Rafael Nadal's "Imbalanced" Resume

[monfed]

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?

Fair enough, it's just an observation.

 

[DarthFed]

Nadal's totals off clay are great, there is no denying it. But the fact of the matter is Fed and a few others have been dominant on two surfaces or more if we include indoors/carpet. And Nadal has only been dominant on 1.

 

[Moxie]

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.

I posted it for the part that was applicable to the thread. I cited the GOAT-bit just to twist-up Darth, mainly.

 

[monfed]

I would like to take a slightly more positive outlook to this overall slam race. I think that both players have their weak points.

For Fed, he messed up at Wim 08 and specially AO 09. Those were two high profile losses that he should've avoided specially the latter.
Then the last chance he had to beat a relatively out of form Nadal at RG 11 with favourable conditions he messed up. Now he did recover some of that AO 09 damage by winning AO 17 but Nadal fans can always say that Ralph beat Fred at Wimbledon but Fred didn't beat Ralph at RG.

Coming to Nadal, his weak points are basically his clay skewed resume. For an ATG to rely so heavily on clay to sort of pad up your slam count and not be dominant on atleast two surfaces, mind you 6 non-clay slams is no small feat but in comparison to GOAT contenders like Borg, Laver, Sampras and ofcourse Federer, it falls short.
TBH I don't think the issue is so much with his non-clay slam numbers as much as it is with the way he plays on those surfaces that many purists if you will have a hard time accepting. He doesn't change his game in anyway to adapt to those surfaces but simply waits for a draw to open up or the surfaces to be slowed down to help him translate his game to them. He doesn't show any versatility to me that is worthy of a GOAT to put it bluntly. I also find him to be too much of a complainer and expects things to fall his way. I don't find that to be a GOAT quality.

Did I add more negatives to Nadal than Fed? LOL sorry but I tried to be a little more balanced. However the key thing that will happen is that if Nadal ends up tying or breaking Fed's slam record then because both players have these weakpoints, the GOAT title will go back to Rod Laver as he has zero weaknesses even though I personally don't think he is due to his height being below 6 feet. Statistically, Laver is hard to top.


So, I don't think Nadal can become the GOAT but he probably can invalidate Federer as the GOAT and send that title straight back to ole grandpa Rodney.

 

[Moxie]

I would like to take a slightly more positive outlook to this overall slam race. I think that both players have their weak points.

For Fed, he messed up at Wim 08 and specially AO 09. Those were two high profile losses that he should've avoided specially the latter.
Then the last chance he had to beat a relatively out of form Nadal at RG 11 with favourable conditions he messed up. Now he did recover some of that AO 09 damage by winning AO 17 but Nadal fans can always say that Ralph beat Fred at Wimbledon but Fred didn't beat Ralph at RG.

Coming to Nadal, his weak points are basically his clay skewed resume. For an ATG to rely so heavily on clay to sort of pad up your slam count and not be dominant on atleast two surfaces, mind you 6 non-clay slams is no small feat but in comparison to GOAT contenders like Borg, Laver, Sampras and ofcourse Federer, it falls short.
TBH I don't think the issue is so much with his non-clay slam numbers as much as it is with the way he plays on those surfaces that many purists if you will have a hard time accepting. He doesn't change his game in anyway to adapt to those surfaces but simply waits for a draw to open up or the surfaces to be slowed down to help him translate his game to them. He doesn't show any versatility to me that is worthy of a GOAT to put it bluntly. I also find him to be too much of a complainer and expects things to fall his way. I don't find that to be a GOAT quality.

Did I add more negatives to Nadal than Fed? LOL sorry but I tried to be a little more balanced. However the key thing that will happen is that if Nadal ends up tying or breaking Fed's slam record then because both players have these weakpoints, the GOAT title will go back to Rod Laver as he has zero weaknesses even though I personally don't think he is due to his height being below 6 feet. Statistically, Laver is hard to top.


So, I don't think Nadal can become the GOAT but he probably can invalidate Federer as the GOAT and send that title straight back to ole grandpa Rodney.

While I do appreciate your effort at actual posting and not just trolling, Roger not winning W '08, AO '09 and RG '11 are not down to him "messing up" but to Nadal beating him. You have to get over those.

As to the bolded above, you definitely show your prejudice against clay, and Nadal. Borg won 6 on clay and 5 on grass. He never won either the AO, or the USO. Pete won 7 on grass, 7 on HC (2 AO, 5 USO,) but none on clay. Laver won 12...2 on clay, the rest on grass. He never won a Major on HC. Nadal's Major resume is more diverse than any of those, and more ample.

The notion that Nadal doesn't change his game per surface is laughable, or even the notion that he hasn't changed his game across the 17 years of his career. If he were simply "waiting for the draw to open up" I'm fairly certain he wouldn't have won 17 majors. And waiting for the surfaces to slow isn't really a thing. Most of that happened before he was a factor.

Too much of a complainer? You seem to forget how long Roger completely hated Hawkeye and disagreed with it. Or how he has more than occasionally been ungracious when he's lost, esp. at important tournaments. He's also done a great deal more of racquet-breaking, arguing with umps and swearing on court than Nadal. But to each his own.

