his forehand (and trying to replicate..badly) as it is just a beast of a shot and one of the most unique strokes out there.

Also give credit where its due, when someone hits a drop shot against him I think he is the best at finding a cute angle to guide it past his opponent once he chases it down, he is the master at that, and will never agree with people who says he lacks talent. That being said, I pull my hair out when people say he is the best volleyer in the game, approaching the net once every 20 points to hit a cute drop volley when his opponent is miles out of court doesn't make you a great volleyer, he is incredible at deciding when to come to the net but wouldn't say he is good at defending it. He doesn't hit enough to be given that title.

by DirectView2 Wed 26 Nov 2014, 9:02 pm

Silver wrote:Underrated due to style of play, overrated due to H2H with Federer. I think people rate his various records very highly, as they rightly should. I don't see anybody denigrating him as a one-trick pony anymore, which is nice.

So basically, right in the middle. I think his current standing (in with Laver, Fed, Borg) is about right.

+1

Nadal's style of play is very under-rated , people always complained about his wear and tear in the body but failed to recognize this is the style that yielded 14 slams.

Nadal took defensive counter punching style to all new heights, a height that is never seen in tennis before.

Yes Nadal on 14 slams and record holder in masters titles, but he severly lags behind Sampras ,Fed in many other departments like no. of WTF wins, year end No.1's No. of Weeks at No.1, No. of Wimbledon titles, defending year end No.1, defending GS title outside clay etc,... and his fans to think him as GOAT is way too over rating at the moment.

by hawkeye Wed 26 Nov 2014, 10:06 pm

DirectView2 wrote:

Yes Nadal on 14 slams and record holder in masters titles, but he severly lags behind Sampras ,Fed in many other departments like no. of WTF wins, year end No.1's No. of Weeks at No.1, No. of Wimbledon titles, defending year end No.1, defending GS title outside clay etc,... and his fans to think him as GOAT is way too over rating at the moment.

Ha ha! Well Federer and Samprass "severely" lag behind Nadal in RG titles. So what? Who cares about the WTF Whistle

The reason why Nadal hasn't been consistently number one is obvious and has nothing whatsoever to do with how good a player he is. When he's fit to play he tends to win. In fact his win/loss recod is the best ever. As far as consistence goes he has a few record of his own. He is under rated when his records are dismissed and other players records emphasized in comparison.

by **laverfan** Thu 27 Nov 2014, 4:18 am

hawkeye wrote:Who cares about the WTF

Wonderful way of devaluing achievements of others, and there is a long list of WTF winners, ending at Djokovic as of today, who may take umbrage at such comments. The theme of the article is very clear, is it not? Whistle

by hawkeye Thu 27 Nov 2014, 7:15 am

laverfan wrote:
hawkeye wrote:Who cares about the WTF

Wonderful way of devaluing achievements of others, and there is a long list of WTF winners, ending at Djokovic as of today, who may take umbrage at such comments. The theme of the article is very clear, is it not?

Did you see the comment I was replying to? Because you didn't feel the need to jump in when Wimbledon, the WTF and weeks at number one were being used as a measure of achievement so that Nadal's achievements could be under rated. Funny that Whistle

If Djokovic sees the WTF with his 9 winning sets in total and an an asterisked final as a measure of how good he is then he would be undervaluing himself. I reckon the WTF is just a over hyped exhibition with more cash than real prestige attached and is far removed from the tour with it's RR format, substitutes, formulas and unusual conditions. But that's sidetracking this thread...

by Guest Thu 27 Nov 2014, 8:44 am

You cared enough for the WTF to be held outside.......

Whistle

Now why was that I wonder? chin

by **laverfan** Thu 27 Nov 2014, 4:15 pm

hawkeye wrote:
laverfan wrote:
hawkeye wrote:Who cares about the WTF

Wonderful way of devaluing achievements of others, and there is a long list of WTF winners, ending at Djokovic as of today, who may take umbrage at such comments. The theme of the article is very clear, is it not?

Did you see the comment I was replying to? Because you didn't feel the need to jump in when Wimbledon, the WTF and weeks at number one were being used as a measure of achievement so that Nadal's achievements could be under rated. Funny that

Numbers are just that. 17 or 14 makes very little difference, as does 22 vs 25 or 300+ to 100+. At the end of the day, this is about my-da-is-bigger-than-yours (all roads lead to Rome or the GOAT sticky).

hawkeye wrote:If Djokovic sees the WTF with his 9 winning sets in total and an an asterisked final as a measure of how good he is then he would be undervaluing himself. I reckon the WTF is just a over hyped exhibition with more cash than real prestige attached and is far removed from the tour with it's RR format, substitutes, formulas and unusual conditions. But that's sidetracking this thread...

