Nadal pulls out of French Open due to injury...

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/36401280

Silent ban anyone?

I have already explained it on previous threads. No point in a) repeating myself and b) hi-jacking this one.

Yes if I was a weak era denier I wouldn't continue push the argument either, so how did your election go for president of the flat earth society?

I lost out to a guy whose posts on an online forum influenced every intelligent being on the planet.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I lost out to a guy whose posts on an online forum influenced every intelligent being on the planet.

Oh well you are still Julius the DIC(k)tator in my book, and that beats president any day as far as I am concerned.

Ps don't forget the k is silent.

You mean I trump the president?

JuliusHMarx wrote:You mean I trump the president?

Lol, if Benito Trump is elected president I may have to immigrate to the UK where I am expecting you guys too hook me up with a good weed source, I want whatever it is you guys are sparking before you layout your genius designs for the new tennis landscape.


Very good pun there J, I am either delirious from over work and jet lag or your getting funnier.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You mean I trump the president?

Lol, if Benito Trump is elected president I may have to immigrate to the UK where I am expecting you guys too hook me up with a good weed source, I want whatever it is you guys are sparking before you layout your genius designs for the new tennis landscape.


Very good pun there J, I am either delirious from over work and jet lag or your getting funnier.

I still have my sense of humour socal. And unfortunately, you still have yours

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:You mean I trump the president?

Lol, if Benito Trump is elected president I may have to immigrate to the UK where I am expecting you guys too hook me up with a good weed source, I want whatever it is you guys are sparking before you layout your genius designs for the new tennis landscape.


Very good pun there J, I am either delirious from over work and jet lag or your getting funnier.

I still have my sense of humour socal. And unfortunately, you still have yours

Look out Jhm, I am going to Rome on a short vacation after the business trip and although it isn't the Ides of March, your horrific jokes may give me a few ideas about how to end your reign of bad comedy and terrible moderating.

PS I don't have to do anything weird with a pig's head in some bizarre secret society initiation ritual, to get accepted will I? Because I require quite something a little stronger than weed and Macallan's before I get porky with it.

I was checking out tomorrow's schedule when I noticed I did not see Rafa there so I looked closer and - wow. Pretty anticlimatic end to his RG.

I was hoping he would lose to Granollers, and if not to him, then to Thiem and if not to him then to Goffin, and if not to him, then to Nole. But it was not to be. Oh well.

All of a sudden, Nole's draw looks easier than Andy's. Andy has the hardest QF and now Stan may also be more difficult than anyone on Nole's side. To put it differently, Andy, Kei and Stan are probably the three toughest remaining opponents for Nole, but they are both in the bottom half of the draw.

So from here, good luck to Thiem and Goffin.

It looks like Fed and Rafa will literally fall apart before the youngsters catch them up.

Unless those youngsters are named Novak or Murray, by the way that is usually what happens in this fickle sport

Novak and Murray are no youngsters - they will be due to start falling apart before you know it.

summerblues wrote:It looks like Fed and Rafa will literally fall apart before the youngsters catch them up.

Problem is, there are no youngsters who can 'catch them up'.  I simply don't know of any 21 year olds who look ready to take the tennis world by storm. Not in the current generation anyway.

We will have to hope that a future crop yields some truly exciting prospects. But Fed & Rafa could be in their rocking chairs by then ......

That's really too bad for Nadal, terrible. I thought he was looking good here.

Frankly, if Djokovic fails to win this now, with the greats falling apart, he will deserve all the slating he'd get. This is as close to a complete cakewalk as you can get.

Nadal . A career marred by frequent injuries. Will he be ready for W?

My 'gut' says Federer to miss/withdraw from W.

bogbrush wrote:That's really too bad for Nadal, terrible. I thought he was looking good here.

Frankly, if Djokovic fails to win this now, with the greats falling apart, he will deserve all the slating he'd get. This is as close to a complete cakewalk as you can get.

