Rafael Nadal's "Imbalanced" Resume

[Moxie]

To go back to @brokenshoelace's OP, and how Nadal's resume imbalance might enhance it at least as much as take away, it is worth saying that Nadal has made himself, undeniably, the GOAT of clay. His preference for expending most of his energy in the clay season certainly left him with fewer energy reserves for the later part of the year. A clear choice, and I won't deny that. But that is the same reason that many pundits and posters were sure that he'd never win the USO/career Slam. And yet, he did. And won the USO 3 times. And made finals at Wimbledon and AO more times than he won them. It's a pretty complete resume. Clay-shaming is kinda small-minded, imo, at the altitudes that Rafa has reached, no?

 

[rafanoy1992]

To go back to @brokenshoelace's OP, and how Nadal's resume imbalance might enhance it at least as much as take away, it is worth saying that Nadal has made himself, undeniably, the GOAT of clay. His preference for expending most of his energy in the clay season certainly left him with fewer energy reserves for the later part of the year. A clear choice, and I won't deny that. But that is the same reason that many pundits and posters were sure that he'd never win the USO/career Slam. And yet, he did. And won the USO 3 times. And made finals at Wimbledon and AO more times than he won them. It's a pretty complete resume. Clay-shaming is kinda small-minded, imo, at the altitudes that Rafa has reached, no?

I know Djokovic can achieve it too, but Nadal has the best chance to complete the Double Career Slam!

So much for being a Clay courter, no?

 

[Moxie]

I know Djokovic can achieve it too, but Nadal has the best chance to complete the Double Career Slam!

So much for being a Clay courter, no?

Of the various and sundries that we Nadal fans would like to see him get, the AO again is one, and for that reason. It would be hard to discredit his "imbalanced" resume if he got another AO. ¡Vamos!

 

[Busted]

First off - Federer's lone FO was a "knock against him" for a long time - and still is. Every time people mention his FO they say, "But he didn't have to beat Nadal to win." So there's your eternal asterisk to Roger's FO. They also harp on the fact that he lost 4 FO finals to Nadal while praising Nadal's prowess on clay. So why is it a knock against Federer to lose 4 FO finals against the greatest clay court player in the history of tennis? It's not like he lost them to journeymen who had the tournaments of their lives - and all but 1 of the matches was competitive...and that was the year Roger had mono and STILL made the FO final and 2 other Slam finals. Never mind the fact that Federer has been in 5 FO finals - and 5 finals at EVERY SLAM. Nadal's fans can't say the same..

Secondly, don't get me started on Nadal's lopsided record. Will anyone even remember who he beat to win this US Open? It ought to have a huge ass asterisk by it not just because of the decimated field and lack of big names (Roger was banged up even if he did play!) but because of who he played to win it. Not one single player was in the Top 25.

Round - Rank - Opponent
F - 32 - Anderson
SF - 28 - DelPo
QF - 53 - Rublev
R16 - 64 - Dolgopolov
R32 - 59 - L. Mayer
R64 - 121 - Taro Daniel
R128 - 85 - Dusan Lajovic

Seriously? The average ranking here is 63.14 And the worst part was? He struggled big time against some of these guys. Has anyone ever won a Slam without having to beat a top 25 player? I can't think of any recent Slams when that was the case. This was a Slam that he won simply by being the healthiest Big 4 player in the tournament. There was no pressure on him at all after Roger lost. NONE.

Yeah...so...don't get me started on Nadal's inability to win on other surfaces. That's been my pulpit for about 10 years now. Until this gimme win at the US Open he hadn't won a hard court tournament since Doha 2014. His lifetime record in hard court finals was, IIRC, 16 wins, 30 losses, ie, 34.7% winning to 65.3% losing. His last grass win was Stuttgart in 2015 and that's another tournament where he played a bunch of lesser players (Baghdatis, Tomic, Monfils) and beat Victor Freaking Troicki in the final - and then he went to Wimbledon and lost in the 2R to Dustin Brown. So that's it for Nadal for non-clay titles in the last 4 years - US Open (2017), Stuttgart (2015) and Doha (2014). Furthermore, of his 74 career titles? 53 clay, 17 hard, 4 grass (and 2 indoors). Sure, you could flip the script and say Federer's 93 wins are 63 hard, 17 grass, 11 clay and 2 carpet (22 indoors) - but then you're just demonstrating how much more Federer has won OFF his favorite surface than Nadal has. And let's not forget that Nadal has never won that pesky year-end finals that Roger's won 6 times and Djokovic has won 5 times...and even Murray's won the darned thing. But, alas, they play that indoors on hard courts and won't move it outdoors to clay (so Nadal can win it) - as he has advocated them doing more than a few times while whining about the unfairness that it's always on the same surface and location. Poor baby.

