Nadalites – Rafa Nadal Talk

[brokenshoelace]

He also mentioned, 'In France, in the beginning, I had the impression that it was better to be less good. With talent that Gulbis who's ranked 50th is more esteemed than a Ferrer who's third.

This is amazingly true.

 

[Carol]

I so agree with Gilles Simon on this. People will take two like examples and give them different attributes. Like he said, Gasquet plays deep behind the baseline and it's seen as "talent," but for Nadal it's a "physical style." I think a lot of people simply repeat often repeated phrases and then find common ground. Talent is defined as a special natural ability or aptitude, it has nothing to do with whichever style you prefer. Some players talent is taking the ball early, or carving up the court, even getting to the ball quickly, but this notion that everyone has to play a certain way is beyond idiotic IMO. I have had so many people try to convince that Nadal plays a physical game to the exclusion of everyone else on tour when many players have had many injuries over the years. It's just weird how people think sometimes.

Gilles Simon: 'For people, Gasquet who plays far away from the baseline is talented, while Nadal...'

Gatto Luigi - 26-09-2016 - View: 47143

Tennis - The French player shared his thoughts about what he felt about the concept of talent

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/news/news/Tennis_Interviews/36668/gilles-simon-for-people-gasquet-who-plays-far-away-from-the-baseline-is-talented-while-nadal-/

In a recent interview with L'Equipe, Gilles Simon shared his thoughts about the perception of talent in the tennis world.

Drawing a comparison between compatriot Richard Gasquet and Rafael Nadal, Simon said, 'When Richard Gasquet sends a backhand ten miles from the corner of the stands, they say it's talent. They're right. But when Rafael Nadal does the same with a forehand, they say it's strength and that it's physical. There's complete agreement about Federer's talent, but when it comes to Djokovic, there's doubt. They say he has no great shot. Except that when you serve at him at 275 kph and he takes it every time, in the middle of the racquet. That's incredible talent. If you ask Jan de Witt, who has the most talent, Roger or Novak, he'll hesitate to reply.'

Elaborating further, he said, 'Television distorts perceptions. People don't see what's so special about Kei Nishikori. He has the best two-handed backhand I've ever seen. He finds incredible angles but that doesn't make an impression. I often use the example of Michael Llodra. He had an amazing volley and touch but he couldn't hit a correct forehand. Was he gifted? Safin had a patent on talent his entire career, but when it came to hands, he was like me. Now, Ernests Gulbis is the same. He's talented, full stop. If he loses, it's because he doesn't feel like playing.'

He also mentioned, 'In France, in the beginning, I had the impression that it was better to be less good. With talent that Gulbis who's ranked 50th is more esteemed than a Ferrer who's third. Now, I couldn't care less whether people see if I have talent or not. I usually answer that my talent is my timing. Talent is weighing 70 kg and hitting 50 winners against Rafa in Rome (last year). I hope it doesn't get taken the wrong way, but when I see that they think that I have less talent than Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, it's impressive. Jo hammers every shot. It's very forceful. Between us four, Gael Monfils is the one who has the most talent.'

Good to see a smart opinion about the styles of play!

 

[Tennis Fan]

Simon said all of this? That's pretty remarkable and accurate.

Yes. I've always liked Gilles. He's a straight shooter and doesn't worry about being politically correct. It's just sad that so many people are taken in with sound bites. I hate an unoriginal thinker. If you're just going to spout out what I've already heard over the TV and in articles I'm not interested. I want to hear a person's take, not some regurgitated bull from biased commentators with an agenda.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Good to see a smart opinion about the styles of play!

Isn't it though? Gilles always delivers.

 

[Tennis Fan]

After Victory Dimitrov Dishes High Praise for Rafael Nadal

http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/NET-POSTS/October-2016/After-Victory,-Dimitrov-Dishes-High-Praise-for-Raf.aspx

Grigor Dimitrov ended a seven-match losing streak against Rafael Nadal, finally notching a victory against the 14-time major champion, 6-2, 6-4. A thrilled Dimitrov tells an on-court interviewer how important it was for him to earn a win against a player that he considers to be one of the best fighters of all time.