It's probably still going to be tougher than Fed's 09 run, as the likelihood he is going to have to play either the defending champion or Murray in the final and I'm pretty certain he would have beaten Rafa fairly easily anyway. Both can justifiably say they deserved a bit of luck at RG though!

Don't know how this was reported elsewhere, but just catching up with ITV coverage where they said Nadal was practically holding back tears in his press conference, before cutting straight to footage of a very stoical Nadal in his press conference. Media hyperbole drives me mad - the story is big enough without going overboard (same bugbear as people "crashing out" of tournaments, "opening up" on a subject by simply answering a question in a press conference ...)

Anyway, yes this is obviously disappointing for him, but from the stoicism I guess he had complete acceptance that he'd no chance of winning the tournament - which must be easier to take than for example the back issue that arose in the AO14 final when he must have felt he'd a great chance for the title.

Strangely, rankings-wise, Nadal will move up to no.4 unless Stan reaches the final or Nishikori wins the title. He's also got a decent chance of staying at 3 in the race, though even if he does, I guess he'll be overtaken in the grass season.

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:That's really too bad for Nadal, terrible. I thought he was looking good here.

Frankly, if Djokovic fails to win this now, with the greats falling apart, he will deserve all the slating he'd get. This is as close to a complete cakewalk as you can get.

It's probably still going to be tougher than Fed's 09 run, as the likelihood he is going to have to play either the defending champion or Murray in the final and I'm pretty certain he would have beaten Rafa fairly easily anyway. Both can justifiably say they deserved a bit of luck at RG though!

Or pretty much all the finals he played in 04-07 against anyone not named Nadal, I mean is this tournament destined to provide a challenger worse than baggy or Phillipousis? Fed's 09 run was the epitome of lucky one off, Haas a player even older and much less accomplished especially on clay andbasically choked away that match and he played an albeit in form Soderling in the final.

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote: It's probably still going to be tougher than Fed's 09 run, as the likelihood he is going to have to play either the defending champion or Murray in the final and I'm pretty certain he would have beaten Rafa fairly easily anyway. Both can justifiably say they deserved a bit of luck at RG though!

Or pretty much all the finals he played in 04-07 against anyone not named Nadal, I mean is this tournament destined to provide a challenger worse than baggy or Phillipousis? Fed's 09 run was the epitome of lucky one off, Haas a player even older and much less accomplished  especially on clay andbasically choked away that match and he played an albeit in form Soderling in the final.

If one analysed only the Rafael Nadal vs Roger Federer head to heads, one would have to conclude that Rafael Nadal was the better player. In the head to heads at slams we have Nadal 9 Federer 2. Analysing further. Federer has never beaten Rafael Nadal at the French Open (0-5), has never beaten Rafael Nadal at the Australian Open (0-3). And their Wimbledon rivalry can be explained as a tyro Nadal improving on the grass losing their first two meetings in four and five sets then beating him in their final meeting. There is sufficient data to indicate that if it wasn't for injury in 2009 and then again further on in his career Federer may not have won the four more slams he won after 2008 (it is not clear whether injury contributed to Nadal's loss in 2009 to Soderling at the French Open).

2014 AO SF Hard Nadal beats Federer 7-6(4) 6-3 6-3
2012 AO SF Hard Nadal beats Roger 6-7(5) 6-2 7-6(5) 6-4
2011 FO F Clay Nadal beats Federer 7-5 7-6(3) 5-7 6-1
2009 AO F Hard Nadal beats Federer 7-5 3-6 7-6(3) 3-6 6-2
2008 Wim F Grass Nadal beats Federer 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7
2008 FO F Clay Nadal beats Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0
2007 Wim F Grass Federer beats Nadal 7-6(7) 4-6 7-6(3) 2-6 6-2
2007 FO F Clay Nadal beats Federer 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-4
2006 Wim F Grass Federer beats Nadal 6-0 7-6(5) 6-7(2) 6-3
2006 FO F Clay Nadal beats Federer 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4)
2005 FO SF Clay Nadal beats Federer 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3

But when analysing Federer along with Nadal one has to also include all their other head to heads against other opponents and their longevity. Career wise one can say Federer had the more successful career. So one could then conclude Federer had the better career ... but could one conclude Federer was the better player based on the data. No. One would have to devise an argument based on sustainability to proffer a claim that Federer was the better player or an argument based on some nebulous, non quantifiable style of play.

