Is Nadal Hurting Himself on Hard Courts or...?

[atttomole]

...and more than likely would already be ahead of Roger in MAJORS if not breaking down so much early on! His USO record is abysmal in comparison to the status people want to give! Nole's been like Lendl from a past era; made final after final; won only 3, but competed well! Nadal stinks there and "down under!" This is why people with true historic values will look at how his record is inflated by winning so many FO's as apposed to Fedovic who have more balance to their careers; not to mention added gravy of so many YEC's! That's another event truly lacking on a potential "GOAT" resume! :whistle:

It goes back to the issue of him having won 17 slams playing the way he does. I am guessing he would not have won this much if not for his physical style.

 

[Fiero425]

It goes back to the issue of him having won 17 slams playing the way he does. I am guessing he would not have won this much if not for his physical style.

You're deluding yourself! Even if he never attacked more, later in tournaments, what was his excuse to allowing a bunch of guys IDK taking him to 4 & 5 sets; FO included? I still remember a German kid (Brand) a few years ago who won the 1st set against Rafa and had all kinds of chances to win the 2nd before succumbing in Paris! The same happens to Andy M.! The year he got to the FO final, he allowed players to keep him on the court for hours playing from behind all day long! By the time he got to the final, he was playing out of his mind and took the 1st set from Nole! After that, his tongue was hanging out of his head and he was done due to all that work he unnecessarily went thru in earlier rounds! I'm pretty sure Andy played more aggressive years ago, but decided this new tact of fitness and emulating Nadal by just running balls down mindlessly! All that work and his record is still abysmal against Fedalovic! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

You're deluding yourself! Even if he never attacked more, later in tournaments, what was his excuse to allowing a bunch of guys IDK taking him to 4 & 5 sets; FO included? I still remember a German kid (Brand) a few years ago who won the 1st set against Rafa and had all kinds of chances to win the 2nd before succumbing to him in Paris! The same happens to Andy M. doing the same thing! The year he got to the FO final, he allowed players to keep him on the court for hours playing from behind all day long! By the time he got to the FO, he was playing out of his mind and took the 1st set from Nole in the final! After that, his tongue was hanging out of his head and he was done due to all that work he unnecessarily went thru in earlier rounds! I'm pretty sure Andy played more aggressive years ago, but decided this new tact of fitness and emulating Nadal by just running balls down mindlessly! All that work and his record is still abysmal against Fedalovic! :whistle:

For the record, Nadal has only been taken to 5 sets twice at RG. He's won it 3 times w/o dropping a set. You're over-emphasizing that.

 

[Carol]

It goes back to the issue of him having won 17 slams playing the way he does. I am guessing he would not have won this much if not for his physical style.

You don't win 17 GS and multiples MS only with "that physically style" you need a lot more than that starting with a superb and smart game, and the ability to beat many times "the supposed GOAT", 11 RG, 3 USO, 2 Wimbledon and 1 AO. Others have even more physically style but less injuries and still they have not won anything or less than him. Every single player needs to have a physically game otherwise they can't go too far but the serve in HC and grass help them to make a lot of free points and less work but even that they need to run all over and doing a lot of effort including your "master Federer" and when his serve doesn't work well we have seen him with a very poor performance like in the last Wimbledon when Anderson kept him at the baseline most of the match, in Cincy his serve didn't work so well and even worse in the USO and of course at his age and without a good serve he is a dead man

 

[Fiero425]

For the record, Nadal has only been taken to 5 sets twice at RG. He's won it 3 times w/o dropping a set. You're over-emphasizing that.

How many times does it have to happen to be true? I'm not making this stuff up! My memory's not the best these days, but I take notice of "no names" taking Rafa to the limit again and again on all surfaces; mainly due to his unwillingness to be more aggressive and "take it" to players in those early rounds! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

It goes back to the issue of him having won 17 slams playing the way he does. I am guessing he would not have won this much if not for his physical style.

Whether his physical style, or whatever style...as you say, it's won him 17 Majors. I don't know why people go on and on about how he should play differently, or how his style doesn't work well for him. Injuries? They happen. So does appendicitis and stomach flu. I understand the conversation about Nadal's injuries. Same with Roger's and Novak's...they're top players and we massage over their every drop in level. But Rafa is the one where so many seem to give him the blame for them. Personally, I don't see how that is fair, or is measurably different to others.

 

[Moxie]

How many times does it have to happen to be true? I'm not making this stuff up! My memory's not the best these days, but I take notice of "no names" taking Rafa to the limit again and again on all surfaces; mainly due to his unwillingness to be more aggressive and "take it" to players in those early rounds! :whistle:

You were saying at RG. I corrected you. I agree otherwise that I wish Rafa would clean up the act in earlier rounds. Could save me some anxiety. But he plays the way he plays. He still wins far more than he loses.

