Luxilon Borg said:
Broken_Shoelace said:
Luxilon Borg said:
Kieran said:
He had the first surgery in 2010, and you think he was back to his best in...2013?
He wasn't back to his best, although he did play some great tennis...
I think he was. I think he was serving bigger than ever and his movement was excellent.
Let's not forget Rafa and Djoker AND Murray were far better players in 2013 than they were in 2010...same goes for the second tier.
Nadal was not a far better player in 2013 than he was in 2010. And Del Potro was not back to his best in 2013. He got close at times, but not consistently enough to warrant such a claim.
Huh????
Nadal:
75-7 record, 10 titles including Indian Wells, RG, USO...Cinci, Canada...
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=pa&y=2013&m=s&e=0#
Your statement is off the charts puzzling.:huh:
...the same can be said about your logic.
First of all, I'm not talking about results, I'm talking about level of play. But even if I were, I'd point out the obvious -- which you unsurprisingly missed -- by saying Nadal won 3 slams on all surfaces in 2010, compared to 2 slams in 2013.
Secondly, Nadal was a better mover in 2010. That much is indisputable. He also served much better throughout the year. He was undoubtedly better on clay (where he swept through the clay season without a single loss) and grass (where he won Wimbledon, as opposed to losing in the first round). Again, this is not really up for debate.
Now, on hards, he was definitely better on a more consistent basis last year, though his level at the US Open in 2010 is still the best he's played on cement.
You forget that among the 10 titles he won last year, 3 were gimmes (the two South American clay tournaments and Barcelona). These are tournaments he DID NOT PLAY in 2010 (he skipped Barcelona, and didn't play in South American at all). I think I'll go out on a limb and say Nadal would have won these tournaments with his eyes closed had he participated in 2010 since you know, it's clay, and feature no real threat. So yeah, him winning those 3 last year doesn't mean he was a much better player.
So when you look at that, in addition to the extra major he won in 2010 (which is easily more significant than the two extra masters 1000 events he won last year compared to 2010), actually bother to watch his level of tennis in 2010, AND keep in mind that he wasn't coming off a 7-month injury and was 3 years younger and thus, in better overall physical shape, then suddenly you'll realize that my statement isn't that off the charts puzzling at all.
Your problem is you act absolutely shocked every time someone disagrees with you, while completely being incapable of taking a minute to think a little deeper. Congratulations, you offered stats that were refuted in 3 seconds and showed zero ability to offer a meaningful argument.
PS: You can only get away with coming off like a condescending douche if you actually know what you're talking about. Trust me, I should know -- that's my whole shtick. So I recommend you start approaching debates a little differently.
PPS: In a different thread, when everyone was discussing all-time great years, people brought up Federer's 2006, Novak's 2011 and...Nadal's 2010. Maybe their thinking is off the charts puzzling too.