If winning these 9 (or 10) sets was easy, many others would have won it too, right? It is a tough place for any player, because no one can win all tournaments. Player X has won tournament A, but player Y has won tournament B, so how many ways to make A > B or B > A?

Ferrer has yet to win a slam, so I should not even bother discussing him, right? or the other 127 losers at each slam?

You have watched enough Tennis to understand that such arguments take away from the Sport and each unique player's contribution to it.

by hawkeye Thu 27 Nov 2014, 4:27 pm

^ laverfan. The disscusion on this thread is meant to be about whether you think Nadal is under appreciated or overrated. Do you have an opinion?

by Jahu Thu 27 Nov 2014, 5:49 pm

HE, consider yourself spanked by LF Laugh

Making a joke of WTF just because Nadal has not won it, is a little sad.

by Silver Fri 28 Nov 2014, 4:05 pm

hawkeye wrote:^ laverfan. The disscusion on this thread is meant to be about whether you think Nadal is under appreciated or overrated. Do you have an opinion?

You haven't offered an opinion on this yet. You just said he was 'well-liked', and then started raving about insidious racism and WTFs. Laverfan's contributed far more of value to the discussion than you Laugh

by Guest Fri 28 Nov 2014, 4:27 pm

Check and mate Laugh

by lags72 Fri 28 Nov 2014, 4:42 pm

hawkeye - you do yourself no favours whatsoever with lame efforts to devalue the WTF. But you do lose a lot of credibility in the process of course....... picard

The Champions' roll call of honour for WTF includes virtually all the greats of the game, since the inception of the event.

Your comment that it is "far removed from the tour" is itself hugely ironic, given that it is the only event for which qualification is based exclusively on Tour performance, week in week out. No wild cards to be had here, and even the substitutes you mention can only be drawn from an elite field right at the top of the game.

The only change I personally would like to see for WTF would be a Bo5 Final (which I believe was formerly the case) ; other than that, it is an excellent tournament - and, most significantly of all, one which players fight hard to make.

by It Must Be Love Fri 28 Nov 2014, 5:15 pm

Lags- any thoughts on the OP ?

by Jahu Fri 28 Nov 2014, 5:45 pm

IMBL, HE has ruined your OP.

Next time, watch out your OP's, so they don't get derailed.

by lags72 Fri 28 Nov 2014, 7:13 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Lags- any thoughts on the OP ?

In all honesty, I can't say I gave much thought to your article once I saw the title - simply because I tend not to assess players in terms of being "over-rated" or "under-appreciated". Such labels/adjectives imply a perspective based on the personal views or arbitrary benchmarks of other observers. I prefer to judge professionals in any sport on what I see myself, and their actual achievements.

What I see in Nadal is one of the true greats of the game, and probably the very best clay-courter ever seen (even though I will always prefer the playing style of Bjorn Borg). He has achieved things that may never be surpassed - or even equalled. And there is more to come of course - perhaps much more.

I do feel that Nadal's records have been heavily skewed by clay, and so for me he is not yet up there with a number of other players. This imbalance has prevented him from ever dominating the Tour throughout full seasons - as reflected by the fact that he currently sits at a relatively lowly (albeit still very respectable) tenth position in the consecutive weeks at Number One league.

Rafa has the talent, skill & ability to pretty much blow anyone off court when he is at his very best. Nobody can deny this, we have all seen it many, many times. But his 'very best' invariably involves a debilitating playing technique that wrecks his body to the point where he has rarely been able to show up and put himself on the line over the course of a full season. Hence the notable failure to defend any Slam title outside clay. I do think it's a salient fact that during all of Rafa's ten years as a top ten player, he has never missed a clay season - but has of course missed many, many non-clay events. Injuries are unfortunate, and mostly unpredictable. But a big part of sport is durability, and when achievement & all-conquering win streaks - however impressive - comes during limited spells or (in the case of tennis) repeated victories and successful title defences on just one surface, then I think it affects one's ultimate legacy.

by It Must Be Love Fri 28 Nov 2014, 8:50 pm

Do you think personally Bjorn Borg has a better record off clay ?

