Djokovic Era

[Kieran]

I'm wondering why Nadal missing the 2013 Australian Open is in his favor. It should count against him. He was injured. His body wasn't strong enough to play tennis while Djokovic hardly ever misses a tournament. His stronger body/less hazardous play style brought him the AO title. I wish people would stop counting that missing a tournament is a plus instead of a minus.

Let me put it this way:
If Nadal and Federer is tied on 20 slam titles but Nadal played significantly less slam events, which 20 is more impressive?

This thread has officially travelled backwards through time...

 

[DarthFed]

^ I'm not talking about "goat" (which is impossible to definitively prove and doesn't exist), I'm just talking about the number of slam titles.
I would think if 2 guys (call them Henry and Tom, just random guys) win 20 slam titles then I'd be more impressed with the one who played less events to reach the feat.
Other people may be more impressed with the player who played more.

Missing information... in regards to Federer and Nadal you have one guy who doesn't get injured too often mostly due to his style of play, and one guy who gets injured often mostly due to his style of play. Rafa's injuries are not bad luck, they are the price he pays for having to grind opponent after opponent into the ground. Have him play differently and he would be healthier...and less successful. Therefore if everything else was equal then 20 = 20

 

[El Dude]

Ah okay. So...you agree with us, but still say it's "debatable" and "there's a reasonable argument for the other side" when really, there isn't, or if there is, then there is the bias.

But it's us who aren't "objective?" :laydownlaughing

Kieran, I'm agreeing with you that Rafa has the edge. What we're not agreeing on is to what degree and whether or not it is debatable. You say it isn't, I say there's at least a "reasonable argument" to put Novak equal to Rafa in 2013. Clearly my view is "silly."

But here's a question: Given that I don't have a horse in the race, why might I be biased? What is in it for me to be biased?

If you're agreeing with me, then why would you say I'm biased? I'm being objective, and I also say that this is not debatable. You said that. If anybody thinks Novak was the best player in 2013, then they're not being objective, I can only conclude they're being biased. I haven't seen any argument which refutes the rankings on this one, or the number of slams and MS titles won that year.

I don't think you're biased, but if anyone thought that Nole was best that year, then there's the bias you mentioned, not me or Broken (or you, who agree with us )...

You're a shifty one, ain'tcha?

Kieran, did you actually read my post where I went through the components of the year, comparing the two? I can see how one could view Rafa and Novak as co-#1s, if for instance they valued Novak's more consistent Slam results (W, F, F, SF) over Rafa's hit-or-miss Slam results (W, W, 1R, A), or if they feel that the WTF is more important than two extra Masters. Again, I am really only half-agreeing with you: Agreeing that Rafa has the edge, but not agreeing that there isn't a valid argument for equality on this one. That's where I see the bias, that you're not willing to look at the whole record - which I laid out, and which points to a much closer margin than "not debatable" implies. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[El Dude]

Why in the name of all that's holy is the Fedal Debate creeping into this one?!

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, I'm agreeing with you that Rafa has the edge. What we're not agreeing on is to what degree and whether or not it is debatable. You say it isn't, I say there's at least a "reasonable argument" to put Novak equal to Rafa in 2013. Clearly my view is "silly."

But here's a question: Given that I don't have a horse in the race, why might I be biased? What is in it for me to be biased?

If you're agreeing with me, then why would you say I'm biased? I'm being objective, and I also say that this is not debatable. You said that. If anybody thinks Novak was the best player in 2013, then they're not being objective, I can only conclude they're being biased. I haven't seen any argument which refutes the rankings on this one, or the number of slams and MS titles won that year.

I don't think you're biased, but if anyone thought that Nole was best that year, then there's the bias you mentioned, not me or Broken (or you, who agree with us )...

You're a shifty one, ain'tcha?