If Rafa passes Roger in the Majors race, the GOAT won't revert to Laver. It'll be the endless conversation between the 2 of them. Laver may be the pre-Open GOAT, but that's it.

 

[monfed]

While I do appreciate your effort at actual posting and not just trolling, Roger not winning W '08, AO '09 and RG '11 are not down to him "messing up" but to Nadal beating him. You have to get over those.

Fed won more points than Nadal at AO 09. In Wim 08, messed up 20 BPs, blew the second set which he wouldn't normally do on grass. RG 11 is more debatable as it's RG but had he won that first set, with the momentum, Nadal not playing his best tennis and the faster conditions he may have won.

As to the bolded above, you definitely show your prejudice against clay, and Nadal. Borg won 6 on clay and 5 on grass. He never won either the AO, or the USO. Pete won 7 on grass, 7 on HC (2 AO, 5 USO,) but none on clay. Laver won 12...2 on clay, the rest on grass. He never won a Major on HC. Nadal's Major resume is more diverse than any of those, and more ample.

Thanks for proving that the bolded players dominated 2 surfaces to Nadal's 1 which was my original point.

The notion that Nadal doesn't change his game per surface is laughable, or even the notion that he hasn't changed his game across the 17 years of his career. If he were simply "waiting for the draw to open up" I'm fairly certain he wouldn't have won 17 majors. And waiting for the surfaces to slow isn't really a thing. Most of that happened before he was a factor.

Actually Nadal didn't win any HC slams or for that matter grass court slams but specially the former when the HCs were quick ie pre 08. And before you jump to the standard excuse of he was just a "baby" know that he was beating Fed since 04 Miami so he had plenty of experience to win HC slams.

Too much of a complainer? You seem to forget how long Roger completely hated Hawkeye and disagreed with it. Or how he has more than occasionally been ungracious when he's lost, esp. at important tournaments. He's also done a great deal more of racquet-breaking, arguing with umps and swearing on court than Nadal. But to each his own.

Nadal threatened to boycott blue clay, complained about the lighter balls in RG 11, complained the HC season is too long, recommended a 2 year ranking system, wanted the net height to be raised, wanted only one serve per server... I could go on but I'll stop.

If Rafa passes Roger in the Majors race, the GOAT won't revert to Laver. It'll be the endless conversation between the 2 of them. Laver may be the pre-Open GOAT, but that's it.

Depends how he passes. If he passes winning just RG then it will further skew his resume on clay and which will be harmful for his overall GOAT claim and since Fed won't have the slam count anymore, it will goto Laver as even now Laver is considered the 2nd greatest because of his 7 year dominance and his 1969 CYGS.

 

[Federberg]

Too much of a complainer? You seem to forget how long Roger completely hated Hawkeye and disagreed with it. Or how he has more than occasionally been ungracious when he's lost, esp. at important tournaments. He's also done a great deal more of racquet-breaking, arguing with umps and swearing on court than Nadal. But to each his own.

Really? Glass houses...

• ranking system

• being gracious upfront but then getting his team to let it be known he was injured

• issues with umpires

• wanting WTF on clay

• claiming he's had more bad luck with injuries than others

I could go on. At least Federer's complaints are generally not as self serving, but each to his own..

 

[Moxie]

Really? Glass houses...

• ranking system

• being gracious upfront but then getting his team to let it be known he was injured

• issues with umpires

• wanting WTF on clay

• claiming he's had more bad luck with injuries than others

I could go on. At least Federer's complaints are generally not as self serving, but each to his own..

I was just pointing out to your fellow Feddie, Monfed that Roger is no saint, which he is not. Stop with the face palm. I thought that would be clear.

 

[Federberg]

I was just pointing out to your fellow Feddie, Monfed that Roger is no saint, which he is not. Stop with the face palm. I thought that would be clear.

Lol! Seemed to me you were implying that Roger's "complaining" is on a par with Rafa's. Not what I see...

 

[DarthFed]

Please tell me how he has "more than occasionally" been ungracious after a loss compared to Nadal.

 

[Moxie]

Please tell me how he has "more than occasionally" been ungracious after a loss compared to Nadal.

Why, because then you'll believe me? That breath I won't waste. Whatever you don't like about Nadal, he's not ungracious. Roger can be.

 

[DarthFed]

Why, because then you'll believe me? That breath I won't waste. Whatever you don't like about Nadal, he's not ungracious. Roger can be.

Of course you won't pull examples. For every Roger example of that there are probably more Rafa ones. Remember "death foretold" after Rosol match. Or how about after Murray in 2008 USO when Nadal complained about the schedule and mentioned how he was dead tired that match. Rafa has made excuses a lot more than Roger. The bad Fed examples I remember are after he lost to Berdych in 2010 when he made it sound like he was paralyzed. I also didn't like his interview after 2011 USO when he complained about Nole going for broke on that famous return. He was trying to ignore the fact he choked that match.

 

[Federberg]

Why, because then you'll believe me? That breath I won't waste. Whatever you don't like about Nadal, he's not ungracious. Roger can be.