 

[Fiero425]

Whether his physical style, or whatever style...as you say, it's won him 17 Majors. I don't know why people go on and on about how he should play differently, or how his style doesn't work well for him. Injuries? They happen. So does appendicitis and stomach flu. I understand the conversation about Nadal's injuries. Same with Roger's and Novak's...they're top players and we massage over their every drop in level. But Rafa is the one where so many seem to give him the blame for them. Personally, I don't see how that is fair, or is measurably different to others.

How do you defend allowing himself to be dragged into long matches in multiple rounds before even making the SF? I personally say "go ahead and shorten your career Rafa! You'll be running yourself out of the sport prematurely!" It's only going to get worse with the 'next gen' extending him more in later rounds like Thiem at the USO! That match had to be Nadal's limit and he just said "screw it; I'm tired and hurt!" He probably had visions of Del Po blowing the ball past him @ the baseline like he did 9 yrs ago in the USO SF, 2, 2, & 2! :whistle:

 

[Moxie]

How do you defend allowing himself to be dragged into long matches in multiple rounds before even making the SF? I personally say "go ahead and shorten your career Rafa! You'll be running yourself out of the sport prematurely!" It's only going to get worse with the 'next gen' extending him more in later rounds like Thiem at the USO! That match had to be Nadal's limit and he just said "screw it; I'm tired and hurt!" He probably had visions of Del Po blowing the ball past him at the baseline like he did 9 years ago in the USP SF, 2, 2, & 2! :whistle:

As if having to play extra sets has never happened to Fed or Nole? You specifically mentioned RG. Nadal is 112-2 in best of 5 matches on clay. He's been taken to 5 only twice. I'm pretty sure everyone else has played too many sets on clay. Because they lost. He's played more because he rarely has lost. But he's rarely even taken to 4. Shorten his career? He's been playing on the tour for 17 years. It's not a short career. And he's #1 in the world, so he's not doing so bad, for an old guy. And the Del Po match that you mention was 9 years ago, as you say. I think he got over that some time ago, especially given the h2h, (11-6 in favor of Nadal.)

 

[Fiero425]

As if having to play extra sets has never happened to Fed or Nole? You specifically mentioned RG. Nadal is 112-2 in best of 5 matches on clay. He's been taken to 5 only twice. I'm pretty sure everyone else has played too many sets on clay. Because they lost. He's played more because he rarely has lost. But he's rarely even taken to 4. Shorten his career? He's been playing on the tour for 17 years. It's not a short career. And he's #1 in the world, so he's not doing so bad, for an old guy. And the Del Po match that you mention was 9 years ago, as you say. I think he got over that some time ago, especially given the h2h, (11-6 in favor of Nadal.)

Well I'll bet any amount he won't be grinding it out at 37! That's what I mean about shortening his career! He would extend it by being more aggressive and saving his legs for later rounds in tournaments! I'd just assume he keep doing it like this, but feel the need to highlight the shortcomings and limited foresight! :whistle: :cuckoo:

 

[Moxie]

Well I'll bet any amount he won't be grinding it out at 37! That's what I mean about shortening his career! He would extend it by being more aggressive and saving his legs for later rounds in tournaments! I'd just assume he keep doing it like this, but feel the need to highlight the shortcomings and limited foresight! :whistle: :cuckoo:

Would you have bet he'd be the oldest YE#1? He was last year. And I wouldn't bet against him being around at 37, if I were you. You and so many others have been saying he'd be done early for the last 10 years, anyway. That's how much you know. Limited foresight? Ask yourself about that.

 

[Fiero425]

Would you have bet he'd be the oldest YE#1? He was last year. And I wouldn't bet against him being around at 37, if I were you. You and so many others have been saying he'd be done early for the last 10 years, anyway. That's how much you know. Limited foresight? Ask yourself about that.

Oh if he wants to be fodder for the "next gen," I'm sure they'd love for Rafa to hang around so they can punish him for abusing them as kids! If he can stand being on the level of a David Ferrer just being out there with the boys and only snagging 250 or 500 events periodically, he will be a great player for 37!

 

[Moxie]

Just to clarify what a "shortened" career might mean. As I pointed out, Nadal has been playing for 17 years and he's #1. Pete Sampras played for 14 years. And all he had to deal with was a serve. Borg 10 years. Edberg 14 years. Lendl 22 years, but he only won Majors in a span of 6 years, while Nadal has won Majors across a span of 13 years. I could go on....