But, don't worry, Uncle Toni thinks Nadal's got non-clay courts cracked now that he beat a bunch of nobodies, an oft-injured former Slam winner and 1 wannabe at the US Open and will definitely pass Roger's Slam total of 19. I'm guessing Uncle Toni thinks Djokovic, Murray, Federer, Wawrinka, Zverev and a ton of up-and-coming guys are going to NOT play in the Slams from now on? If Nadal wins 3 or more Slams - I'll be shocked. Djokovic will probably come back with vengeance next year and he definitely will want to close the gap with Nadal even if he doesn't think he'll win another 7 Slams to catch or pass Roger.

 

[Moxie]

Protecting of Roger's legacy duly noted. Also the obvious defensiveness. These are the reasons that the discussion will go on forever.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

One thing to be noted is that Rafa has never defended a title away from the clay in his whole career.

 

[Moxie]

One thing to be noted is that Rafa has never defended a title away from the clay in his whole career.

I think you've mentioned that more than once. But isn't this a bit of Broken's original point? For all that Rafa has accomplished, and it's a pretty hefty resume, some people are still looking for ways to diminish it. The reason is obvious, and it's the Rivalry. If not for that, no one would be looking down their noses at it.

 

[monfed]

I think you've mentioned that more than once. But isn't this a bit of Broken's original point? For all that Rafa has accomplished, and it's a pretty hefty resume, some people are still looking for ways to diminish it. The reason is obvious, and it's the Rivalry. If not for that, no one would be looking down their noses at it.

And therein lies the problem. Why do you guys play the victim all the time rather than seeing it as simply an observation? It's pathetic and destructive.

Believe me nobody is diminishing anything. We'd love for another intrinsically better tennis player than Fed who breaks all his records so that we're not left with highlight reels of Fed for the rest of our lives.

Records are meant to be broken. But who breaks them also matters. Fed fans aren't comfortable with the fact that the his records are being broken by a player who plays essentially anti-tennis and his game is just so wrong for the game. It's good for him and his fans but for the game? No way, Jose.

FWIW, I'm not completely convinced that Federer is the GOAT because Laver has a comparably great resume if not greater. That's not "diminishing" Federer in anyway.

 

[Federberg]

I think you've mentioned that more than once. But isn't this a bit of Broken's original point? For all that Rafa has accomplished, and it's a pretty hefty resume, some people are still looking for ways to diminish it. The reason is obvious, and it's the Rivalry. If not for that, no one would be looking down their noses at it.

you must admit it's a fairly remarkable stat though Moxie. It made me wonder whether Roger has defended a clay court title and it turns out that he defended Hamburg in 2005. I don't know what it means though. Does it mean that Rafa's non-clay titles are opportunistic? I'm asking not making a statement

 

[brokenshoelace]

you must admit it's a fairly remarkable stat though Moxie. It made me wonder whether Roger has defended a clay court title and it turns out that he defended Hamburg in 2005. I don't know what it means though. Does it mean that Rafa's non-clay titles are opportunistic? I'm asking not making a statement

Not really.