I will agree though that his injury record is not good, he has missed a lot of chances to add to his record due to injuries.

by It Must Be Love Fri 28 Nov 2014, 8:58 pm

I do recognise that staying healthy and fit is part of the game of tennis, and I've seen no one argue differently.
However I don't think when I'm judging a player's quality of tennis, it's one of the primary aspects I look to. I think actually how someone plays when they're fit to play; i.e. their forehand, reflexes, serve etc. are all considerably more significant in this regard.

Anyone disagree ?

by **laverfan** Sat 29 Nov 2014, 1:39 am

It Must Be Love wrote:Do you think personally Bjorn Borg has a better record off clay ?

Borg was much more comfortable across many surfaces, unlike Nadal, who was coaxed out his Clay zone to play on others.

It Must Be Love wrote:I will agree though that his injury record is not good, he has missed a lot of chances to add to his record due to injuries.

I agree with lags72 about the adjectives used and their bias and connotation being broadcast loud and clear. Injuries or not, what Nadal has achieved is wonderful. No need to play the if-he-was-not-injured-he-could-have-won-more card. This thought process undermines articles which start well but then peter out into the GOATdom morass. This is why I was critical of HE about devaluing what others have achieved to somehow try and increase the value of what another has.

If you refrain from such implied or hinted subliminal messages, such articles should be praising what Nadal has done so far.

Perhaps I should consider writing an article on the inventor of Luxilon (and CoPoly) and how he could have achieved more if he was born 10 years earlier.

Here is a bit of the article...

Enter the Japanese engineer Yoshihiko Kawazoe. In 2004, he decided to test a string lubricant that its inventor, Kenji Okimoto, thought would “revive” old, worn strings. Kawazoe realized that, despite much research, scientists had only a shadowy idea of what happens during the 4 or 5 milliseconds when the ball is on the strings, simply because they couldn’t see it. But with an ultra-high-speed, 10,000-frame-per-second camera, Kawazoe solved the mystery of strings and spin.

In capturing 40 to 50 frames of each ball-string impact, he saw that lubricated strings slid with the ball and snapped back as it left. As they snapped back into line, they transferred more energy to the ball in the tangential (parallel to the racket face) direction and gave it more spin—which was easily calculated from the super-slow-motion rotation of the ball as it left the strings. In technical studies published in 2006 and 2007, International Tennis Federation researchers reported that the same movement that Kawazoe observed with lubricated strings occurs with copoly as well.

Copoly strings—slippery and stiff—generate more spin not because of more friction, but because of less. “The old argument was that the better the grip between the strings and the ball, the more spin you would get. But that’s not true,” said Rod Cross, an Australian physicist and co-author of Technical Tennis.

Last April, Cross and his co-author, Crawford Lindsey, published their study showing that copoly strings generate 20 percent more spin than nylon strings, and 11 percent more than natural gut.

Looking back, Lindsey and Kawazoe told me they are befuddled by how long people took to realize that polyester strings generated extra spin through sideways sliding and snapback. They should have known this, because 30 years ago, a radical innovation—“spaghetti strings”—used the same mechanism to generate more spin than even the best copolys.

“In spaghetti strings, the [horizontal and vertical] strings weren’t woven,” said Cross. “And because they weren’t woven, there was lots of freedom of movement within the string plane, and that produced almost a factor-of-two increase in the amount of spin. And that’s why the ITF banned them.”

Remarkably, the ITF’s 1978 ruling that all strings must be interwoven was the first rule constraining the design of either rackets or strings. Stuart Miller, the head of science and technology for the ITF, said that it tries to test each string that hits the market, “looking for anything that would, in our opinion, fundamentally change the nature of the game,” or introduce a “step change” in spin generation.

But two step-changing technologies have so far evaded regulation: the large-headed racket, which reached its spin potential only after three generations of technique refinements; and copoly strings, whose spin-boosting nature eluded proof for 15 years. Together, they can generate as much spin, or more, in the hands of today’s players as could a spaghetti racket wielded by a ’70s-era player.

Thank Ilie the Nasty for Nadal's game today? chin

by It Must Be Love Sat 29 Nov 2014, 2:01 am

laverfan wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Do you think personally Bjorn Borg has a better record off clay ?

Borg was much more comfortable across many surfaces, unlike Nadal, who was coaxed out his Clay zone to play on others.

I'm well aware nadal grew up on clay, but do you think Borg has a better record off clay ?

laverfan wrote:Injuries or not, what Nadal has achieved is wonderful. No need to play the if-he-was-not-injured-he-could-have-won-more card.