 

[Moxie]

Oh if he wants to be fodder for the "next gen," I'm sure they'd love for Rafa to hang around so they can punish him for abusing them as kids! If he can stand being on the level of a David Ferrer just being out there with the boys and only snagging 250 or 500 events periodically, he will be a great player for 37!

That's fairly ignoring my point, and just saying whatever you want. Adding icons doesn't make your point any more coherent.

 

[Fiero425]

B!tch, b!tch, b!tch! :cuckoo:

 

[DarthFed]

Good point. He'd probably be above Roger if he weren't so often injured. He's just that much better, when he actually plays. And funny that you say he has an abysmal record at the USO. Some would say he's over-shot the mark, but I agree with you. He'd have had more USO's, if not for injury. And he doesn't "stink" at the AO, but for injury. I don't know how you think his career is "inflated," however, by wins at RG. They are actual wins. They buff up his legacy. No one has ever been better on the terre battue. Neither Roger nor Nole can claim that kind of dominance. It's not a small notation in his legacy. It's huge.

Lol no he wouldn't be above Roger. Remind me how many RG's he has missed with injury? Even if you count 2016 when he played and suddenly had to withdraw out of nowhere that is 1. And he'd have been an enormous underdog to Djokovic there anyways. And then any other major he's missed has been at non-clay majors which means he has never been the favorite to win. The most notable one that Nads fans can and of course do argue was 2014 AO when he was getting hammered by Stan who had just beaten Djokovic (a much much much better HC player).

I fail to see what USO's he would've claimed without injury. This one?? LOL, Djokovic would've murdered him if he somehow had made the final. Also I don't think he got hurt vs Del Po, this was a classic cumulative wear and tear from being bullied by 3 straight HC nobodies for 13 hours and barely pushing and grinding out wins. The loss to Cilic was similar, he was getting run like a rag doll including the point he got hurt on. Bad luck? Without those wheels it'd have been a massacre. 2014USO? He was ass all year aside from barely pulling out RG. 09 Wimbledon was the closest thing he's had to a major that he missed where he would've been the favorite though that was far from a given because we know even a shit version of Roger could beat him there since it almost happened in 2008.

Anyways the Rafa tards want to have their cake and eat it too. If Roger had Nad's wheels, stamina and endurance he'd pretty much never lose a match. The peasant needs to use his gifts to the MAX and he does, that's why this talk of poor luck is ridiculous. You reap what you sow.

 

[Front242]

When you win 17 Majors, you can judge Nadal and his game.

Thanks for telling the whole world that nobody watching tennis is allowed have an opinion until they win 17 majors. OKAAAAAY...

 

[Mastoor]

Seriously, are you implying that Federer covers as much ground as Nadal? I do not have the statistics either, but it looks evident that he covers more. Without even going to the big 3, Rafa must have covered more ground than Khachanov in that match because Khachanov was hitting the ball hard, with Nadal doing the chasing to keep the ball in play. Without Nadal's doggedness, that match could have ended in 3 sets for Khachanov.

You want us to believe that Nadal's intensity makes it look like he covers more ground than he actually does. What you see with your eyes is exactly what it is my friend.

If he had a better serve, Nadal would finish the points quicker than he does. However, I don't think he would finish in two or three shots because the playing conditions are slower. Some of the best servers like Federer need more shots to finish points nowadays.

Well, I don't have anything much to add, so we will agree to disagree.

They sometimes give you the stats at the end of the match and I guess in one-sided match, there will be significant difference in meters ran, but not really if the match was equal. Lets pay attention next time Federer and Nadal play and see what that stats look like if they give it.

I'd appreciate if someone comes across such stats from some previous matches on youtube and post the link here.

 

[britbox]

Well, I don't have anything much to add, so we will agree to disagree.

They sometimes give you the stats at the end of the match and I guess in one-sided match, there will be significant difference in meters ran, but not really if the match was equal. Lets pay attention next time Federer and Nadal play and see what that stats look like if they give it.

I'd appreciate if someone comes across such stats from some previous matches on youtube and post the link here.

It makes no difference... it's not how much mileage Federer puts on the clock against Nadal... it's how much mileage he puts on the clock against the overall field - in comparison to what Nadal puts on against the overall field.

 

[britbox]

Here are the stats for the average time taken per point in Grand Slams (across career). Courtesy of ultimatetennisstatistics.com

I don't think this tells us exactly how long the (in play) point was and is probably skewed somewhat by the fact Nadal is so slow between points.

Federer was 226 on this chart and nearly 9 seconds faster per point than Nadal.