“I’m just very happy,” he said. “I finally have that win over Rafa. He’s been one of my biggest inspirations throughout the years, and every time I play against him I feel like I can pick something—even from today’s match—he’s one of the greatest competitors, I have tons of respect for him.”

Dimitrov said he got a did a good job of reading Nadal’s serve over the course of their 93-minute tussle, in which he broke the Spaniard five times on 15 opportunies. “I was able to keep a great focus, I was happy with my fitness as well,” he said. “I was reading his serve pretty well today… I was hitting my shots when I had to… there were a lot of positive things that I did good today.”

In press, Dimitrov further elaborated on his respect for Nadal:

I use him even sometimes as an inspiration when I'm down in a match or something. He's one of the biggest fighters for me by far. Honestly, there's nothing else you can say about Rafa. He has proven himself so many times.

Dimitrov moves on to face Milos Raonic in Saturday’s semifinals in Beijing. The Bulgarian has taken the last two meetings from the Canadian but they have not met since the 2014 Australian Open.

Saturday’s other semifinal in Beijing will feature top-seeded Andy Murray vs. No.5-seeded David Ferrer.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Roger Federer will attend the official opening of Rafa Nadal Academy in Manacor

on October 19th at 11:00 AM (via Ultima Hora newspaper).

https://www.facebook.com/NadalTheChampion/photos/a.278980528792624.75686.278612362162774/1348452681845398/?type=3&theater

 

[Tennis Fan]

Rafael Nadal at press conference after his match against Dimitrov in Beijing

THE MODERATOR: Questions, please.

Q. You didn't find a way to your best tennis today. How do you analyze this match? Grigor played a great match, but on your side how did you feel?

RAFAEL NADAL: I feel bad. I feel that I played a bad match in a lot of aspects. Yeah, is obvious that Grigor played much better than me, so he deserved to win. And on my side, you know, I cannot have two breaks and lose 6-2 the first set. When this happens, something is going very bad, no? If you have two breaks, you should have a big possibility to win the set. Having two breaks, I lost 6-2.

Start in the second set again with a break, and it was a disaster. Losing five serves in a row is something that you cannot win a match like this. That's it. I fighted until the last ball, but going all the time against the score and all the time against the bad feelings, psychologically bad feelings, because I was losing and suffering later with my serve all the time.

So when that happens, what you have to do is go to the next tournament because you don't deserve to win like this.

Q. Did it start yesterday in the second set? Is it different sensations?

RAFAEL NADAL: No, it's different feelings. Today I lost a lot of serves, but was not because of my serve. I feel I lost a lot of serves, and from the baseline I was missing balls that I should not miss. That's what happened.

When you miss a couple of ones, then you start to feel a little bit the nerves. Losing the first serve, okay. Having the break back again, and again having the break back, and losing again the serve, psychologically that's tough.

I was ready. In the next game I had again a breakpoint. But the real thing is that stays in your mind and that make you lose the confidence.

Q. In the first set you lost four games straight after the fifth game.

RAFAEL NADAL: Happened that I lost two games with the serve of Grigor. That's normal thing. And I keep losing my serve. That's it.

Q. It's a tough loss, but what can you take away from your Beijing trip?

RAFAEL NADAL: I was playing good, no? I was playing well. I practiced well. I don't have bad feelings on the ball. Today during the match I started not bad. At the end of the match I feel again better. But in the middle of the match, for too much time I lost the confidence with my forehand and I missed more than what I need. That's it.

From Beijing, 90 points. That's something that is not a big thing, but is something that maybe can help for the World Tour Finals. But that's it.

Is always a pleasure playing here in Beijing. I had good tournaments here. Always great memories. Was another year. I am sad that I was not keep playing again here tomorrow in the singles.

 

[britbox]

 

[Tennis Fan]

Thanks for posting this. You're the best.

 

[Carol]

Thanks britbox

 

[Carol]

Rafa playing with a boy 3 years old, sooooo cute!

 

[Tennis Fan]

Nice words from Roger. I guess over time you put things into perspective and realize that tennis is temporary; even for the great ones. It's also an opportunity to make lifelong friends. Awesome maturity.



"I'm really here to honor the great man, Rafa. I think it's wonderful that he's taken this journey on to give the kids something back," the Swiss said.