Some people seem really obsessed with Federer. The guy isn't even in the event but they can't help talking about him. Is this some kind of twisted love or something?

Just a reminder: Rafa Nadal has pulled out of the 2016 French Open with an injury.

Obviously the tournament has had something of a wrecking ball sweep through it, with the two greats pulling out. It's not helped that Murray looked a mess, but at least he's here.

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:That's really too bad for Nadal, terrible. I thought he was looking good here.

Frankly, if Djokovic fails to win this now, with the greats falling apart, he will deserve all the slating he'd get. This is as close to a complete cakewalk as you can get.

It's probably still going to be tougher than Fed's 09 run, as the likelihood he is going to have to play either the defending champion or Murray in the final and I'm pretty certain he would have beaten Rafa fairly easily anyway. Both can justifiably say they deserved a bit of luck at RG though!

I recall similar statement made, and acknowledged, in 2009, so not quite sure how this statement contradicts me. Perhaps you didn't mean to.

Just before we forget, the final was against a guy who repeated the feat the next year, and the semi-final against a guy who won a Slam later that year and was in the most awesome form of his career.

Separate to Nadal's injury woes.

Also to consider is Federer's "mono" issues.
Soderling's mono & wrist issues and eventual retirement.
Del Potro's injury woes.  If Del Potro hadn't had injured himself then he would have been a major challenger from 2009 onwards and would have affected the top three + one subsequent results.

So probably the "3+1" period was significantly extended because of Del Potro's injury and perhaps to a lesser extent Soderling's illness.  Nadal's glorious 2010, the rise of Djokovic Mk II from 2011 onwards,  Murray's golden period of 2012 - 2013 all occurred in the wake of Del Potro's 2009 wrist injury, while Soderling had mono & wrist issues that eventually curtailed his career by 2011.

But tennis is a narrative and one has to read the narrative.

(Ps.  Yes of course: it could be argued that some injuries arise from non sustainable techniques and practices).

U

Nore Staat wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote: It's probably still going to be tougher than Fed's 09 run, as the likelihood he is going to have to play either the defending champion or Murray in the final and I'm pretty certain he would have beaten Rafa fairly easily anyway. Both can justifiably say they deserved a bit of luck at RG though!

Or pretty much all the finals he played in 04-07 against anyone not named Nadal, I mean is this tournament destined to provide a challenger worse than baggy or Phillipousis? Fed's 09 run was the epitome of lucky one off, Haas a player even older and much less accomplished  especially on clay andbasically choked away that match and he played an albeit in form Soderling in the final.

If one analysed only the Rafael Nadal vs Roger Federer head to heads, one would have to conclude that Rafael Nadal was the better player.  In the head to heads at slams we have Nadal 9 Federer 2.  Analysing further.  Federer has never beaten Rafael Nadal at the French Open (0-5), has never beaten Rafael Nadal at the Australian Open (0-3).  And their Wimbledon rivalry can be explained as a tyro Nadal improving on the grass losing their first two meetings in four and five sets then beating him in their final meeting.  There is sufficient data to indicate that if it wasn't for injury in 2009 and then again further on in his career Federer may not have won the four more slams he won after 2008 (it is not clear whether injury contributed to Nadal's loss in 2009 to Soderling at the French Open).

