Rafa's Decline - visual depiction

[El Dude]

I "seem to be a Novak fan" because you're constantly at war with everyone who isn't a Rafa fan. I am not "in the Novak's wagon." I appreciate him, as I do Rafa, for being one of the greatest players in tennis history. Stop seeing everyone as an enemy, everything that isn't adoring of Rafa as an attack.

And I disagree that "Kieran says more or less the same but also adding the age." He seems more accepting of the fact that Rafa is far from his peak, while you seem to think he just needs to figure things out and then he'll return to pre-2014 form. Actually, Kieran and my view is pretty similar.

 

[nehmeth]

I don't need any coach, I say what I see, read and hear.

Either you are spectacularly blind and deaf, or you somehow got a hold of Ray Charles glasses and Helen Keller's hearing aids. If Rafa himself posted something saying that he wasn't as fast as he used to be, you would probably rebuke him too and accuse him of being just another "anti". :cover

 

[BIG3]

The biggest gap in his record is his lack of a Tour Finals title. While it isn't a Slam and shouldn't be viewed as such, it is the closest thing to a "fifth Slam" that there is. Rafa is the only 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era who doesn't have a tour finals title. The next best player is Jim Courier, who is more of a "near-great" than a true great. But Rafa's lack of a tour final's title is one of the biggest outlier in tennis records. From a certain perspective it is a more glaring gap in his record than even the French Open is for Sampras. Whereas we can write off Pete's lack of a FO title to the greater difference in courts back in the 90s, and the presence of numerous clay specialists, it is harder to write off Rafa's inability to win a WTF.

If Novak doesn't win the French Open it will be a similar, and even greater, gap in his resume. But I think Novak will win it, maybe even more than once.

This might be off the main topic. I just strongly disagree that Rafa’s lack of WTF is more glaring than Pete’s lack of RG.

1. Rafa reached 2 finals and lost to Fed, Nole each. Even in 2015, his worst year of career so far, he was undefeated in group, reached semi and lost to Nole. Pete only had one semi.
2. If Pete get a pass of court variety, Rafa should also get a pass of strong dominance of Fed/Nole on indoor court. In 90s, RG was truly wild open, with bunch of clay court specialist. Were any of them in caliber of Rafa, Borg? Do you think it easy to win among a dozen of peers or under 1-2 superior? I lean to the former. Though Pete was never a favorite, his chance in RG was not slimmer than Rafa in WTF.
3. Rafa missed a couple of WFT in his peak years. This is not excuse and only him to blame. I don’t intend to bring WHAT-IF here. Within limited appearance in WTF, multiple finals and semis is not shabby at all.

Pete is my fav in 90s and I respect Rafa’s game and achievement. He deserves fair admire, or pass in our case, the same as Pete.

 

[Kieran]

The WTF is not comparable to the slams. Not even close...

 

[Fiero425]

The WTF is not comparable to the slams. Not even close...

All the more reason to be embarrassed not owning even one title! The same can be said about Nole since he doesn't have an insignificant title out of Cincy! No one really cares, but it's still a "glaring" hole in the grand scheme of things when "Goat-dom" is being discussed! uzzled :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[El Dude]

Of course the tour finals isn't comparable to a Slam, but its the most important of the rest - sort of like the Andy Murray of titles ;D.

BIG3, I hear you and while I agree to a certain extent, the basic fact of the matter is that there are more great players lacking one of the Slams than there are great players lacking a tour finals title. Like so:

6+ Slam winners:
Lacking a tour finals: Mats Wilander, Rafael Nadal
Lacking Australian Open: John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg
Lacking French Open: Pete Sampras, Novak Djokovic, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, John Newcombe
Lacking Wimbledon: Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Ken Rosewall
Lacking US Open: Bjorn Borg

Notice how many great players of the Open Era didn't win Roland Garros - seven in all, which is almost half of the 15 who won 6+ Slams, at least one in the Open Era. As I said before, Rosewall, Newcombe and Laver didn't win a tour finals, but considering how much of their peak years were before 1970, the first year, I don't find that very relevant. Of the other 12, only Wilander and Rafa didn't win it.

Again, it doesn't prevent Rafa from being one of the greatest ever, but it is a pretty sizable hole in his resume.

 

[BIG3]

the basic fact of the matter is that there are more great players lacking one of the Slams than there are great players lacking a tour finals title. Like so:

6+ Slam winners:
Lacking a tour finals: Mats Wilander, Rafael Nadal
Lacking Australian Open: John McEnroe, Bjorn Borg
Lacking French Open: Pete Sampras, Novak Djokovic, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, John Newcombe
Lacking Wimbledon: Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Ken Rosewall
Lacking US Open: Bjorn Borg

Hi, El. It depends on how you read the above stats. WFT is the only hole in Rafa's resume. In terms of completeness, he is better than any one else listed. Pete being majority and Rafa being minority cannot be translated to pass granted and pass denied. Plus, Pete closet has only one big clay trophy, Rome. Considering the number of clay and indoor tournaments, I don't see how Rafa's "weak" WFT is more glaring.

 

[BIG3]

Side topic. Thanks to El stats, which hole is more deadly when we discuss all-time-great? Or which trophy weigh most? I pick Wimbledon. But if some logic is followed, USO might be the champion. Only Borg lacked it.