"I've been around the game 17 years. I've seen a lot of hard workers and inspiring players, but Rafa's been the one who has been the most inspiring and most influential and made me the player I am today.

"Because he is left-handed, because of his spin, because of the intensity he brings to the court, I had to reinvent and rework my game entirely. And that's because of the person he is and how much he's trained."

"I'm going through my first big injury now. I don't know how it's going to be when I come back," said Federer, a 17-time Major champion. "But Rafa's done it a million times, so there again I can be inspired by him. He always made it look easy."

 

[britbox]

 

[teddytennisfan]

Nice words from Roger. I guess over time you put things into perspective and realize that tennis is temporary; even for the great ones. It's also an opportunity to make lifelong friends. Awesome maturity.



"I'm really here to honor the great man, Rafa. I think it's wonderful that he's taken this journey on to give the kids something back," the Swiss said.

"I've been around the game 17 years. I've seen a lot of hard workers and inspiring players, but Rafa's been the one who has been the most inspiring and most influential and made me the player I am today.

"Because he is left-handed, because of his spin, because of the intensity he brings to the court, I had to reinvent and rework my game entirely. And that's because of the person he is and how much he's trained."

"I'm going through my first big injury now. I don't know how it's going to be when I come back," said Federer, a 17-time Major champion. "But Rafa's done it a million times, so there again I can be inspired by him. He always made it look easy."

IT is WONDERFUL of Roger to give praise to his great rival.

here comes the ' however ' - it is also very roger that in that smoothly elegant , polished way of his, praise for the ''great man" finds its way to ''my game...........i had to invent"...(because of rafa) -- but the KEY word is '' I ................invent "...

as in :

"remember this is ME roger -- the inventor, creative, wonderful., polished, talented...etc, etc, etc,"...

===================

speaking of ''influential">

roger is LATE in acknowledging..

a certain FAN of rafa -- long, long ago -- said in websites
"RAFAEL NADAL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT, DECADE DEFINING PLAYER OF THE GENERATION" ...

i said that. back when tennis world was talking about ''rivalry" , who's greater, who has a style this and that...

I , HOWEVER , kept saying (tennis.com and another site) -
the greatness of rafael was NOT about winning so much etc, etc, ...of course it was too -- but that HIS PRESENCE

was the SINGLE most important influence on tennis men's because of his game itself as he put it together - but at least , or even more , important - was how he TAUGHT EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LOOK ROGER IN THE EYE AND BEAT HIM ...

and it was a lesson on ''how to find your way around and through roger" which MEANT -- every player who could , at the height of their careers and roger's best years ....had ONLY rafael nadal as the example of how to find it.

it had to be shown CONSISTENTLY by someone ..and by doing so --

through his GAME, technic, intensity and fighting heart -- RAFAEL BECAME THE SINGLE MOST INFLUENTIAL player of their era...NOT even roger. Rafael DID have precursors in this:

DAVID NALBANDIAN, and PERHAPS mario ancic...but they were careers whose early examples against roger were ruined by their injuries , a certain roller coaster personality of david's (the game perfectly complemented ANYTHING roger could muster) or mario just never got traction and became a lawyer...

therefore in both game, fighting, technic, power, and above all PERSONALITY as a WARRIOR against the BEST roger could show or 'invent' -- and as an example, however nearly unachievable this was by others -- but a DOOR shown , nonetheless..

NADAL INFLUENCED THE ENTIRE TENNIS WORLD FOR MEN that roger , he and the rest existed in.

that's the platform on which ALL the achievements of rafael nadal stand.

his BRILLIANCE became the SHADOW across ROGER'S SUN.

and if roger's all-time greatness became the body of work in history that is unsurpassed in its breadth and depth and elegance...like APOLLO the god...feet never touching ground for mere mortals...

RAFAEL. NADAL. defined roger's career...and therefore defined the entire tennis world ''ruled by roger".

rafael nadal is the PROMETHEUS -
'half-god" that STOLE FIRE from the GODS AND BROUGHT IT DOWN TO EARTH -- to mere humans...

SO I am glad that roger used the EXACT , precise word i used for many years long ago - which i have NEVER seen any writer or poster use to define Rafael Nadal...

however roger really means it:

"the MOST INFLUENTIAL" player of their generation.