2014 AO SF Hard Nadal beats Federer 7-6(4) 6-3 6-3
2012 AO SF Hard Nadal beats Roger 6-7(5) 6-2 7-6(5) 6-4
2011 FO F Clay Nadal beats Federer 7-5 7-6(3) 5-7 6-1
2009 AO F Hard Nadal beats Federer 7-5 3-6 7-6(3) 3-6 6-2
2008 Wim F Grass Nadal beats Federer 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7
2008 FO F Clay Nadal beats Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0
2007 Wim F Grass Federer beats Nadal 7-6(7) 4-6 7-6(3) 2-6 6-2
2007 FO F Clay Nadal beats Federer 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-4
2006 Wim F Grass Federer beats Nadal 6-0 7-6(5) 6-7(2) 6-3
2006 FO F Clay Nadal beats Federer 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4)
2005 FO SF Clay Nadal beats Federer 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3

But when analysing Federer along with Nadal one has to also include all their other head to heads against other opponents and their longevity.  Career wise one can say Federer had the more successful career.  So one could then conclude Federer had the better career ... but could one conclude Federer was the better player based on the data.  No.  One would have to devise an argument based on sustainability to proffer a claim that Federer was the better player or an argument based on some nebulous, non quantifiable style of play.

Great post Nore I agree with pretty much most of it and I and IMBL where ridiculed as borderline mad for making similar arguments. I have no question that if Nadal had not injured himself in 09 he probably wins two more slams that year then he did and fed would probably be sitting at 15 and Nadal at sixteen and with Nadal as consensus GOAT.

A great deal of fed and now Djokovic's status is down to durability and consistency of performance. Federer is super elegant and a talented shotmaker hence the emotional response of the wider sporting world. What has hurt Fed's results the most is what a lot of people love him for, the elegant and pretty one hander that simply can not cope with great kick serves and heavy spun well enough under heavy stress at the highest levels. So fed's game while beautiful may not be as functional as let's say the near unbreakable backhand and bh return of Djokovic's.

If one took a business mind attitude to assessing tennis then based on the head to head data one would have to conclude that Nadal was better than Federer.  If one took an artistic mind attitude to assessing tennis then one might take a contrary view.  A business man would probably employ Nadal type candidates when faced with Nadal & Federer like applicants. Similarly Djokovic's Mk II qualities would be a much sought after quantity in the business world.

(Ps: Yes of course, we have all heard the various buts ... and counter buts to the narrative ... the conditions of the terrain etc ... that's why these types of debates go in endless circles ... but we know all the ifs and buts ... the only thing new is what happens in the future and the various autobiographies that reveal insider information that gives the past a more precise perspective(s))

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:That's really too bad for Nadal, terrible. I thought he was looking good here.

Frankly, if Djokovic fails to win this now, with the greats falling apart, he will deserve all the slating he'd get. This is as close to a complete cakewalk as you can get.

It's probably still going to be tougher than Fed's 09 run, as the likelihood he is going to have to play either the defending champion or Murray in the final and I'm pretty certain he would have beaten Rafa fairly easily anyway. Both can justifiably say they deserved a bit of luck at RG though!

I recall similar statement made, and acknowledged, in 2009, so not quite sure how this statement contradicts me. Perhaps you didn't mean to.

Just before we forget, the final was against a guy who repeated the feat the next year, and the semi-final against a guy who won a Slam later that year and was in the most awesome form of his career.

I was pointing out that there were easier cakewalks, as he's likely to have a reasonably tough final. I think both Stan and Andy are probably more of a threat to him than Rafa in any event. To be honest, I don't see it makes any difference to the criticism he will receive if he doesn't win.

Rafa retires from the 2016 French prompting regret about the unarguable diminution of the tournament and posters can't control themselves from writing about Federers Slams.

Forum in a nutshell. Pavlovian.

Quite a few people noted Rafa's retirement what would the response be other than regret. Actually, the person to bring another player into the Rafa withdrawal debate was you, by bringing in how big a failure it would be if Djokovic didn't win. Therefore it would not be illogical for those who know your high priest status in the cult of the Swiss Yahweh, would be remiss to mention Federer's by the skin of his teeth RG title where he nearly lost to geriatric fast court player older than himself. Credit to him he pulled it off but there was a lot of luck involved and it could of gone the other way. You opened the door, then don't complain if others walk through that door.

summerblues wrote:Novak and Murray are no youngsters - they will be due to start falling apart before you know it.