 

[El Dude]

It is hard to say, BIG3, and it changes based upon the era. For instance, it is hard to fault Borg or McEnroe for not winning the AO as not all of the best players even played until the late 80s.

But yeah, not having a Wimbledon has got to hurt, considering that it is the most prestigious tournament in tennis history. Poor Ivan.

But I don't think ANY particular hole is "deadly." Noticeable, yes, even glaring. But when you talk about Rafa or Pete, their total careers were so great that one or two holes are OK.

All that said, let's say Novak manages to win RG, the Olympics, and Cincinnati. He will have the most complete resume of any player, and that might make completeness more important when assessing careers.

 

[Carol]

Why Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament in tennis history? I don't see any difference with the others GS and not even more dificult to win at all, the grass is for the cows lol

 

[Carol]

I "seem to be a Novak fan" because you're constantly at war with everyone who isn't a Rafa fan. I am not "in the Novak's wagon." I appreciate him, as I do Rafa, for being one of the greatest players in tennis history. Stop seeing everyone as an enemy, everything that isn't adoring of Rafa as an attack.

And I disagree that "Kieran says more or less the same but also adding the age." He seems more accepting of the fact that Rafa is far from his peak, while you seem to think he just needs to figure things out and then he'll return to pre-2014 form. Actually, Kieran and my view is pretty similar.

The only ones constantly at war are most of the federalists for years (though I know very good ones too) against Nadal and his fans and most of them now in the Novak's wagon, that's the reality. Why we are not going to defend him under so many attacks?

 

[El Dude]

Why Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament in tennis history? I don't see any difference with the others GS and not even more dificult to win at all, the grass is for the cows lol

Carol, I think if you took a poll of tennis players, historians, and fans, Wimbledon would come out on top as the most prestigious tournament, in both history as a whole and now - and it wouldn't be particularly close. It doesn't mean its the hardest to win, just the most prestigious.

After Wimbledon, it is a toss-up between the USO and FO, but the USO probably gets the edge. The AO is last, although the gap is much smaller now.

 

[El Dude]

I "seem to be a Novak fan" because you're constantly at war with everyone who isn't a Rafa fan. I am not "in the Novak's wagon." I appreciate him, as I do Rafa, for being one of the greatest players in tennis history. Stop seeing everyone as an enemy, everything that isn't adoring of Rafa as an attack.

And I disagree that "Kieran says more or less the same but also adding the age." He seems more accepting of the fact that Rafa is far from his peak, while you seem to think he just needs to figure things out and then he'll return to pre-2014 form. Actually, Kieran and my view is pretty similar.

The only ones constantly at war are most of the federalists for years (though I know very good ones too) against Nadal and his fans and most of them now in the Novak's wagon, that's the reality. Why we are not going to defend him under so many attacks?

This is tiresome.

 

[Carol]

I "seem to be a Novak fan" because you're constantly at war with everyone who isn't a Rafa fan. I am not "in the Novak's wagon." I appreciate him, as I do Rafa, for being one of the greatest players in tennis history. Stop seeing everyone as an enemy, everything that isn't adoring of Rafa as an attack.

And I disagree that "Kieran says more or less the same but also adding the age." He seems more accepting of the fact that Rafa is far from his peak, while you seem to think he just needs to figure things out and then he'll return to pre-2014 form. Actually, Kieran and my view is pretty similar.

The only ones constantly at war are most of the federalists for years (though I know very good ones too) against Nadal and his fans and most of them now in the Novak's wagon, that's the reality. Why we are not going to defend him under so many attacks?

This is tiresome.

Absolutely

 

[nehmeth]

"Since his last Roland Garros crown, Nadal has lost eight times on clay, compared to only 14 defeats on dirt in the previous 10 years combined."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/federer-returns-monte-carlo-djokovic-083800887.html

If that's not a decline, then it is certainly quite a stretch of bad form.

 

[El Dude]

But nehmeth, he's just got to get his head straight.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

"Since his last Roland Garros crown, Nadal has lost eight times on clay, compared to only 14 defeats on dirt in the previous 10 years combined."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/federer-returns-monte-carlo-djokovic-083800887.html

If that's not a decline, then it is certainly quite a stretch of bad form.

More than the three masters this year, it is very important to watch what happens in Barcelona. Most of the other top players will not be playing in Barcelona. If Rafa cannot win Barcelona, it is almost certain that he will not win RG either. However, if he wins Barcelona it does not mean that he will win RG. It means that he is at least a potential contender (as opposed to a pretender) at RG.

 

[Fiero425]

"Since his last Roland Garros crown, Nadal has lost eight times on clay, compared to only 14 defeats on dirt in the previous 10 years combined."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/federer-returns-monte-carlo-djokovic-083800887.html

If that's not a decline, then it is certainly quite a stretch of bad form.

More than the three masters this year, it is very important to watch what happens in Barcelona. Most of the other top players will not be playing in Barcelona. If Rafa cannot win Barcelona, it is almost certain that he will not win RG either. However, if he wins Barcelona it does not mean that he will win RG. It means that he is at least a potential contender (as opposed to a pretender) at RG.

How soon we forget the South American swing! He had match points against Thiem and Cuevas with a lead and blew it in 2 semi's! :cover :nono :clap :laydownlaughing

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It was not forgotten, just forgiven.

 

[Mile]

I wanted to say its last year for Nadal to get some cup, but who knows. We saw his oscilations before.
Might be horrible for this year and better next year.