SUMMED UP by rafael's simple statement about

"rafa -- can you tell us how come roger beats everyone but YOU beat him so regularly?"

"well...everyone loves roger, no? we ALL love to watch roger's game because it is so perfect and so beautiful, no?
"...but i have to FIGHT TOO, no?".

a few YEARS later -- when NOLE began to stamp HIS entrance to the 'duopoly'.

and beat , in a row, in toronto masters - 2005, i believe -

roddick, roger and agassi for the title...

he answered - in the footsteps of nadal:

"how did i finally win? during the match -- i realized one thing...
"that i can't let myself ADMIRE roger's game, it is so beautiful..
"but i have to think only of MY game".

years later - in his brief brilliant last comeback - DAVID NALBANDIAN reminded everyone that perhaps HE was the very first to find THAT ''secret" that NADAL built on with even greater power and intensity

"how i beat roger? it's really simple: i am never as impressed as others...i don't think like others do towards his game".

and JOHN CONNORS summed it up best of all - during RAFAEL'S

INFLUENCE on roger and on the game :

"i really like rafa -- against roger - HE steps up to the plate".

THAT'S INFLUENCE.

 

[britbox]

^ Nalbandian's early dominance of Federer wasn't curtailed by injury... it was Federer rising to the task... it parallels his rivalry with Hewitt in that respect. Ancic... only ever beat Federer once and shouldn't even be mentioned.

 

[teddytennisfan]

^ Nalbandian's early dominance of Federer wasn't curtailed by injury... it was Federer rising to the task... it parallels his rivalry with Hewitt in that respect. Ancic... only ever beat Federer once and shouldn't even be mentioned.

actually it was.

roger never dominated nalbandian -- even if roger ''rose to the challenge" -- until AFTER nblandian began that endless series of injuries when both started to ''rise" to real prominence.

namely -- right afer david had a severe wrist injury in the semifinals of USO 2003 -- THE very year Roddick won the USA.

REVIEW THE chronology.
NALBANDIAN -- afer that , practically all his career really, never recovered or advanced with enough consistency FROM being injury-free playhing.

that's WHY he was often known or joked about as a walking hospital. and when he did play well - was inconsistent in his own commitment. openly admitting he preferred davis, often seen reading a book around matches,

i actually saw that moment he had that injury in his writs in the semis - and then lost to andy as the power wimkply wasn't there in his famous backhand then...kinda like delpotro -- one injury 0 then another crops ujp somehwere...

in davids, it was also the back, and then the ankle, etc. etc. etc.it in THAT context OF YEARS of dominance that roger ''dominated david".

like dominating what amounts to a repeatedly bandaged guy..but for a brief time in around 2006-07 david - winning his only YEAR-END ATP championship - put his stuff together , for once -- and demonstrated just how EASILY he beat

NADAL, ROGER and anyone else.

john mcenroe said during the USO finals 2003 ..
I WASN'T convinced about david - even with that wimbledon with hewitt...but what i'm seeing even today - i must admit i was very , very wrong, this is one hell of a very, very intelligent player...

now THAT PLAYER never quite found that 'body" of injury-free

THAT'S the david roger 'rose up to to dominate".

kinda like the way roger won hi sfirst wimbleodn...

over mark philippoussies -- almost 10 years his senior - a left-over from the sampras era -
been RECENTLY (in that same year 2004) in the hospital in wheelchair after an auto accident in florida , on top of double knee operations from previous years....

managed to get into wimbledon -- and pleasntly for him reached finals -- but only did so after being given a wildcard for lack of matches and points etc...

hewitt -- after already about 2-3 years of intense hot run from 2000,2001,2001,

OF COURSE the guy basically reached top and peaked and the rest is just coasting by -- 2004..on THAT'S the kind of competition roger 'dominated" --

basically a bunch of has-beens - left-overs, injureds, distracteds, newbies , very old,

and the BEST of them until about 2005-06 until HIS retirement -- reaching TWO consecutive USO FINALS or semis AGAINST ROGER

WAS -- UH --12-YEAR SENIOR

SCIATICA PLAGUED ANDRE AGASSI who said:
|"there are just certain movements now i JUST WILL NOT DO.."..?

gimme me a break!

and THAT'S the 'dominance and rising to the occasion" roger enjoyed -- which is why CONNORS snapped when nadal came along

"the reason i like him is HE steps up to the plate" where NO ONE DID against roger ''who stepped up to the plate"

and NO ONE REALLY was there EXCEPT very old, injured or playeres plagued by injury in he body

or in the brain -- like ivan ljubicic constantly talking about ''my friend roger" -- or james blake constantly licking roger's ass..."the reason no one wants to beat him is because he is so............NICE?"

gimme a break, ,man!