Yet nearly 60 players were older than them in the draw and they are the youngest slam and masters winners remaining. Obviously, they are approaching the latter years of their career but, certainly for Novak, I don't see an imminent fall. I reckon Novak probably has 4 more years at or near the top. Andy probably less, given his injury history. We just have to enjoy them as long as we are lucky enough to see them play.

Whats says more than anything is that Theim and Zverez are about to start play, two guys who most of you think are going to "save" tennis from Djokodal, a crackerjack match maybe

and all you can all do is open up 11 year old fedal war wounds...

So why is it that you have an obsession with Djokovic BB for bringing him into this thread?

Personally, I don't need u or other fans to validate my appreciation of Novak. If I was that type of personality I wouldn't be a Novak fan in the first place, I would just fawn over fed and gain the online approval of the other cult members.

But could you by chance occasionally, like once a year or two pay a compliment or show a little respect for the game of Nole? Or do you deep down find his game that uninspiring? Just curious, is there nothing you like about him an his game, if so that is fine, but I would be interested on your thoughts because you have been running the guy down relentlessly for like years with never a positive word.

It's weird for someone like me - who only pops into 606 occasionally these days - to find the forum dominated by discussion about players who aren't even in the event.

Even more weird to see socal with yet more circular GOAT theories, spending so much time talking about Fed and Rafa in his quest to construct a totally imaginary could-have-should-have parallel world in which Rafa now has the most Slam titles.

Weird. But perhaps not very surprising.

temporary21 wrote:Whats says more than anything is that Theim and Zverez are about to start play, two guys who most of you think are going to "save" tennis from Djokodal, a crackerjack match maybe

and all you can all do is open up 11 year old fedal war wounds...

BIB: I don't seem to have seen that combination before - it has a nice ring to it.

Unfortunately Djokodal didn't last that long with Djokovic MkII killing off Nadal in non-clay court tennis (like the way Nadal "killed off" Federer) and the emergence of Nadal Mk 0.5 at Wimbledon (past four years) and Nadal Mk 0.5 at the French (past two years).

Those hoping for change in the current Djokovic hegemony era are hoping for the re-appearance of the Murray Mk Lendl and the Wawrinka Mk II versions.  One suspects change will only occur when Djokovic Mk II degrades into a Djokovic Mk 0.8 version.

lags72 wrote:It's weird for someone like me - who only pops into 606 occasionally these days - to find the forum dominated by discussion about players who aren't even in the event.

Even more weird to see socal with yet more circular GOAT theories, spending so much time talking about Fed and Rafa in his quest to construct a totally imaginary could-have-should-have parallel world in which Rafa now has the most Slam titles.

Weird. But perhaps not very surprising.

To be fair the discussion topic of this thread is about someone who is no longer in the event, with an injury that could be career ending.  Federer has been on the wane for sometime now (relatively speaking) and he too may have an injury that is ultimately career ending.  So it is fair to discuss the wider issues and make use of the available data to put the debate to bed or at least place borders around it.  

People will discuss things that interest them.  One could ask why there is virtually zero discussion of the women's singles, the doubles, the juniors etc.

Nore Staat wrote:

lags72 wrote:It's weird for someone like me - who only pops into 606 occasionally these days - to find the forum dominated by discussion about players who aren't even in the event.

Even more weird to see socal with yet more circular GOAT theories, spending so much time talking about Fed and Rafa in his quest to construct a totally imaginary could-have-should-have parallel world in which Rafa now has the most Slam titles.

Weird. But perhaps not very surprising.

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

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


 So it is fair to discuss the wider issues and make use of the available data to put the debate to bed or at least place borders around it.  

.

'Put the debate to bed "...???

I'm worried for your now Nore Staat !!! You cannot be serious.

I've always thought of you as perfectly rational. But if you really think the never-ending Fedal waffle can somehow be resolved and 'put to bed' ........ then I fear you might be smoking some of what socal smokes

lags72 wrote:'Put the debate to bed "...???