Kieran, did you actually read my post where I went through the components of the year, comparing the two? I can see how one could view Rafa and Novak as co-#1s, if for instance they valued Novak's more consistent Slam results (W, F, F, SF) over Rafa's hit-or-miss Slam results (W, W, 1R, A), or if they feel that the WTF is more important than two extra Masters. Again, I am really only half-agreeing with you: Agreeing that Rafa has the edge, but not agreeing that there isn't a valid argument for equality on this one. That's where I see the bias, that you're not willing to look at the whole record - which I laid out, and which points to a much closer margin than "not debatable" implies. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

You're a shifty one yourself, my friend. I not only read it, but I replied to it.

And why is Fedal on this thread? It'll do until the real thing are back on court...

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Goodness me this post is like War and Peace tennis version...I need to stock up on more popcorn...

 

[brokenshoelace]

BS, your argument points are one-sided - why not list everything, as I did, to give a fuller picture? I think part of the issue is that you're being a lawyer arguing one side while I'm trying to be a judge and balance all factors. I went through all the major components of the year and determined that Rafa did have the edge, but not as much as you and Kieran are saying. I'm saying you're biased because you seem to wilfully ignore the points for Novak, or at least completely undermine them.

Because if you have more slams, more masters 1000 events and the world number 1 ranking, why on earth would it matter who won more 250's events? If that means I'm completely undermining the points for Novak then so be it, because guess what, compared to winning slams, masters 1000 events, and being ahead in the rankings, they are undermined by definition.

FYI, I did list Novak's WTF win.

Like who the hell would go: "yeah, Nadal won more slams, more masters 1000 events, and amassed more points during that year, reached more finals, won more tournaments, but Novak went deeper in Wimbledon, won the WTF, and won more 250's titles...so he might be the best player of the year?"

Like I said, that's an argument, but it's a very weak argument by any standards. The phrase "you can make a case" shouldn't be coined JUST because you can make a case. Yes, you CAN make a case for Novak being the best player in 2013 but it would be an EXTREMELY weak case.

Am I the one being a lawyer here? You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You're literally saying that you agree with me, the same way everyone agrees that Nadal was the best player in 2013, but let's make a case just because...

Question to the board:

Is there any doubt in anyone's head who was the best player in 2013? If so, please state your case.

A 7-6 set is a close set, but it has a A CLEAR winner: The man who won 7 games. Apply that analogy to this Nadal-Djokovic 2013 comparison.

FYI, this is more like a 6-4 set. There's a clear break of serve, and that's the fact that Nadal won more majors that year, beating Djokovic on the way to both of them to boot. We can argue other meaningless (by comparison) numbers (most of which Nadal has the edge in anyway), but that's the stat that matters the most and we all know it.

You say there's a "reasonable case" for Novak but actually there isn't. There's a case. It's just not very reasonable. Because when you're valuing other factors over number of slams won, world number 1 ranking, and number of Masters 1000 events won, then that's not reasonable at all. I'm a lawyer, I should know.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Why in the name of all that's holy is the Fedal Debate creeping into this one?!

Til Nole gets to 14 , at the end of the day it will always be Fedal, IMO.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ I'm not talking about "goat" (which is impossible to definitively prove and doesn't exist), I'm just talking about the number of slam titles.
I would think if 2 guys (call them Henry and Tom, just random guys) win 20 slam titles then I'd be more impressed with the one who played less events to reach the feat.
Other people may be more impressed with the player who played more.

Missing information... in regards to Federer and Nadal you have one guy who doesn't get injured too often mostly due to his style of play, and one guy who gets injured often mostly due to his style of play. Rafa's injuries are not bad luck, they are the price he pays for having to grind opponent after opponent into the ground. Have him play differently and he would be healthier...and less successful. Therefore if everything else was equal then 20 = 20

This is a fallacy.

Was Nadal's wrist injury this summer due to his style of play? Was getting a back injury in a major final not bad luck, and due to a style of play (if so explain Fed's back injuries he's been having for a while now)? Was the surgery he had late last year due to his style of play? Was the hamstring injury he had in the 2011 AO quarter-final, right at the beginning of the year after a month of rest, while he was moving normally to a routine ball due to his style of play? Those injuries are bad luck, pure and simple. And yeah, they go with the job description of being a professional athlete, so I personally don't cry about them as much as most, but they're still bad luck.