 

[britbox]

actually it was.

roger never dominated nalbandian -- even if roger ''rose to the challenge" -- until AFTER nblandian began that endless series of injuries when both started to ''rise" to real prominence.

namely -- right afer david had a severe wrist injury in the semifinals of USO 2003 -- THE very year Roddick won the USA.

REVIEW THE chronology.
NALBANDIAN -- afer that , practically all his career really, never recovered or advanced with enough consistency FROM being injury-free playhing.

that's WHY he was often known or joked about as a walking hospital. and when he did play well - was inconsistent in his own commitment. openly admitting he preferred davis, often seen reading a book around matches,

i actually saw that moment he had that injury in his writs in the semis - and then lost to andy as the power wimkply wasn't there in his famous backhand then...kinda like delpotro -- one injury 0 then another crops ujp somehwere...

in davids, it was also the back, and then the ankle, etc. etc. etc.it in THAT context OF YEARS of dominance that roger ''dominated david".

like dominating what amounts to a repeatedly bandaged guy..but for a brief time in around 2006-07 david - winning his only YEAR-END ATP championship - put his stuff together , for once -- and demonstrated just how EASILY he beat

NADAL, ROGER and anyone else.

john mcenroe said during the USO finals 2003 ..
I WASN'T convinced about david - even with that wimbledon with hewitt...but what i'm seeing even today - i must admit i was very , very wrong, this is one hell of a very, very intelligent player...

now THAT PLAYER never quite found that 'body" of injury-free

THAT'S the david roger 'rose up to to dominate".

kinda like the way roger won hi sfirst wimbleodn...

over mark philippoussies -- almost 10 years his senior - a left-over from the sampras era -
been RECENTLY (in that same year 2004) in the hospital in wheelchair after an auto accident in florida , on top of double knee operations from previous years....

managed to get into wimbledon -- and pleasntly for him reached finals -- but only did so after being given a wildcard for lack of matches and points etc...

hewitt -- after already about 2-3 years of intense hot run from 2000,2001,2001,

OF COURSE the guy basically reached top and peaked and the rest is just coasting by -- 2004..on THAT'S the kind of competition roger 'dominated" --

basically a bunch of has-beens - left-overs, injureds, distracteds, newbies , very old,

and the BEST of them until about 2005-06 until HIS retirement -- reaching TWO consecutive USO FINALS or semis AGAINST ROGER

WAS -- UH --12-YEAR SENIOR

SCIATICA PLAGUED ANDRE AGASSI who said:
|"there are just certain movements now i JUST WILL NOT DO.."..?

gimme me a break!

and THAT'S the 'dominance and rising to the occasion" roger enjoyed -- which is why CONNORS snapped when nadal came along

"the reason i like him is HE steps up to the plate" where NO ONE DID against roger ''who stepped up to the plate"

and NO ONE REALLY was there EXCEPT very old, injured or playeres plagued by injury in he body

or in the brain -- like ivan ljubicic constantly talking about ''my friend roger" -- or james blake constantly licking roger's ass..."the reason no one wants to beat him is because he is so............NICE?"

gimme a break, ,man!

Roger went 11-3 with Nalbandian after the USO Open 2003 onwards... Sounds like domination to me... and looked like domination to me. Federer's domination of Nalbandian coincided with his domination of the rest of the tour and matched his career trajectory.

Now, you might be one of the group who think the ENTIRE pro tennis tour became weak-kneed and subservient on New Years Eve 2003 or you might be more realistic and appreciate one of the -tour took tennis to another level. The respect given to Roger was earned not given.