Yes, what he has achieved is wonderful.
The point I was making to Lags was that I don't see 'ability to not get injured' as very important when judging a player. I think it is valuable, but as I said when judging a player I'd still have reflexes/ forehand/ serve/ mentality etc. above the ability to not get injured.
As for your 'if he was not injured he could have won more'... well I see it as fairly likely that if a player didn't get injured often they would have the opportunity to win more compared to a player who did get injured more often. Do you seriously disagree with that ?

laverfan wrote:If you refrain from such implied or hinted subliminal messages, such articles should be praising what Nadal has done so far.

I don't think my apparent subliminal messages were stopping people praising Nadal; but I would like to make the point that if people want to criticise Nadal they are free to do so and have a debate about it. No articles 'should' be praising Nadal, just like no articles 'should' be criticising Nadal- people are allowed to have an opinion.

by **laverfan** Sat 29 Nov 2014, 4:29 am

It Must Be Love wrote:
laverfan wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Do you think personally Bjorn Borg has a better record off clay ?

Borg was much more comfortable across many surfaces, unlike Nadal, who was coaxed out his Clay zone to play on others.
I'm well aware nadal grew up on clay, but do you think Borg has a better record off clay ?

Yet again, this business of better records is where I see complete failure. What are the criteria for such better records - Career W/L, Annual performance, number of matches lost on a surface, number of titles won, number of finals contested? chin

Did they play against each other, with the same technology, on the same courts? Grass was faster, HC was much faster, so can you compare?

It Must Be Love wrote:
laverfan wrote:Injuries or not, what Nadal has achieved is wonderful. No need to play the if-he-was-not-injured-he-could-have-won-more card.
Yes, what he has achieved is wonderful.
The point I was making to Lags was that I don't see 'ability to not get injured' as very important when judging a player. I think it is valuable, but as I said when judging a player I'd still have reflexes/ forehand/ serve/ mentality etc. above the ability to not get injured.
As for your 'if he was not injured he could have won more'... well I see it as fairly likely that if a player didn't get injured often they would have the opportunity to win more compared to a player who did get injured more often. Do you seriously disagree with that ?

It is a subjective measurement. Lags may consider never having retired from a match as a parameter for GOATdom. Where are you going with this line of thought?

It Must Be Love wrote:
laverfan wrote:If you refrain from such implied or hinted subliminal messages, such articles should be praising what Nadal has done so far.
I don't think my apparent subliminal messages were stopping people praising Nadal; but I would like to make the point that if people want to criticise Nadal they are free to do so and have a debate about it. No articles 'should' be praising Nadal, just like no articles 'should' be criticising Nadal- people are allowed to have an opinion.

There is a word called 'celebrate'. Think about it, before you respond. You may not see any further response(s) till middle of January, 2015. Wink

by It Must Be Love Sat 29 Nov 2014, 2:34 pm

laverfan wrote:Did they play against each other, with the same technology, on the same courts? Grass was faster, HC was much faster, so can you compare?

No, they didn't.
You can compare the statistics, but as I've said that doesn't mean someone is better/ not better.
In terms of statistics between Nadal and Borg:
Nadal has 3 more Grand Slams, more weeks at number 1, as many Grand Slams off clay, better W/L record (despite having played more matches).

laverfan wrote:It is a subjective measurement.

I know, I was asking your opinion.
Do you think that when judging a player their ability to not get injured is more important than their actual tennis when healthy, i.e. forehand, serve etc.

by Haddie-nuff Sun 30 Nov 2014, 10:06 am

Comments by Gustavo Kuerten

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/11/25/sports/tennis/25reuters-tennis-nadal-kuerten.html?_r=0

by HM Murdock Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:03 am

It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal has 3 more Grand Slams

And has played 12 more Grand Slams in accumulating that total.

At the same number of slams entered (27), it was Borg 11, Nadal 9.

This is why "best" is subjective.

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 12:06 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal has 3 more Grand Slams
And has played 12 more Grand Slams in accumulating that total.

At the same number of slams entered (27), it was Borg 11, Nadal 9.

This is why "best" is subjective.

Good post, and as for your last line I think you know that I fully agree with you.

Another observation I make:
From 2009, there are 5 Slams where I feel Nadal has played but not been able to compete to the best of his ability in the match he lost due to injury (Note: this doesn't mean I necessarily think he would have won those slams without the injury, that is speculation).
Furthermore from 2009 he's had to miss 4 Slams due to injury, i.e. not play them at all.
Now first things first, I thing that shows Nadal has not been able to do well in the 'ability to not get injured' department of the game. If someone replies to my observation that this shows Nadal can't play for years sustained without injuries and negative effects on his body, I agree with you. However as I have said before, I don't see 'ability to not get injured' as a particularly important factor when judging a tennis player; things such as serve, forehand, movement, reflexes etc. are all far more important for me.