Tendinitis is a different issue, and there can be no doubt that the pressure Nadal put on his knees, coupled with the amount of tournaments he played without sacrificing much physicality earlier in his career can be attributed to his style of play. But even then, guys like Andy Roddick have had tendinitis throughout their careers. Nevertheless, I can give you that one. But this bull$hit about Nadal's injuries being all his fault is quite ridiculous, and it's amazing I'm the first one to call out people on this one. It's one of those things that get thrown around here so often that people just take them for facts.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I would think if 2 guys (call them Henry and Tom, just random guys) win 20 slam titles then I'd be more impressed with the one who played less events to reach the feat.
Other people may be more impressed with the player who played more.

Well, let me give you two other guys. Let's call them Roger and Rafael (complete coincidence, I promise). One has 17 slams, the other has 14. I'm more impressed with the one that has 17.

 

[DarthFed]

^ I'm not talking about "goat" (which is impossible to definitively prove and doesn't exist), I'm just talking about the number of slam titles.
I would think if 2 guys (call them Henry and Tom, just random guys) win 20 slam titles then I'd be more impressed with the one who played less events to reach the feat.
Other people may be more impressed with the player who played more.

Missing information... in regards to Federer and Nadal you have one guy who doesn't get injured too often mostly due to his style of play, and one guy who gets injured often mostly due to his style of play. Rafa's injuries are not bad luck, they are the price he pays for having to grind opponent after opponent into the ground. Have him play differently and he would be healthier...and less successful. Therefore if everything else was equal then 20 = 20

This is a fallacy.

Was Nadal's wrist injury this summer due to his style of play? Was getting a back injury in a major final not bad luck, and due to a style of play (if so explain Fed's back injuries he's been having for a while now)? Was the surgery he had late last year due to his style of play? Was the hamstring injury he had in the 2011 AO quarter-final, right at the beginning of the year after a month of rest, while he was moving normally to a routine ball due to his style of play? Those injuries are bad luck, pure and simple. And yeah, they go with the job description of being a professional athlete, so I personally don't cry about them as much as most, but they're still bad luck.

Tendinitis is a different issue, and there can be no doubt that the pressure Nadal put on his knees, coupled with the amount of tournaments he played without sacrificing much physicality earlier in his career can be attributed to his style of play. But even then, guys like Andy Roddick have had tendinitis throughout their careers. Nevertheless, I can give you that one. But this bull$hit about Nadal's injuries being all his fault is quite ridiculous, and it's amazing I'm the first one to call out people on this one. It's one of those things that get thrown around here so often that people just take them for facts.

I wasn't saying all of Nadal's injuries are a result of his style of play. Some injuries are bound to happen when these guys are playing over a decade and Roger has not been immune to that either (as he's had problems with his back, had a high ankle sprain in 2005, has gotten sick a few times, etc). But Rafa's recurring issue over the years has been his knees and we all know what that's about as you alluded to in your post.

My point was that many people, including auto pilot/NadalRG2005, tend to compare Fed's and Rafa's injury histories and conclude that one has been lucky and one hasn't. And there's the fallacy...some important info is missing in that general statement.

 

[El Dude]

BS...OK.

DarthFed, I think the point you are trying to make is that staying healthy is a skill. This isn't to say that sometimes "hit shappens," but that rather than looking at health as the luck of the draw or other circumstances like genetics, but that it is to at least some degree a skill that some players have developed and nurtured and are simply better at than others.

 

[Front242]

Staying healthy is indeed a skill and comes down to using your brain. As I've got older I stay away from exercises in the gym that could potentially end it all for me while still going all out lifting heavy on the safer ones.

 

[auto-pilot]

Its so easy to post when you can put words in the mouth of other posters lol.
I've never called it luck/bad luck.
I put it down to DNA.
Federer has better DNA (in terms of withstanding long-term physical activity) than Nadal.
That's not luck at all.
The pattern has been obvious throughout their careers, even before Nadal had won a slam title.
Whereas luck doesn't have a pattern.