 

[isabelle]

Nadal'll play ITPL exh in nov along with Federer and Williams

 

[Tennis Fan]

actually it was.

roger never dominated nalbandian -- even if roger ''rose to the challenge" -- until AFTER nblandian began that endless series of injuries when both started to ''rise" to real prominence.

namely -- right afer david had a severe wrist injury in the semifinals of USO 2003 -- THE very year Roddick won the USA.

REVIEW THE chronology.
NALBANDIAN -- afer that , practically all his career really, never recovered or advanced with enough consistency FROM being injury-free playhing.

that's WHY he was often known or joked about as a walking hospital. and when he did play well - was inconsistent in his own commitment. openly admitting he preferred davis, often seen reading a book around matches,

i actually saw that moment he had that injury in his writs in the semis - and then lost to andy as the power wimkply wasn't there in his famous backhand then...kinda like delpotro -- one injury 0 then another crops ujp somehwere...

in davids, it was also the back, and then the ankle, etc. etc. etc.it in THAT context OF YEARS of dominance that roger ''dominated david".

like dominating what amounts to a repeatedly bandaged guy..but for a brief time in around 2006-07 david - winning his only YEAR-END ATP championship - put his stuff together , for once -- and demonstrated just how EASILY he beat

NADAL, ROGER and anyone else.

john mcenroe said during the USO finals 2003 ..
I WASN'T convinced about david - even with that wimbledon with hewitt...but what i'm seeing even today - i must admit i was very , very wrong, this is one hell of a very, very intelligent player...

now THAT PLAYER never quite found that 'body" of injury-free

THAT'S the david roger 'rose up to to dominate".

kinda like the way roger won hi sfirst wimbleodn...

over mark philippoussies -- almost 10 years his senior - a left-over from the sampras era -
been RECENTLY (in that same year 2004) in the hospital in wheelchair after an auto accident in florida , on top of double knee operations from previous years....

managed to get into wimbledon -- and pleasntly for him reached finals -- but only did so after being given a wildcard for lack of matches and points etc...

hewitt -- after already about 2-3 years of intense hot run from 2000,2001,2001,

OF COURSE the guy basically reached top and peaked and the rest is just coasting by -- 2004..on THAT'S the kind of competition roger 'dominated" --

basically a bunch of has-beens - left-overs, injureds, distracteds, newbies , very old,

and the BEST of them until about 2005-06 until HIS retirement -- reaching TWO consecutive USO FINALS or semis AGAINST ROGER

WAS -- UH --12-YEAR SENIOR

SCIATICA PLAGUED ANDRE AGASSI who said:
|"there are just certain movements now i JUST WILL NOT DO.."..?

gimme me a break!

and THAT'S the 'dominance and rising to the occasion" roger enjoyed -- which is why CONNORS snapped when nadal came along

"the reason i like him is HE steps up to the plate" where NO ONE DID against roger ''who stepped up to the plate"

and NO ONE REALLY was there EXCEPT very old, injured or playeres plagued by injury in he body

or in the brain -- like ivan ljubicic constantly talking about ''my friend roger" -- or james blake constantly licking roger's ass..."the reason no one wants to beat him is because he is so............NICE?"

gimme a break, ,man!

I've re-read this post several times and I have to say that I agree. I understand that Roger is a great player, but for me there will always be a cloud over his "domination." To me, it was a case of being in the right place, at the right time. When Roger matured the competition was basically on the disabled list, except for Andy Roddick who was young too, but extremely limited outside of his serve.

Roger's contemporaries were all done and dusted for; as you said Nalbandian became plagued with one injury after another, Haas was out of contention and often injured as well. Juan Carlos and Lleyton had contracted the chicken pox and were never the same again. That left the likes of old Agassi, mercurial Safin who was more interested in the night life than dedication to his career, and a never has been Phillipoussis and a nervy Baghdatis who admitted that after that first set he wasn't ready to win on the big stage. The field accounted for seven easy majors. That is simply the truth no matter how the pundits try to spin it.

Can you imagine Rafa, Novak and Andy with fields such as that? They came up with equally talented contenders; themselves and they were young and inexperienced on the tour.

Roger's only "competition" for years was the upstart Rafa who dared to say, "I can fight, too." And with that he dominated Roger from the start whenever they met and throughout his career. And, he was a clay courter, but he beat Roger on the biggest stages on the surfaces that he wasn't supposed to win on.