I'm worried for your now Nore Staat !!! You cannot be serious.

I've always thought of you as perfectly rational. But if you really think the never-ending Fedal waffle can somehow be resolved and 'put to bed' ........ then I fear you might be smoking some of what socal smokes

Yes well, I guess we all have our own beds to lie in

Also, if one thinks about it, the purely rational mind cannot make the leaps necessary for creativity.

I think the key point is that Nadal & Federer are seemingly now interlinked. If one discusses one, then the other almost always comes up. Their careers are indelibly entwined...this is the true reason why Federer is mentioned here. Long before Djokovic and Murray peaked into multiple slam winning form these guys were defining the yin and yang of tennis.

And when socal speaks of longevity and durability for Djokovic, he seems to forget that Nadal has been at the peak of tennis a lot longer than Djokovic...don't forget he won his first slam 11 years ago and won a slam every year for 10 seasons...that's durability right there. Yes he gets injured, yes he writes cheques people thought his body couldn't pay but at the end of the day he's not far off 1000 ATP matches (hardly any in the open era have got above this...4-5 guys). And his time at the top has been always essentially as a top 3-4 player. He has also defined how to rebound from injury. So let's not leave Nadal out when durability is discussed. He's wrote the cheques and they have bought him a lot of success and accolades...amongst them to be seen as a partnership player with Federer. That will be both their lasting legacies...and entwined legacy that people will speak of for decades to come.

Yeah, I think your key point is well-made lydian as regards them being inter-twined - perhaps inextricably so. They were after all the two global giants of the sport for so long.

(I guess it's more the seemingly-endless GOAT nonsense that tends to ..... er .....get my goat )

As for your comment re socal forgetting etc : suffice to say he can have a very selective memory at times !

Born Slippy wrote:I reckon Novak probably has 4 more years at or near the top.

I reckon we will start seeing first signs of decline by the end of this year. There is enough gap between our predictions that it will ultimately be clear which one of us was closer to being correct.

Depends how one might define '"at the top".......    

I would be truly amazed if he could maintain his number one ranking that long. All past indicators are that if players have not begun to slide before hitting 30, they begin to do so very soon after.

He could certainly remain competitive in the way that Federer has (or did, as in past tense ....??) for so long. But competitive is very different from being 'at the top' - in the way Fed was in his pomp, and Novak still is right now. It's more about the fact that Federer has proven too strong for almost all members of the (not especially impressive) new generation.

lydian wrote:

And when socal speaks of longevity and durability for Djokovic, he seems to forget that Nadal has been at the peak of tennis a lot longer than Djokovic...don't forget he won his first slam 11 years ago and won a slam every year for 10 seasons...that's durability right there. Yes he gets injured, yes he writes cheques people thought his body couldn't pay but at the end of the day he's not far off 1000 ATP matches (hardly any in the open era have got above this...4-5 guys). And his time at the top has been always essentially as a top 3-4 player. He has also defined how to rebound from injury. So let's not leave Nadal out when durability is discussed. He's wrote the cheques and they have bought him a lot of success and accolades...amongst them to be seen as a partnership player with Federer. That will be both their lasting legacies...and entwined legacy that people will speak of for decades to come.

 I didn't forget his long career and consistent success, it was a comparison of his durability vis a vis fed and Djokovic, methinks you are reading too much into what was a narrow argument. I still wouldn't call Nadal durable, maybe resilient is a better word for it. How many of all the seasons he has played has he been able to play all 4 slams or not miss months due to injury. A person who gets injured every year sometimes two or three times a year where he has to pullout of events, that is not what I would call durable.  But yes his incredible comebacks and record of dominance does equal longevity. Maybe you think it's semantic but longevity, durability, and resilience all mean different things. And I stand by my argument that Nadal is not as durable as fed or Djokovic when it comes to playing out a full schedule.