Second point is that I think from 2009, with the exclusion of these 9 slams where he has been affected by injury, he has won 9/15 of them, so 60%. If we apply the same statistical ratio to these 9 slams, it comes to 5.4 slams (again, this would be the best way I think of calculating an estimate, obviously I'm not actually suggesting Nadal would literally add 5.4 slams to his slam count if he was healthy for those slams).

So overall I think the two conclusions one can reach is firstly Nadal is not very good at avoiding injuries (for a combination of factors: congenital feet problem which means he has to wear special shoes which put more pressure on his knee, as well as playing style). And secondly these injuries have really been a huge obstruction to his career; it's no surprise he has the best W/L ratio out of any player in history. If his injury record had been one of a normal player, it's very likely he would be comfortably above Federer in the slam count.

by Born Slippy Mon 01 Dec 2014, 12:33 pm

tend to agree with most of that. There is a lot of talk about how Nadal likes to be the chaser and does not do as well when actually at number 1. However, it seems to me what usually happens is that Nadal has a phase when he is healthy - gets to number 1 and then drops down again when he picks up an injury.

In 2008, when he became number 1, he then tore through the hard court season picking up the Olympic title en route. He then won his one and only Australian Open before dominating the clay season as per normal. He lost the number 1 spot after being unable to defend his Wimbledon title through injury.

Having recovered, he then went on another dominant run in 2010 winning three slams in a row (winning his first US Open after he had regained the number 1 ranking). I don't consider his level dipped in 2011 - Djokovic just played incredibly to usurp him (Nadal still managed a slam and two finals).

Rafa regained the number 1 spot in late 2013. He has then had an injury plagued 2014 and lost the spot mid-way through the year.

There also seems to be a lot of talk about how Rafa's playing style has led to his injuries. That seems unlikely to me to have been a significant factor and I don't think there is any evidence to support that theory. He has been injury-prone throughout his career and I strongly suspect that even if he played like Federer, he would probably have spent a very similar amount of time off the tour.

by Jahu Mon 01 Dec 2014, 12:41 pm

Not again this, if he was healthy and not injured, he lost this many slams as he was injured blla blla, Fed would be at 20+, Djoko at 10+, Murray at 4-5, etc etc etc, endless stuff.

by HM Murdock Mon 01 Dec 2014, 1:15 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:If his injury record had been one of a normal player, it's very likely he would be comfortably above Federer in the slam count.

This is where I think you get yourself on a sticky wicket.

You give Nadal the benefit of an "if": if he had been fit, he would have won more than Federer.

But this can be applied to all players. What if Borg had played for longer or had bothered playing in Australia? What if Connors had bothered playing in Australia or hadn't been banned from the French Open during his peak years?

And, of course, Federer himself. What if he hadn't been ill in AO08? What if his back had been pain free in 2013? He might otherwise be on more than 17.

I only ever see the "if" argument used to elevate Nadal's achievements past Federer's. It doesn't seem to get applied in elevating other players' achievements past Nadal's.

by Guest Mon 01 Dec 2014, 1:25 pm

If I actually bothered with tennis at school I would be ahead of Federer and everyone else by now! Wink

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 01 Dec 2014, 1:52 pm

Starting to sound like a GOAT debate. Somewhere, someone put up a sticky for that sort of thing.

by Guest Mon 01 Dec 2014, 1:59 pm

I saw that somewhere and then someone goes and puts 'logical' in there and I got scared at that point Very Happy

by Jahu Mon 01 Dec 2014, 2:00 pm

This is not GOAT, just Medical imagination and creative ignorance Whistle

by lags72 Mon 01 Dec 2014, 2:52 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:

...........................
............................................................................................ If his injury record had been one of a normal player, it's very likely he would be comfortably above Federer in the slam count.

Oh, absolutely, that's a given.

In the same way that Rafa would have "comfortably" won all 39 Slams he has entered.

IF only he hadn't been beaten in 25 of them.

Ah ....if only, if only ........... Whistle

by DirectView2 Mon 01 Dec 2014, 4:01 pm

hawkeye wrote:
DirectView2 wrote:

Yes Nadal on 14 slams and record holder in masters titles, but he severly lags behind Sampras ,Fed in many other departments like no. of WTF wins, year end No.1's No. of Weeks at No.1, No. of Wimbledon titles, defending year end No.1, defending GS title outside clay etc,... and his fans to think him as GOAT is way too over rating at the moment.