I’ve seen Rafa have his bad days he’s no saint. And funnily enough the players themselves agree

 

[Moxie]

I’ve seen Rafa have his bad days he’s no saint. And funnily enough the players themselves agree

I never said he was. I was offering a counter to Monfed's comment about Rafa, which I didn't contest. They all do things on occasion that we could object to. Would have helped if you'd read the post I was responding to, and tried not jumping to conclusions.

 

[Federberg]

I never said he was. I was offering a counter to Monfed's comment about Rafa, which I didn't contest. They all do things on occasion that we could object to. Would have helped if you'd read the post I was responding to, and tried not jumping to conclusions.

I read it. I took exception to your paragraph about Roger complaining. As I said... glass houses

 

[Moxie]

Fed won more points than Nadal at AO 09. In Wim 08, messed up 20 BPs, blew the second set which he wouldn't normally do on grass. RG 11 is more debatable as it's RG but had he won that first set, with the momentum, Nadal not playing his best tennis and the faster conditions he may have won.

You can say Roger "messed up," but he was beaten fair and square. He lost 6-2 in the 5th at AO. That's not really close. At RG '11, Nadal lifted his level significantly from QF (v. Soderling) on. Federer was close to getting it to a 5th, but he didn't, so, no, I don't think he would have won that match. His best showing v. Nadal at RG, though, for sure.

Thanks for proving that the bolded players dominated 2 surfaces to Nadal's 1 which was my original point.

Clearly you can't read. Laver was 12 on grass and 2 on clay. That's not dominating 2 surfaces. Borg's 11 came at 2 Majors only. Nadal has 2 grass and 4 on HCs, including the career slam. Pete never won on clay at all. I don't think I proved you point, at all. On the contrary.

Actually Nadal didn't win any HC slams or for that matter grass court slams but specially the former when the HCs were quick ie pre 08. And before you jump to the standard excuse of he was just a "baby" know that he was beating Fed since 04 Miami so he had plenty of experience to win HC slams.

Say what you like about Nadal not winning a Major off of clay before he was 22. When he did win Wimbledon and AO at age 22, they were his 5th and 6th Major win. He also became the first player ever to hold Major titles on all 3 surfaces. At 22. Federer was just shy of 22 when he won his first. What was his excuse, if the surfaces were so fast and adapted to his game?

 

[Moxie]

I read it. I took exception to your paragraph about Roger complaining. As I said... glass houses

My comment was just a counter-point. I'm not living in a glass house. It's not my job to massage over Fed fans complaints about Rafa...you apparently did a perfectly good job all by yourself. TBH, I think that they're both really good sportsmen. It's the fans that exaggerate every seeming affront, and catalogue and remember them like elephants. (Do elephants really have long memories?) Especially given the pressures that they've endured over the years, they rarely act out on court, they're basically both gracious and take on their obligations as top players with good attitudes.

 

[monfed]

You can say Roger "messed up," but he was beaten fair and square. He lost 6-2 in the 5th at AO. That's not really close. At RG '11, Nadal lifted his level significantly from QF (v. Soderling) on. Federer was close to getting it to a 5th, but he didn't, so, no, I don't think he would have won that match. His best showing v. Nadal at RG, though, for sure.

AO 09 should've been a 4 set victory for Fed.
RG 11 could've been a 4 set victory had he won that first set.

Clearly you can't read. Laver was 12 on grass and 2 on clay. That's not dominating 2 surfaces. Borg's 11 came at 2 Majors only. Nadal has 2 grass and 4 on HCs, including the career slam. Pete never won on clay at all. I don't think I proved you point, at all. On the contrary.

During Laver's time, the grass courts at different slams played differently. It's kindof like AO vs USO. Borg, Pete dominated two surfaces, clay and grass for the former, grass and HCs for the latter. They were both very competent players indoors unlike Nadal whose attempt to translate his clay game fails.

Say what you like about Nadal not winning a Major off of clay before he was 22. When he did win Wimbledon and AO at age 22, they were his 5th and 6th Major win. He also became the first player ever to hold Major titles on all 3 surfaces. At 22. Federer was just shy of 22 when he won his first. What was his excuse, if the surfaces were so fast and adapted to his game?

Age can't be used as an excuse when you're an early bloomer like Nadal. Nadal was plenty good on HCs pre-2008 but lost because he couldn't do any damage on Rebound Ace at AO and the USO courts were still quick.

As for Federer, his game went through many changes as he was brought up in the S&V era and also had issues with his temperament. When he sorted out his anger issues he transformed his game.

 

[monfed]

The key point is that Nadal doesn't change his game in anyway to the playing conditions, he simply tries to translate his clay court game to the faster courts like grass etc and if it fails it fails he has no plan B. His movement and play on the first week of grass is embarrassing for someone who wants to be seen as versatile. It's fun watching him move like a cow on ice.

 

[Federberg]

AO 09 should've been a 4 set victory for Fed.
RG 11 could've been a 4 set victory had he won that first set.

woulda coulda shoulda....