Is Rafa in Decline?

[Federberg]

^^

So what does it say that he's fit less and less? And did you consider Nadal fit at the clay season last year? If not, careful, you're making excuses. If he was, explain losses to Almagro and Ferrer, as well as Nadal's unforced error fests throughout, including matches in which he lost.

It's a catch 22. If Nadal loses and I point out his movement is suffering and he's clearly not fit, you and others mentioned how that is not a result of the injuries but because Nadal always struggles at that particular time of the season (talking about last fall).

Fine, when I mention how those losses imply a decline, suddenly you say "when he's fit he's still producing at a high enough level." Well, what part of his losses in the fall last year imply a "high enough level"?

The fact is, you can't separate physical performance from his game. Both are complementary. You're grasping at straws.

In your own mind perhaps. I have my view, clearly you have yours. The guy is still winning slams. Yes he's had to take time off, but when he's back he's still able to produce slam winning play. As I said.. if he isn't able to do that this year, then it puts everything since last year's RG into a new light. Until then I'm just watching. I'm willing to re-assess... but as I said I need to see RG 2015 first

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^

So what does it say that he's fit less and less? And did you consider Nadal fit at the clay season last year? If not, careful, you're making excuses. If he was, explain losses to Almagro and Ferrer, as well as Nadal's unforced error fests throughout, including matches in which he lost.

It's a catch 22. If Nadal loses and I point out his movement is suffering and he's clearly not fit, you and others mentioned how that is not a result of the injuries but because Nadal always struggles at that particular time of the season (talking about last fall).

Fine, when I mention how those losses imply a decline, suddenly you say "when he's fit he's still producing at a high enough level." Well, what part of his losses in the fall last year imply a "high enough level"?

The fact is, you can't separate physical performance from his game. Both are complementary. You're grasping at straws.

In your own mind perhaps. I have my view, clearly you have yours. The guy is still winning slams. Yes he's had to take time off, but when he's back he's still able to produce slam winning play. As I said.. if he isn't able to do that this year, then it puts everything since last year's RG into a new light. Until then I'm just watching. I'm willing to re-assess... but as I said I need to see RG 2015 first

So you would say Federer wasn't in a decline in 2009/2010/2012? I mean, he was producing slam winning displays.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Where is the " Is Roger in a decline" thread?

 

[Federberg]

Yes it's a similar scenario. I view it this way...

Development phase - Upslope
Established - Upslope
Contender - Plateau
Peak - Plateau
Contender - Plateau
Decline - down slope

Perhaps it's just definitional. But I make a distinction between when you're no longer a peak player, but you can still reasonably expect to win big tournaments, and when the stars need to align for success.

This is only relevant for greats like Roger and Rafa of course. At least in terms of slam output. Everyone has the same life cycle if you will, but not necessarily with the same achievements.

Rafa is still a contender, so for me he's still on the plateau. Roger needs the stars to align these days.. hence the decline

 

[brokenshoelace]

Where is the " Is Roger in a decline" thread?

Stuck in 2008.

 

[El Dude]

I agree with that, Federberg - that Rafa is in his "plateau" phase, which is holding steady a bit below his peak level but still might include a slight and gradual downward slope. I do think that 2014-15 displays a different Rafa then we've seen, though, and that downward slope might be steepening a bit. This doesn't mean that he won't surge again, but that any surges will be weaker and shorter.

Increased injury can be a sign, or form of, decline - and specifically, the ability to come back from injury. As I've said before, every player has a different pattern. Rafa's seemingly will have (or has) a lot to do with his difficulty staying health do to his vigorous style of play, and increased age-related difficulty in being able to come back. A 30-year old body doesn't recover as quickly as a 22-year old body, no matter how fit one is. I've heard some say that when Rafa starts to decline it will happen quickly. This may be that point.

But let's play wait and see. The lead up to Roland Garros will tell us a lot. I personally feel torn. The Roger fan in me wants to see him decline quickly so that he doesn't catch Roger in Slams; the tennis fan in me wants to see Rafa around as long as possible.

 

[auto-pilot]

Nobody has a clue what Nadal is going to do on hardcourts, because he peaked in 2013 (becoming the first man ever to win Indian Wells, Canada, Cincy, US Open) after not winning a hardcourt masters/slam in 2011 and 2012.
Whereas on clay he's gone downhill since 2008.

 

[Federberg]

I agree with that, Federberg - that Rafa is in his "plateau" phase, which is holding steady a bit below his peak level but still might include a slight and gradual downward slope. I do think that 2014-15 displays a different Rafa then we've seen, though, and that downward slope might be steepening a bit. This doesn't mean that he won't surge again, but that any surges will be weaker and shorter.