Still he is a legitimate GOAT contender.

lags72 wrote:It's weird for someone like me - who only pops into 606 occasionally these days - to find the forum dominated by discussion about players who aren't even in the event.

Even more weird to see socal with yet more circular GOAT theories, spending so much time talking about Fed and Rafa in his quest to construct a totally imaginary could-have-should-have parallel world in which Rafa now has the most Slam titles.

Weird. But perhaps not very surprising.

And when you do pop in there usually follows a lame and condescending lecture of what is wrong with me or my views. Would you like to go back to making fun of my asthma or medical conditions? Would that help you to feel superior? Don't lecture me on appropriate conduct. You and Haddie chuckling up on my medical issues like a couple of junior high school mean girls is nastier than anything I have done on this site.

Lags no one gives a crap about what you think we should be talking about, this ain't the New York Times and you aren't the editor.


By the way you spend more time taking snarky shots at me directly and indirectly than you talking about tennis, it seems you really crave my attention.

I do agree with Lydian that Rafa is durable. (though I also agree with Socal that Rafa is resilient).

If we compare Rafa vs Fed at age 29, they both played 900+ matches (Fed from 1999 at age 17 to 2010; Rafa from 2003 at age 16/17 till 2015) - Fed at 917 in total(up to end 2010), Rafa 927 (up to end 2015). So despite his injuries throughout his career, Rafa still managed to play as many matches as Fed up to age 29, ie a good 13 years in the adult tour. To me that's durability (can last that long despite injuries), resilience; 13-14 years in the main tour I think qualifies as longevity too.

Of course going forward we have to see how much longer Rafa can still carry on playing but I do know he wont play till age 35, unlike Fed. I dont even think Djoko will play till 35 too, maybe more like 33.

No have to disagree BLB, everyone can have niggles but a player has serious injuries almost year is just not what I would label durable.

socal1976 wrote:Lags no one gives a crap about what you think we should be talking about, this ain't the New York Times and you aren't the editor.


...............................it seems you really crave my attention.

Not sure where you get that from socal. A good example of putting 2 & 2 together and making five....?

But to set the record straight : just because I (along with many others perhaps) find some of your views rather misguided - and at times hyperbolic and even irrational - does not equate to "craving your attention". In fact, the opposite is the case. I do think you might have created your own little fantasy there.....  

Do remember it's a sports forum socal and not everyone is obliged to agree with you. You need to toughen up a little and not get so terribly offended when it happens. Try to take it on the chin a bit more. Just like I do when you dish out so much stuff yourself, as in references to my contributions as lame, condescending and snarky - to quote from just your very recent posts.

Surely Rafael Nadal's longevity and durability is thanks to platelet rich plasma technology rather than inherent longevity and durability?  The technology seems to work for knees (although it apparently doesn't work for everyone).  Not sure how effective platelet rich plasma technology is for wrist injuries.

socal1976 wrote:No have to disagree BLB, everyone can have niggles but a player has serious injuries almost year is just not what I would label durable.

But thats a short sighted point because Nadal keeps coming back from the injuries...the mental willpower and determination to keep doing it it is immense. Thats resilience/durability...call it what you will. Also, many of the injuries are linked in my opinion...ie. The foot bone issue led to the knee priblens which led to periods off tour. The down periods then arguably result in Rafa over training when he returns back to the tour in his will to get back to the top. Over training can led to repetitive strain injury. All I'm saying is that Rafa is equally a victim of trying to overcome his own downfall as much injured through competitive battle. How many other players would have battled back to the top after each prolonged time out? In the context of severe injuries since 2004, when he was told to retire from the game period, he has proved to be remarkably durable in winning 14 slams etc...a number we all probably agree would be higher...considering Nadal also knows this his stoicism and will to succeed surely mark him as being one of the most durable characters to ever grace the sport?

Nore, I do not agree...many myths thrown around about PRP like its the new holy sports recovery grail. Lets be clear, PRP only accelerates the natural healing process, it is not a magic bullet or repairs damage that would otherwise be impossible to treat. Its a catalyst not a panacea.