It just means they're less common. Opportunistic, to me, would imply that something isn't that frequent, and you wait for the right circumstances to make it happen. The truth is, Nadal wins titles off of clay a lot. He just doesn't win as many title as he does on clay. I understand using defending a title as a barometer of consistency at a particular tournament, which makes sense, but on a surface? I don't think it's a very good indicator, and here is why:

If you win Indian Wells one year, and don't do it the next year but win Miami instead... That's still consistency on hards. You just didn't happen to defend the same title. I think it's hard to win 6 non clay majors due to "opportunism" (note that Rafa reached 5 consecutive Wimbledon finals, for example). Sticking with Indian Wells as a tournament, Nadal has won it 3 times. He's won the Canada Masters 3 times too. The US Open 3 times...etc. He just didn't happen to do it in consecutive years, which at times is due to injury (for example Rafa didn't get the chance to defend his 2008 Wimbledon title), and at times simply because he's not as good on hards as he is on clay, which is obvious enough.

 

[Federberg]

Not really.

It just means they're less common. Opportunistic, to me, would imply that something isn't that frequent, and you wait for the right circumstances to make it happen. The truth is, Nadal wins titles off of clay a lot. He just doesn't win as many title as he does on clay. I understand using defending a title as a barometer of consistency at a particular tournament, which makes sense, but on a surface? I don't think it's a very good indicator, and here is why:

If you win Indian Wells one year, and don't do it the next year but win Miami instead... That's still consistency on hards. You just didn't happen to defend the same title. I think it's hard to win 6 non clay majors due to "opportunism" (note that Rafa reached 5 consecutive Wimbledon finals, for example). Sticking with Indian Wells as a tournament, Nadal has won it 3 times. He's won the Canada Masters 3 times too. The US Open 3 times...etc. He just didn't happen to do it in consecutive years, which at times is due to injury (for example Rafa didn't get the chance to defend his 2008 Wimbledon title), and at times simply because he's not as good on hards as he is on clay, which is obvious enough.

those are fair points. I'm not going to die in a ditch over it. I do agree that having multiple titles at a tournament is a good defence against the argument of opportunism (and btw I don't think there's anything wrong with opportunism, stone cold killas should be doing that)

 

[monfed]

Nadal's entire non-clay resume is built off of the momentum he gains on clay amassing close to 5000 points and gaining a mental edge over his main rivals on it.

Wim 08 he won because he thrashed Fed at RG 08. The defeat was so mentally scarring for Fed that he dropped the first two sets at Wimbledon 08 which he wouldn't have done normally, he has himself said this. I mean in that second set he was up a break so atleast it should've been a set a piece.Then from Wim 08 defeat, Fed lost AO 09 too, probably the worst defeat of his career having been the better player for most of the match. It was a domino effect.

Then when you look at USO 10, the field was just terrible. Fed was out of prime, Djokovic was not at his 2011 level yet and as usual Nadal took advantage....AGAIN.

Coming to 2013, Nadal not only beat Djokovic at RG 13 SF, but also crushed his spirit. And guess what happens next? He loses pretty much all HC matches to Nadal ofcourse including USO where Nadal won that 3rd set because he had gained a mental edge on Djoko from the RG 13 defeat.

Lastly USO 17. Just LOL. I mean he hadn't won a HC title since Doha 2014 I believe and he just swoops in for a USO on an unusually gritty, bouncy surface at USO with a peachy draw huh. No faker to stop him in the finals, no Stanimal to take him out , Fed who had owned him the entire HC season picks up a back injury at the worst possible time, a tired old DelPotro gassed after playing a set who couldn't blast winners on that surface.

Not defending a single non-clay slam/MS is not the primary indicator of consistency or being opportunistic but when you factor in all this collectively it becomes rather obvious.

There is nothing wrong with taking advantage but it doesn't make it great. This is one of the main reasons why I don't find Nadal's non-clay wins impressive compared to guys like Borg/Sampras/Federer to name a few ATGs with comparable resumes.

 

[brokenshoelace]

those are fair points. I'm not going to die in a ditch over it. I do agree that having multiple titles at a tournament is a good defence against the argument of opportunism (and btw I don't think there's anything wrong with opportunism, stone cold killas should be doing that)

To be clear, I DO think Nadal is opportunistic, both within a match and in his career in general. I just don't think the main take away of his inability to defend a title outside of clay should be opportunism, that's all.

In general, I think Nadal's won outside of clay a lot in his best seasons, while he struggled to do so in other seasons, whether it was due to form, injuries, or an opponent who had his number. It's more or less that simple.