Ha ha! Well Federer and Samprass "severely" lag behind Nadal in RG titles. So what? Who cares about the WTF

If you say who cares about WTF, why not add the similar saying who cares about FO and all of a sudden Rafa's legacy goes 70% down. picard

If one of the most successful tournament is taken out of legends or GOAT candidates they still hold a big enough CV, for instance Sampras would still have 7 Slams and 5 WTF and 286 weeks as no.1, Fed will still have 10 Slams and 6 WTFs and 302 weeks as no.1, in contrast Rafa would just have 5 slams ,0 WTFs and 141 weeks at no.1.

If you bring in Djoko to discussion now [taking AO the most successful open out] he still has 3 slams ,4 WTFs and 123 * weeks at number 1 and would easily pass Rafa's week at no.1 by the upcoming year itself.

Outside 1 tournament Djoko's CV looks more or less similar to Rafa and might even get better in the upcoming year itself.

So my direct view regarding this topic was answered in the previous comment itself. thumbsup

GOAT shouldn't be based on 1 successful tournament but the greatest successful player in general.

by DirectView2 Mon 01 Dec 2014, 4:10 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:

...........................
............................................................................................ If his injury record had been one of a normal player, it's very likely he would be comfortably above Federer in the slam count.

In a similar manner if Rafa and his team wouldn't have abused the current medical technology and would not have the attrition style tennis he would not be even half successful as he is now and hence don't even deserve a mention in GOAT debate.

by DirectView2 Mon 01 Dec 2014, 4:13 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:I saw that somewhere and then someone goes and puts 'logical' in there and I got scared at that point

Logically Rafa never beat me ever so he don't deserve a GOAT title or for that sake none of other GOAT candidates deserve a GOAT title cause they never beat me either. Very Happy

Yea logically Logical word sounds scary these days, given the abuse it has taken in Tennis forums.

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 4:36 pm

OK some reasonable responses here; I think Julius is right that once we're comparing him to others it's time to move this to the GOAT thread.

Born Slippy, HM Murdoch etc. I'm going to respond to you on that thread and quote you there, if that's ok.

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 4:38 pm

Back on topic:

My favourite Nadal tribute video-

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 4:48 pm

I do like youtube tributes to players, they're really well made (I don't have the skills to it) and I enjoy those which aren't Nadal ones too.

Nadal said during his time out in late 2012 he watched a few of those videos for inspiration when he was feeling down, which is interesting.

by LuvSports! Mon 01 Dec 2014, 6:29 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal has 3 more Grand Slams
And has played 12 more Grand Slams in accumulating that total.

At the same number of slams entered (27), it was Borg 11, Nadal 9.

This is why "best" is subjective.

Good point. Also how many times did he enter the Aus Open? Once? I bet if he went when it was getting off the ground as a slam he could have won a lot there.

by hawkeye Mon 01 Dec 2014, 6:50 pm

I wonder how many slams Federer had won after entering 27 Whistle

by bogbrush Mon 01 Dec 2014, 8:23 pm

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 8:26 pm

Murray, Berdych, and Ferrer all seem to rate Nadal. However they may be biased, as Murray and Ferrer are good friends with Rafa; and I think maybe Tomas too.

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 8:30 pm

More super bluffing from Rafito:

by Jahu Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:22 pm

So how has this thread turned from a please appreciate Nadal, to a total cheese fest into Nadal videos?

by It Must Be Love Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:53 pm

Cheese fest ?

Also people are entitled to criticise Nadal and say how overrated he is on this thread, be my guest Wink

by Haddie-nuff Mon 01 Dec 2014, 9:56 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Cheese fest ?

Also people are entitled to criticise Nadal and say how overrated he is on this thread, be my guest

by Haddie-nuff Mon 01 Dec 2014, 10:01 pm

Jahu wrote:So how has this thread turned from a please appreciate Nadal, to a total cheese fest into Nadal videos?

Ask

Nadal: under-appreciated or overrated ? - Page 2 3602195817

for a new computer.. the modern ones have an on/off switch Nadal: under-appreciated or overrated ? - Page 2 3513163098

by Jahu Tue 02 Dec 2014, 6:03 am

Love you all Nadal: under-appreciated or overrated ? - Page 2 3602195817

by Sponsored content