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

[Carol]

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?

What is incredible is to see that Dimitrov has won the ATP finals who no even has one single GS and Nadal doesn't, things of the sport.....
Me personally I'd love if Rafa would win one more Wimbledon, USO and of course one more AO which has been too close in several occasions and always it happens something, ugh!.

 

[Ricardo]

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.)

Well he’s been continuing to lose to Roger, for over a year now...I think weeks at 1 is big for him.

 

[Ricardo]

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?

Ranking players is fine, but with common sense please. Under no circumstance is WTF bigger than a slam.

 

[Moxie]

Well he’s been continuing to lose to Roger, for over a year now...I think weeks at 1 is big for him.

A sudden turnaround late-career. I thought h2h didn't matter.

 

[Ricardo]

A sudden turnaround late-career. I thought h2h didn't matter.

Matters to you, which is why you mentioned it.....except you got it wrong.

 

[Andy22]

Its Clear Nadal being smart, about his which events he plays, Hope that keeps going and these are the events I think he should Skipp. Rome . Wimbledon lead up, Wimbledon? Cincinnati
Asia series.

 

[El Dude]

Ranking players is fine, but with common sense please. Under no circumstance is WTF bigger than a slam.

I think it is debatable. You have to take into account context, which you aren't doing. Yes, ignoring context than a Slam is always bigger than the WTF. But when you have 16 Slams and 0 WTF, or 10 RGs and 0 WTF, then the lack of WTFs stands out like a sore thumb - especially when you consider what the WTF is, and the fact that almost every great player has won at leaset one.

 

[Andy22]

I think it is debatable. You have to take into account context, which you aren't doing. Yes, ignoring context than a Slam is always bigger than the WTF. But when you have 16 Slams and 0 WTF, or 10 RGs and 0 WTF, then the lack of WTFs stands out like a sore thumb - especially when you consider what the WTF is, and the fact that almost every great player has won at leaset one.

Dude get real, no ones going to care, about nadal 0 wtfs, then they look back and see his 19+ plus slams, he's won a Olympics gold metal, which is just as good and harder to win seeing that it only every 4 years. You don't need a wtf to be a great player, Wawrinka never won a wtf does mean he's not great? No it doesn't hes still a semi great player, and nadal could still win one so let's not jump yet.

 

[Federberg]

Dude get real, no ones going to care, about nadal 0 wtfs, then they look back and see his 19+ plus slams, he's won a Olympics gold metal, which is just as good and harder to win seeing that it only every 4 years. You don't need a wtf to be a great player, Wawrinka never won a wtf does mean he's not great? No it doesn't hes still a semi great player, and nadal could still win one so let's not jump yet.

harder to win? It's less frequent but that's as far as it goes. Much less tough competition mate

 

[Andy22]

harder to win? It's less frequent but that's as far as it goes. Much less tough competition mate

OK man it is debate I'm just saying that because you only get 3 or 4 Chances, to win it not because of competition, of course Wtf has better competition, Percentage wise I'm saying its harder.

 

[Ricardo]

I think it is debatable. You have to take into account context, which you aren't doing. Yes, ignoring context than a Slam is always bigger than the WTF. But when you have 16 Slams and 0 WTF, or 10 RGs and 0 WTF, then the lack of WTFs stands out like a sore thumb - especially when you consider what the WTF is, and the fact that almost every great player has won at leaset one.

16 slams and 0 wtf is still bigger than 15 slams and a wtf, no matter how you spin the context. Your ranking can’t be taken seriously exactly because you get the context wrong...which you frequently do.

 

[Carol]

 

[El Dude]

16 slams and 0 wtf is still bigger than 15 slams and a wtf, no matter how you spin the context. Your ranking can’t be taken seriously exactly because you get the context wrong...which you frequently do.

This is one of those meaningless jabs that doesn't say anything other than, "If you forgot, I'm kind of an asshole."

I didn't forget.

But yeah, I don't agree. Or rather, I think there's a good argument that at this point, a WTF would add more to Rafa's resume than another Roland Garros. Hey, that's my opinion. Like assholes, everyone's got one. And some both have one and are one

 

[El Dude]

Dude get real, no ones going to care, about nadal 0 wtfs, then they look back and see his 19+ plus slams, he's won a Olympics gold metal, which is just as good and harder to win seeing that it only every 4 years. You don't need a wtf to be a great player, Wawrinka never won a wtf does mean he's not great? No it doesn't hes still a semi great player, and nadal could still win one so let's not jump yet.

Sounds like a big rationalization, Goat.

First of all, look at the list of great players who have not won the WTF...I think it is Nadal and Wilander only. Every other 6+ Slam winner has. Now look at the list of great players who haven't won the Olympics...it is almost everyone.

I get your point about rarified, but the Olympics is really its own category and is akin to "extra credit" on a resume, not a core component.

When assessing career greatness, I like to start with Slam count, then look at weeks at #1 and YE1s, then look at WTFs, total titles, then Masters, win %, and other factors. WTFs aren't as important as Slams and #1s, but still important.

 

[the AntiPusher]

He looks slower than he was 10 years ago..lol

 

[Andy22]

Sounds like a big rationalization, Goat.

First of all, look at the list of great players who have not won the WTF...I think it is Nadal and Wilander only. Every other 6+ Slam winner has. Now look at the list of great players who haven't won the Olympics...it is almost everyone.

I get your point about rarified, but the Olympics is really its own category and is akin to "extra credit" on a resume, not a core component.

When assessing career greatness, I like to start with Slam count, then look at weeks at #1 and YE1s, then look at WTFs, total titles, then Masters, win %, and other factors. WTFs aren't as important as Slams and #1s, but still important.

Hey I get that you are saying, but you could say it in a way that does not sound like, you are ripping on Nadal for not having a wtf, and yes it would add a lot to his career if he was to win one in my opinion I don't think he needs to.

 

[Carol]

Oops, I’ve just found out that I put the link in Spanish, sorry
He goes piano piano but I’ve read he has practiced with Ferru and very well without any sign of the injury. I rather to wait if he is going to confirm ito ply or not or not, singles or doubles but I hope just once

 

[El Dude]

Hey I get that you are saying, but you could say it in a way that does not sound like, you are ripping on Nadal for not having a wtf, and yes it would add a lot to his career if he was to win one in my opinion I don't think he needs to.

I’m not ripping him by pointing out that he’s missing an important title. And of course he doesn’t “need to” win it...he’s one of the greatest players of all time, regardless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andy22]

I’m not ripping him by pointing out that he’s missing an important title. And of course he doesn’t “need to” win it...he’s one of the greatest players of all time, regardless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK sorry, man

 

[MartyB]

^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

it really is about the slams but being # 1 not off the radar for either of them...clearly.