Even now, Roger last won in 2012, a good four years ago and that was after experiencing a drought by his standards, so all of this talk about Rafa is unfounded unless you peek under the covers and call everything as it is. Rafa accomplished what he did being often injured throughout his career and has missed a whopping number of majors. Who else can boast that many wins when they've been curtailed throughout their career? I can't think of anyone. The ones that come to mind are people like Haas, Monfils, Tsonga, Nalbandian, etc. and how many majors have they won, even if you put them altogether.

And negative to the Roger's still playing well. He's not winning the big ones and hasn't for a while and this is someone who has been blessed with good health for the majority of his career notwithstanding a few niggling injuries that barely kept him off the tour.

Now I know that the commentators want us to believe that Roger is the GOAT, but a lot of that is based on their friendship (agenda) with him, but the fact remains that one man from the start deigned to believe that he could play tennis too, and for that they vilified him with time violations, water bottle nonsense, "physical" style nonsense, and his "too humble" attitude, bull crap that they started and continue to this day all because Rafa dared to believe that he belonged on the same court.

This is not to say that Roger is not a great player; he is, but he definitely doesn't rise to the gilded pedestal that they've put him on. Not by a long shot.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I've re-read this post several times and I have to say that I agree. I understand that Roger is a great player, but for me there will always be a cloud over his "domination." To me, it was a case of being in the right place, at the right time. When Roger matured the competition was basically on the disabled list, except for Andy Roddick who was young too, but extremely limited outside of his serve.

Do you downplay the majors won by Djokovic in 2015 and 2016? Because I'll tell you something, the competition in 2004-2007 was much better than it was in 2015 for example. For starters, Nadal was a non-factor, and according to your post, Roger hasn't been playing at a high enough level... So we're left with hot-and-cold Wawrinka and Murray and... literally nobody else. That's what people don't take into account with regards to the 2004-2007 field... Depth, and boy was it deep. Sorry but give me Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko, a young Nadal who was far and away the second best player in the world over the quality of the field in 2015 any day of the week.

Roger's contemporaries were all done and dusted for; as you said Nalbandian became plagued with one injury after another, Haas was out of contention and often injured as well. Juan Carlos and Lleyton had contracted the chicken pox and were never the same again. That left the likes of old Agassi, mercurial Safin who was more interested in the night life than dedication to his career, and a never has been Phillipoussis and a nervy Baghdatis who admitted that after that first set he wasn't ready to win on the big stage. The field accounted for seven easy majors. That is simply the truth no matter how the pundits try to spin it.

Djokovic's contemporaries were all done and dusted for. As I said, Nadal became plagued with one injury after another, Del Potro was out of contention and often injured as well. Soderling contacted mono and retired. That left the likes of old Federer, mercurial Wawrinka, and never has been Ferrer and a nervy Murray who wet the bed against Djokovic every time they played. The field accounted for 5 easy majors. That is simply the truth no matter how the pundits try to spin it.

Can you imagine Rafa, Novak and Andy with fields such as that? They came up with equally talented contenders; themselves and they were young and inexperienced on the tour.

Yes, I can imagine Rafa, Novak and Andy with fields such as that... and I can't imagine them being quite as successful or consistent as Federer was. For instance, let's look at Rafa's most successful year, 2010. He won 3 majors and 3 masters titles. Fantastic, no doubt. However, let's examine his year. The results are very interesting:

He started off in Doha: Lost to Davydenko in the final. The same Davydenko that is made to look like a joke by Roger routinely.
-AO: Lost to Murray in the QF. The same Murray that Roger crushed in the finals a few days later.
-Indian Wells: lost to Ljubcic (Indian Wells). Same old Ljubicic that Roger crushes routinely.
-Miami: lost to Roddick (copy and paste the above).
-He then went on to dominate the clay season, only dropping two sets in the process (no words can do that justice).
-At the French Open, Nadal's path in the second week was Almagro, Melzer and Soderling. Now, Rafa hardly needs easy draws at the FO but let's agree that this is hardly the supposed terrifying competition that would put the 2003-2007 generation to shame (in fact, they're more or less part of that generation). To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Soderling in the final was an easy opponent at all. I'd argue that Rafa would have probably preferred to face Federer, stylistically.
- At Queens, he lost to Feliciano Lopez. Again, another Federer contemporary.
- At Wimbledon, Rafa played amazing in the second week after struggling mightily in the first week, fending off Soderling and Murray in his two best performances of the season, before meeting his favorite whipping boy, Tomas Berdych in the final.
- In Canada, Rafa lost to Murray.
- In Cincinnati, Rafa lost to the same nervy Marcus Baghdatis you referred to above...only a four years older, more injury plagued version of that player.
- At the US Open, Rafa's path to the final was a joke , although he was playing out of his mind, and beating Djokovic speaks for itself so no arguments there.
- At the Thailand Open, Rafa lost to Guillermo Garcia Lopez.
- Rafa won in Tokyo (beat Monfils in the final).
- At the Shanghai Masters: Rafa lost to Jurgen Melzer. Another Federer contemporary, and not an especially good one at that.
- Rafa skipped the Paris Masters.
- At the WTF in London, Rafa lost to... Roger Federer in the final.

This is Nadal's best year ever. A year in which the competition, while definitely good, wasn't quite as good as it was in say, 2008, when Rafa first reached the top of the rankings, or 2009. In fact, Djokovic was a non factor for the majority of the year until the US Open and Roger was a non factor after the Australian Open until he woke up in the fall season. So yeah, those guys were there, but they weren't in form, and Rafa only played one of them (Djokovic) in his 3 major wins.

Keep in mind, I think Rafa would have spanked Roger at the US Open if Federer converts on those match points against Djokovic. I'm not saying his results would have been any different. But, I'm saying, his results, good as they were, in his best year ever, still pale in comparison to Roger's best years, and Rafa occasionally lost to the same guys Roger clowned in his prime...and most of these guys were past their prime when they beat him. So, food for thought.

Roger's only "competition" for years was the upstart Rafa who dared to say, "I can fight, too." And with that he dominated Roger from the start whenever they met and throughout his career. And, he was a clay courter, but he beat Roger on the biggest stages on the surfaces that he wasn't supposed to win on.

I wonder if Nadal being Roger's only competition has anything to do with Roger being an out-of-this-world player.

Even now, Roger last won in 2012, a good four years ago and that was after experiencing a drought by his standards, so all of this talk about Rafa is unfounded unless you peek under the covers and call everything as it is. Rafa accomplished what he did being often injured throughout his career and has missed a whopping number of majors. Who else can boast that many wins when they've been curtailed throughout their career? I can't think of anyone. The ones that come to mind are people like Haas, Monfils, Tsonga, Nalbandian, etc. and how many majors have they won, even if you put them altogether.

I don't think anyone is claiming Haas, Monfils, Tsonga or Nalbandian are capable of lacing Rafa's boots so nobody needs convincing that he's done better than them. And yes, Roger hasn't won a major since 2012, but it's a good reminder that he's 35 now.

And negative to the Roger's still playing well. He's not winning the big ones and hasn't for a while and this is someone who has been blessed with good health for the majority of his career notwithstanding a few niggling injuries that barely kept him off the tour.

So you either win the big ones or you're not playing well? Roger reached two major finals at 34 last year and was ranked number 2 in the world. I reckon that counts as playing well. This year he obviously hasn't been playing well but he's missed most of it due to injury, so I think we can excuse him.

Now I know that the commentators want us to believe that Roger is the GOAT, but a lot of that is based on their friendship (agenda) with him,

I would say it has more to do with the record number of majors he's won, the 4 consecutive years as world number 1, the outrageous amount of major semis in a row that he reached, his unparalleled dominance, the amount of Masters 1000 events he's won, the fact that even in his 30's, he was beating the likes of Djokovic and Murray on multiple occasions, etc...

This is not to say that Roger is not a great player; he is, but he definitely doesn't rise to the gilded pedestal that they've put him on. Not by a long shot.

OK, let's say this is true. Who would you say should be ahead of him on an all time list? Or, in other words, who do you think should be held on a higher pedestal? Name whoever you want and I'll be able to do exactly as you did in the above post and carefully twist their accomplishments to make them look less impressive.