Increased injury can be a sign, or form of, decline - and specifically, the ability to come back from injury. As I've said before, every player has a different pattern. Rafa's seemingly will have (or has) a lot to do with his difficulty staying health do to his vigorous style of play, and increased age-related difficulty in being able to come back. A 30-year old body doesn't recover as quickly as a 22-year old body, no matter how fit one is. I've heard some say that when Rafa starts to decline it will happen quickly. This may be that point.

But let's play wait and see. The lead up to Roland Garros will tell us a lot. I personally feel torn. The Roger fan in me wants to see him decline quickly so that he doesn't catch Roger in Slams; the tennis fan in me wants to see Rafa around as long as possible.

Yup.. that's why I want to wait until after RG 2015 as the sample is too small right now.

As for Rafa surpassing Roger in the future? If I'm honest.. my issue wouldn't be with Rafa himself. This is sports, these things happen. It doesn't take anything away from Roger's achievements in my view. It's some Rafa fans I find intolerable. And don't start on me BS!! I most DEFINITELY do not include you in that category. But there are... maggots.. that seemingly use Rafa's success to fill the deficits in their lives :snicker

 

[brokenshoelace]

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see Nadal dominate on clay. That's not the point. Nobody's saying he can't play anymore, or that he's no longer among the world's best. Why do we have to repeat this point literally every time we talk about declines?

 

[Federberg]

Clearly there's more than one definition of decline. We'll keep going around and around with this because it doesn't take much effort to type on a keyboard!

 

[El Dude]

Nobody has a clue what Nadal is going to do on hardcourts, because he peaked in 2013 (becoming the first man ever to win Indian Wells, Canada, Cincy, US Open) after not winning a hardcourt masters/slam in 2011 and 2012.
Whereas on clay he's gone downhill since 2008.

Deja vu.

As for Rafa surpassing Roger in the future? If I'm honest.. my issue wouldn't be with Rafa himself. This is sports, these things happen. It doesn't take anything away from Roger's achievements in my view. It's some Rafa fans I find intolerable. And don't start on me BS!! I most DEFINITELY do not include you in that category. But there are... maggots.. that seemingly use Rafa's success to fill the deficits in their lives :snicker

Isn't that true of all fans, to some extent? Although it does seem that each fan-base is prone to specific kinds of "flaws."

 

[auto-pilot]

What I don't get is, why do Federer fans keep calling him goat?
Isn't that disrespectful to past greats (including Laver)?
Since you can't prove Federer is goat, why say it?
Its just very bizarre and inappropriate.

 

[Federberg]

What I don't get is, why do Federer fans keep calling him goat?
Isn't that disrespectful to past greats (including Laver)?
Since you can't prove Federer is goat, why say it?
Its just very bizarre and inappropriate.

I think it's well documented that I don't subscribe to that description for Roger. Most successful by many definitions yes. But I don't buy the whole being able to achieve the same in different era's. Unproveable boyish fantasy..

 

[mrzz]

^I'm sorry, but I disagree completely with both posts above. People can think and say whatever they like. The whole GOAT talk is based on the subjective criteria of what defines the GOAT. If someone subscribes to a given criteria (say, slam count), then the deal is done. They can say it as many times as they like, and it is not fanboyism (which could be hidden in the GOAT criteria chosen).

For example, if El Dude comes up with some crazy complex criterium and concludes Djokovic is the GOAT, were is the disrespect, and where is the fantasy? The fantasy lies in believing that your chosen criterium is the ONLY one...

Consensus about this will only be approached once one player leads the rest in most possible criteria, including stupid ones. And, by the way, one can simply rely on his memory and say: for me player X is the GOAT, and simply do not care about consensus. People get offended simply because sometimes it make sense (as I won't offend anyone if I say Gasquet is the GOAT)...

 

[Federberg]

^Interesting theory. Except for the Gasquet thing

I can concede that everyone is free to call whoever they want GOAT based on their own subjective criteria. However if they use the criteria that the GOAT is capable of playing and dominating in any era, I can't accept that. Each to his own though...

As I've said before I even have difficulty with the most successful of all time title for Roger. But as he gets closer to Connors and Lendl on the win list, I"m getting more and more ok with it!

