Nadal back to number one how long do you think it will last

[Andy22]

They've gotten a fair amount of him in Madrid. Given that he's passing on the clay season for a 2nd year, at 36, I'm pretty sure that Barcelona will have to live without him. Forever.

True but I would love to see nadal vs. Federer one last time on clay.

 

[Moxie]

True but I would love to see nadal vs. Federer one last time on clay.

Unlikely, but certainly not in Barcelona.

 

[Andy22]

Unlikely, but certainly not in Barcelona.

Agree, most likely, their next meeting will be after Wimbledon, maybe us open series.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Fed has never played in Barcelona tourney. However, Fed had played in Mallorca in an exhibition match against Rafa with a special court half of which was clay and the other half of it was grass.

 

[Federberg]

Look, I listen to more interviews with Nadal, as you do more with Roger. During Rafa's injury break after RG, he gave a long interview to Spanish TV, which I listened to, and translated for this site. He said that he took the strappings off because they stopped working. He knew people assumed that the knees were better, but they weren't, they were worse. He said he took them off because they stopped working. This is from him. If we believe Roger about his mono and his back, which I do, why do you refuse to believe Rafa about his knees?

my point about showing the video of Rafa winning the Barcelona semi in 2009 was to both show that he played there that year (which I see you subsequently corrected) and that he wasn't wearing any strapping. Whether he said something after RG isn't the point. I was challenging your assertion about strapping through the clay season. As for RG, let's not go over it again, his movement looked fine to me. I just saw Soderling playing a career match

 

[El Dude]

I don't think he cares about #1 more than Roger does. If you take what they've said, and done and the choices they've made, only Roger has demonstrated that he'd make a schedule choice to try to get back #1. Nadal has never said anything other than that the ranking is not important to him. At some point you have to take what they do and say, and believe it.

As you said, this is all conjecture. But I think Rafa cares more about #1 than Roger does, if only because of this. Further, his participation at the Paris Masters last year - where he secured the #1 ranking with one easy victory - implies that he does have it on his mind. Then he withdrew a couple rounds later with a knee injury....but f I remember correctly, he was a bit wobbly beforehand and many questioned his decision to play Paris. I think he clearly played to secure the ranking, which goes against what you are saying here.

The ranking is obviously not as important to them as Slams, but I think they're disingenuous if they claim they don't care at all.

 

[Moxie]

my point about showing the video of Rafa winning the Barcelona semi in 2009 was to both show that he played there that year (which I see you subsequently corrected) and that he wasn't wearing any strapping. Whether he said something after RG isn't the point. I was challenging your assertion about strapping through the clay season. As for RG, let's not go over it again, his movement looked fine to me. I just saw Soderling playing a career match

I don't think anyone disputes that the two best matches Soderling ever played were v. Nadal at RG in '09 and v. Fed there in '10.

 

[Federberg]

^I actually think they probably care equally. Rafa wanted year end no 1 last year. Roger wanted to be the oldest no 1. I think they're both opportunistic but neither will die in a ditch for it. I think it's all about the slams for both. Rafa knows he ain't catching Roger's weeks at no 1, frankly he's not even catching Novak

 

[Moxie]

As you said, this is all conjecture. But I think Rafa cares more about #1 than Roger does, if only because of this. Further, his participation at the Paris Masters last year - where he secured the #1 ranking with one easy victory - implies that he does have it on his mind. Then he withdrew a couple rounds later with a knee injury....but f I remember correctly, he was a bit wobbly beforehand and many questioned his decision to play Paris. I think he clearly played to secure the ranking, which goes against what you are saying here.

The ranking is obviously not as important to them as Slams, but I think they're disingenuous if they claim they don't care at all.

All I really said is that I don't think he cares about it more than Roger does, which you said you think he does. Ironically, I've always thought so for the reason of the very link you posted: that he's never going to get higher on that list than past McEnroe, which he'll do with 4 more weeks. After that, it would be another full year at #1 to pass Djokovic. I absolutely think, however, that he likes being #1 as much as Roger goes, that he considers it a great achievement. My hope is that he'll consider the real goals that will make his legacy, i.e., Slams, and play a conservative clay schedule, rather than play for the sake of keeping his #1.

 

[Moxie]

^I actually think they probably care equally. Rafa wanted year end no 1 last year. Roger wanted to be the oldest no 1. I think they're both opportunistic but neither will die in a ditch for it. I think it's all about the slams for both. Rafa knows he ain't catching Roger's weeks at no 1, frankly he's not even catching Novak

LOL, I was basically typing the exact same thing when you posted this.

 

[Fiero425]

As you said, this is all conjecture. But I think Rafa cares more about #1 than Roger does, if only because of this. Further, his participation at the Paris Masters last year - where he secured the #1 ranking with one easy victory - implies that he does have it on his mind. Then he withdrew a couple rounds later with a knee injury....but f I remember correctly, he was a bit wobbly beforehand and many questioned his decision to play Paris. I think he clearly played to secure the ranking, which goes against what you are saying here.

The ranking is obviously not as important to them as Slams, but I think they're disingenuous if they claim they don't care at all.

It's always on their minds! I remember back in 2012 when Madrid went to that blue Har-Tru that people were having trouble navigating; slippin' & slidin' away! It was great for the more aggressive game of Roger, but Nadal went out early and Nole pushed himself just to win one more match before being eliminated so he would secure the #1 ranking at the time! Federer went ahead and won the tourney one last time, then took Wimbledon to move back to #1 ranking! :whistle:

 

[Carol]

Another tribute to Nadal

 

[El Dude]

@Moxie, don't you think weeks at #1 is an important part of his legacy? Obviously Slams come first, but as far as career accomplishments go, rankings--especially weeks at #1 and YE1s--are probably next in importance. Maybe not to players, but certainly in terms of historical legacy and greatness.