 

[DarthFed]

^ I don't think it's DNA, it's a difference in playing styles mostly bred from a difference in skill. A big part of Rafa's game has always been fitting into that motto; "faster, stronger, longer" and that means winning with long, grinding, physical tennis. Rafa for the most part was never going to come out and blow aces and winners past guys throughout a breezy 50 minute match.

 

[El Dude]

I agree with you, Darth. You or someone said something to the effect that Rafa's strength is also his weakness. He wouldn't be as great if he didn't play in such a way that made him deal with injuries. You can't separate them. Some Rafa fans might not like this, though, as it negates the "if only narrative that says if only Rafa had better health he'd have 20 Slams by now." However, in the view that I'm positing (which may or may not be true, but I think makes good sense) if Rafa had been healthier he probably would have had to play at a less intense level to maintain that health and therefore had worse results.

In the end we just can't know, so we're left looking at what a player actually accomplished, not what could have been. In some cases--say an Ancic or Soderling whose careers were totally destroyed by injuries--the "if only" narratives make sense, but in cases like Rafa I think we have to look at his record as the actual truth of who he is, not some kind of lesser version of what could have been "If only." I'd extend this to players like David Nalbandian. It is easier to see him as an underachiever, but only if we compare him to a fictitious version of himself that never existed. In the end, with all things tolled, David Nalbandian was the player his record says he was, no more or less.

 

[auto-pilot]

^ Ask Federer to do what Nadal does, and he wouldn't be able to.
There is no "baby-Nadal" out there.
But does Nadal hit the hardest? No.
Does Nadal move the fastest? No.
Does Nadal have the best stamina? No.
Heck, Nadal is way past his prime physically yet still winning, even on hardcourt - at age 27, Nadal became the first player since 2003 to sweep Canada-Cincy-USO, and god knows when someone also won Indian Wells.
So he's doing this without being physically superior.
Even at 2015 AO Nadal reached the quarter-final without any semblance of physical superiority (utter weakness actually, compared to guys like Murray).
So Nadal has inferior DNA to Federer (and to many others) in the area of surviving long-term physical activity - he's fragile in that sense.
But Nadal's talent is so extreme that he's able to win 14+ slam titles despite the physical fragility.
Djokovic outlasts Nadal physically (see 2012 AO final), but what can Djokovic do when Nadal unleashes 22 winners in the 5th set (2013 RG semi)?
Its hard to put a limit on when he will stop winning slams (especially RG because its not as damaging to the knees), because his talent shines through all kinds of physical obstacles.

 

[DarthFed]

^ If Federer could do what Nadal does physically he would pretty much never lose a match.

Nadal has declined physically but he is still the 2nd best mover out there, 2nd best when we are talking defense, and he is still going to outlast anyone not named Djokovic. And unlike Djokovic we are talking someone throwing all his body weight into hitting absurd amounts of topspin all match long which means he is working a lot harder than Djoker or anyone else on a shot to shot basis.

Add it all up and he is still the 2nd best player in the world. Why do you think Nadal is sometimes able to bully Nole on clay...I will educate you, it has about 99.999% to do with his topspin bouncing at inhuman levels. If you don't think it takes a lot of strength and stamina to hit that shot for hours on end you are kidding yourself.

 

[auto-pilot]

Federer imparts 3981rpm while Nadal imparts 4348rpm, barely any difference - and no doubt there will be matches whereby Federer has a higher RPM than Nadal.

Nadal's has more net clearance, while I'm pretty sure Federer's has more power.
And if we go back to the early years of Nadal's career, Nadal was hitting flatter and probably with significantly less RPM.
Plus he didn't upgrade his strings until 2010.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Federer imparts 3981rpm while Nadal imparts 4348rpm, barely any difference - and no doubt there will be matches whereby Federer has a higher RPM than Nadal.

Nadal's has more net clearance, while I'm pretty sure Federer's has more power.

That's not "barely any difference" at all. That's a significant difference. Moreover, Federer does not have more power than Nadal, he just takes the ball much earlier, and Federer never has more RPM's than Nadal because he doesn't put as much spin on the ball.