 

[Fiero425]

^I'm sorry, but I disagree completely with both posts above. People can think and say whatever they like. The whole GOAT talk is based on the subjective criteria of what defines the GOAT. If someone subscribes to a given criteria (say, slam count), then the deal is done. They can say it as many times as they like, and it is not fanboyism (which could be hidden in the GOAT criteria chosen).

For example, if El Dude comes up with some crazy complex criterium and concludes Djokovic is the GOAT, were is the disrespect, and where is the fantasy? The fantasy lies in believing that your chosen criterium is the ONLY one...

Consensus about this will only be approached once one player leads the rest in most possible criteria, including stupid ones. And, by the way, one can simply rely on his memory and say: for me player X is the GOAT, and simply do not care about consensus. People get offended simply because sometimes it make sense (as I won't offend anyone if I say Gasquet is the GOAT)...

Well the thing is, there are a couple players who excelled in such a way to own records and numbers unapproachable; Roger and Navratilova are the GOAT pair due to sustained excellence, longevity, and consistency unmatched by any other players! Hell, Martina came out of retirement after years of inactivity and actual won titles; including major MD's! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[El Dude]

Wait, Navratilova is the GOAT? What about Graf? And isn't Serena in the mix?

Anyhow, one thing to consider about the GOAT and "subjective criteria" is that not all subjective criteria or perspectives are equal - some take into account more factors, are based on more research and logical thinking. I can tell you that when I come up with "some crazy complex criteria" it isn't just random - I try to weigh and balance as best as possible.

I think I'll have to write a GOAT blog at some point, because while I agree that the question is inherently problematic and very difficult (if at all possible) to answer definitively, I do think it is possible to approach it, to make a best guess.

I also think a lot of issues around the term "GOAT" have to do with making it more than it is as if we need to know how that player would fare in every era, against any opponent. The key is contextualizing players, comparing their greatness within the context of their own era with the greatness of others players in their own eras.

Yada yada yada.

 

[Fiero425]

Wait, Navratilova is the GOAT? What about Graf? And isn't Serena in the mix?

Anyhow, one thing to consider about the GOAT and "subjective criteria" is that not all subjective criteria or perspectives are equal - some take into account more factors, are based on more research and logical thinking. I can tell you that when I come up with "some crazy complex criteria" it isn't just random - I try to weigh and balance as best as possible.

I think I'll have to write a GOAT blog at some point, because while I agree that the question is inherently problematic and very difficult (if at all possible) to answer definitively, I do think it is possible to approach it, to make a best guess.

I also think a lot of issues around the term "GOAT" have to do with making it more than it is as if we need to know how that player would fare in every era, against any opponent. The key is contextualizing players, comparing their greatness within the context of their own era with the greatness of others players in their own eras.

Yada yada yada.

Some will feel that way due to Graf having more single major titles, but she still pails in comparison when you look at the overall picture IMO; 167 singles, 177 doubles, the "Box Set" of majors, tons of other records Graf, Williams, and others can only dream about (OTTH)! uzzled :s

 

[Riotbeard]

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see Nadal dominate on clay. That's not the point. Nobody's saying he can't play anymore, or that he's no longer among the world's best. Why do we have to repeat this point literally every time we talk about declines?

Well put. I thought I tried to make that as clear as possible in the OP.

 

[El Dude]

Wait, Navratilova is the GOAT? What about Graf? And isn't Serena in the mix?

Anyhow, one thing to consider about the GOAT and "subjective criteria" is that not all subjective criteria or perspectives are equal - some take into account more factors, are based on more research and logical thinking. I can tell you that when I come up with "some crazy complex criteria" it isn't just random - I try to weigh and balance as best as possible.

I think I'll have to write a GOAT blog at some point, because while I agree that the question is inherently problematic and very difficult (if at all possible) to answer definitively, I do think it is possible to approach it, to make a best guess.

I also think a lot of issues around the term "GOAT" have to do with making it more than it is as if we need to know how that player would fare in every era, against any opponent. The key is contextualizing players, comparing their greatness within the context of their own era with the greatness of others players in their own eras.

Yada yada yada.

Some will feel that way due to Graf having more single major titles, but she still pails in comparison when you look at the overall picture IMO; 167 singles, 177 doubles, the "Box Set" of majors, tons of other records Graf, Williams, and others can only dream about (OTTH)! uzzled :s

This isn't the right forum, but it is a close call. One thing to consider is that Martina played so many more tournaments - 390 to 223. Maybe Martina has the overall edge due to longevity, but as far as dominance goes they are quite similar.

Looking over their careers, it is amazing just how dominant they were. Take Martina's 1983, for instance: 86-1!! That's unbelievable.