 

[El Dude]

I'd even argue that #1 is what separates the true elites and the second tier. Sure, semi-great players like Wawrinka will never be #1, but that is for a reason: he's had high peaks, but never the consistent level to be the best player for 52 weeks straight....and that is only 1 week as #1. Think about what it takes to be #1 for 100, 200, 300+ weeks. It is an important facet of greatness.

In fact, one of the best arguments for Novak being closer to Rafa than the Slam count entails is that Novak has been #1 for an entire year longer. I'm not saying it makes up for the 4 Slams--it doesn't--but it bridges some of the gap. Combine that with Novak's WTFs, and I think the "real" different is more like 1-2 Slams. That is why when it was 14 to 12, I was giving a hair of an edge to Novak.

 

[Moxie]

@Moxie, don't you think weeks at #1 is an important part of his legacy? Obviously Slams come first, but as far as career accomplishments go, rankings--especially weeks at #1 and YE1s--are probably next in importance. Maybe not to players, but certainly in terms of historical legacy and greatness.

I'd even argue that #1 is what separates the true elites and the second tier. Sure, semi-great players like Wawrinka will never be #1, but that is for a reason: he's had high peaks, but never the consistent level to be the best player for 52 weeks straight....and that is only 1 week as #1. Think about what it takes to be #1 for 100, 200, 300+ weeks. It is an important facet of greatness.

In fact, one of the best arguments for Novak being closer to Rafa than the Slam count entails is that Novak has been #1 for an entire year longer. I'm not saying it makes up for the 4 Slams--it doesn't--but it bridges some of the gap. Combine that with Novak's WTFs, and I think the "real" different is more like 1-2 Slams. That is why when it was 14 to 12, I was giving a hair of an edge to Novak.

Believe me, I've heard the Federer fans arguments for weeks at number one since forever. "Sign of dominance." Obviously, I think that weeks at #1 matter. Probably less than you do. But if you think that weeks at #1 pushes Rafa into the "2nd tier," or pushes Novak over him, I'll fight you to the death.

 

[Carol]

To be able to keep the #1 is very circunstancial and of course the injuries are playing an important roll and we know they have not helped Rafa too much to keep it but even that this is the third o fourth time he has reached that number
But I think the GS are what really everyone remember more than anything else and that’s what Rafa should be more focus and more now that he is in the 30’s, playing less tournaments, skipping at least Asia and maybe a couple of tournaments more

 

[Moxie]

To be able to keep the #1 is very circunstancial and of course the injuries are playing an important roll and we know they have not helped Rafa too much to keep it but even that this is the third o fourth time he has reached that number
But I think the GS are what really everyone remember more than anything else and that’s what Rafa should be more focus and more now that he is in the 30’s, playing less tournaments, skipping at least Asia and maybe a couple of tournaments more

Rafa is never going to get the number of weeks at #1, and he's unlikely to get the WTF title. For him, it's all about the Majors. (And probably continuing to beat Roger.)

 

[El Dude]

Believe me, I've heard the Federer fans arguments for weeks at number one since forever. "Sign of dominance." Obviously, I think that weeks at #1 matter. Probably less than you do. But if you think that weeks at #1 pushes Rafa into the "2nd tier," or pushes Novak over him, I'll fight you to the death.

Well, I didn't say either, so don't worry. I only said that if we dial back to 2016, I was rating Novak a hair above Rafa, and it seemed inevitable that he would clearly be ahead. How things have changed.

When assessing career greatness, I think you start with Slam titles, but then you adjust for other things, and first among those "secondary factors" are weeks at #1 and YE1s. IMO, of course.

 

[Carol]

Rafa is never going to get the number of weeks at #1, and he's unlikely to get the WTF title. For him, it's all about the Majors. (And probably continuing to beat Roger.)

I rather that he would get the WTF title, winning 3 or 4 more Mayors and continuing to beat Roger than to keep the #1

 

[El Dude]

Here’s a question: As far as Rafa’s legacy and career resume is concerned, what is more important - that he wins another Roland Garros of that he wins an ATP Finals?

I have to say, as a non-fan of Rafa but someone who enjoys ranking players historically, I think at this point the ATP Finals would add more to his resume. There isn’t a lot of difference between 10 and 11 RGs, or 16 vs 17 Slams, but quite a difference between 0 and 1 ATP Finals...unless, of course, that Slam builds towards equalling or exceeding Roger. But at this point, Rafa has nothing to prove on clay, while his lack or the ATP Finals trophy is a glaring gap.

In fact, it may be the only case in which s lesser trophy would be more important to a player’s legacy - except Olympics singles gold for Roger or Novak over a Masters and maybe an ATP Finals...I think another Slam would still be more important than Olympics gold.

What say y’all?

 

[Federberg]

That's a good question mate. I would still say that more slams would bolster his legacy more. They are the primary measure for judging greatness. But it will always be a glaring weakness in his resume. I do agree with you that as Novak got closer and closer to his head count there was a case to be made that he might surpass Rafa even if he didn't quite catch him because his accomplishments and dominance are more diversified than Rafa's. I suspect that discussion is over now by the way. Novak isn't likely to catch Rafa in my view. For the Rafa fans who aren't comfortable with the comparison to Novak before Rafa's recent slam surge, I would just ask that they check they weren't one of the ones who claimed that if Rafa was within a slam of Roger's numbers the H2H could be used to argue his primacy. I always thought that was laughable, but if you believed that then you can't argue with the Novak comparison. That would have been a far more legitimate case as the H2H would have been in Novak's favour as would weeks at no 1 and WTF titles. Anyway that's in the past..