For example, in his first big season outside of clay, 2008, he won: Queens, Wimbledon, Canada Masters and the Olympics. That's pretty huge.

In 2009, he won the Australian Open and Indian Wells, before injury prevented him from attempting to defend his Wimbledon title.

In 2010, he won Wimbledon and the US Open. I mean, those are 3 consecutive seasons in which he's had a very good to outright stellar resume outside of clay.

In 2011, his main problem was Novak, who beat him in the IW, Miami, Wimbledon and US Open finals.

Injury cut his season short following Wimbledon in 2012, but that was a season in which he struggled outside of clay, despite coming very close in the AO final.

In 2013, he had an absolutely incredible year on hards, going undefeated until September on the surface (though in fairness, he didn't play the AO Open). He won Indian Wells, Canada Masters, Cinci Masters and the US Open.

In 2014, following his injury and loss in the AO final, he again struggled outside of clay before skipping the rest of the season after Wimbledon (maybe he played an event after that but I can't remember honestly).

In 2015 and 2016, he didn't win much of anything, on any surface and was clearly struggling with overall.

In 2017, he won the US Open, which, despite playing very well, I would actually qualify as opportunistic, as he capitalized on a very good draw, Roger being out, and the absence of some very important rivals.

Anyway, the reason for the "history lesson" so to speak, is that it tells the story more or less accurately. That's too bulky of a resume outside of clay to be qualified as opportunistic, even though I don't take umbrage with the term itself and I agree with you, it's not a negative thing at all.

 

[Moxie]

ESPN makes an argument for Nadal's overall resume, and that he's the GOAT:

http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/23784126/tennis-rafael-nadal-not-only-king-clay-goat

 

[DarthFed]

ESPN makes an argument for Nadal's overall resume, and that he's the GOAT:

http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/23784126/tennis-rafael-nadal-not-only-king-clay-goat

You mean one dumbass on ESPN. I got a kick out of that article, it made pretty much no good points.

 

[Moxie]

You mean one dumbass on ESPN. I got a kick out of that article, it made pretty much no good points.

It made several interesting comparisons of Nadal's off-clay resume to those of other top players, though I'm sure you don't think of them as "good" points. You'd put them in the "bad" column. You may think of the guy as a "dumb-ass," but ESPN thinks enough of his sports acumen to pay him. :whistle:

 

[brokenshoelace]

I read the article, it actually makes some really good points about Nadal's resume off of clay, as compared to other all-time greats, which is very relevant to this thread, but the author's reasoning as to why Nadal is GOAT is absolutely laughable.

 

[DarthFed]

It made several interesting comparisons of Nadal's off-clay resume to those of other top players, though I'm sure you don't think of them as "good" points. You'd put them in the "bad" column. You may think of the guy as a "dumb-ass," but ESPN thinks enough of his sports acumen to pay him. :whistle:

So it starts out comparing dominance off each player's best surface and then tries to ignore the fact Federer absolutely dominates there. It mentions overall MS titles but does not include that in the comparison of each player's best surface. It "surprisingly" fails to mention YEC's or time at #1 but apparently a huge measure of greatness is how many major wins each player has where they lost 1 slam or less. The guy strikes me as someone who started watching tennis within the past few years and, for God knows what reason, enjoyed Rafa's play and therefore wrote this idiotic article.

Give me one decent argument for Nadal as GOAT that doesn't include awarding him an extra few majors for his H2H...

 

[monfed]

The ESPN writer is an american. I find that Americans specially black people have a bias for physicality over artistry and hardwork over talent. Someone walks out with muscles wearing a tight shirt and capris they'll call him the GOAT. Most american sports are physical , full contact sports like NFL, ice hockey(legal to beat up your opponent), boxing, NBA arguably.

 

[DarthFed]

The ESPN writer is an american. I find that Americans specially black people have a bias for physicality over artistry and hardwork over talent. Someone walks out with muscles wearing a tight shirt and capris they'll call him the GOAT. Most american sports are physical , full contact sports like NFL, ice hockey(legal to beat up your opponent), boxing, NBA arguably.

Wow, it's alright to talk about American preferences (you are correct about us liking more contact sports aside from baseball) but how about we keep race out of it?