Tracking the Race to London - 2014 WTF

[Fiero425]

Well, Borg was never injured like Rafa. If he was, he'd have had to take time off. It's simple, really...

...and? He didn't or wasn't so your point is MOOT! He was injured quite a few times, but he never took extended time away from the tour! He was a great representative of the ATP being their #1 player! He was the original "rock star" of the sport! :clap :angel:

 

[Kieran]

I understand that, and of course then another Wimbo would put him in exclusive company with himself as the only man to win 3 majors on all surfaces - etc - but he's not gonna win Oz by playing just Doha before it. I know Oz comes after they all have their little snooze, but they go to bed after building up a rhythm of playing matches. Rafa won't have faced an opponent out to git him since Wimbo...

 

[Kieran]

Well, Borg was never injured like Rafa. If he was, he'd have had to take time off. It's simple, really...

...and? He didn't or wasn't so your point is MOOT! He was injured quite a few times, but he never took extended time away from the tour! He was a great representative of the ATP being their #1 player! He was the original "rock star" of the sport! :clap :angel:

I agree, he was the dude of the tour, but he didn't take injury breaks like Rafa has because he wasn't injured like Rafa is. If he was, he'd take the breaks. You said, "He never took off weeks and months like Rafa; NEVER!"

Well, if he was injured so badly, I'm afraid he'd have to. Your own point is moot, actually...

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

the atp site race to London page are claiming only 3 places have been decided..

but that's wrong, cilic n stan have won majors and thus qualify for wtf.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

the atp site race to London page are claiming only 3 places have been decided..

but that's wrong, cilic n stan have won majors and thus qualify for wtf.

winning a major does not guarantee entry into wtf automatically.

 

[isabelle]

Well, Borg was never injured like Rafa. If he was, he'd have had to take time off. It's simple, really...

...and? He didn't or wasn't so your point is MOOT! He was injured quite a few times, but he never took extended time away from the tour! He was a great representative of the ATP being their #1 player! He was the original "rock star" of the sport! :clap :angel:

Borg left sport before his body says "No I can't get it anymore" : he was only 25 when he retired Nadal is 28 and his masochist way of training and playing too much cause him some troubles

 

[Fiero425]

Well, Borg was never injured like Rafa. If he was, he'd have had to take time off. It's simple, really...

...and? He didn't or wasn't so your point is MOOT! He was injured quite a few times, but he never took extended time away from the tour! He was a great representative of the ATP being their #1 player! He was the original "rock star" of the sport! :clap :angel:

Borg left sport before his body says "No I can't get it anymore" : he was only 25 when he retired Nadal is 28 and his masochist way of training and playing too much cause him some troubles

As I said before, Nadal didn't have it as hard or as early as Borg! He had to play with a wood racket with strings so tight, it was like the ball hitting a pane of glass with a sweet spot the size of a fist! All Rafa has to do is stick his racket out there, just put it on the strings and it ricochets back like a cannon! Poor Rafa! :cry :nono uzzled :angel:

 

[Federberg]

Well, Borg was never injured like Rafa. If he was, he'd have had to take time off. It's simple, really...

...and? He didn't or wasn't so your point is MOOT! He was injured quite a few times, but he never took extended time away from the tour! He was a great representative of the ATP being their #1 player! He was the original "rock star" of the sport! :clap :angel:

Borg left sport before his body says "No I can't get it anymore" : he was only 25 when he retired Nadal is 28 and his masochist way of training and playing too much cause him some troubles

As I said before, Nadal didn't have it as hard or as early as Borg! He had to play with a wood racket with strings so tight, it was like the ball hitting a pain of glass with a sweet spot the size of a fist! All Rafa has to do is stick his racket out there, just put it on the strings and it ricochets back like a cannon! Poor Rafa! :cry :nono uzzled :angel:

C'mon man.. seriously? :huh:

 

[brokenshoelace]

A Peruvian paper reported yesterday that Nadal is training to return at the China Open. It mentions that he's practicing without a brace on his right wrist. However, it also says that his doctors have cautioned against coming back too early because, if he has a relapse, the recovery could be long. And Puntodebreak.com says just today that Nadal will play an exhibition in Kazakhstan with Tsonga on 25 Sept, which does imply they're feeling good about a comeback for the end of this month.

That bit in bold? That makes me nervous... :nono

This is why I continue to fight any inference to Nadal being the GOAT! Margaret Court didn't take so much time away from the tour having her children! :nono uzzled :angel: He plays a very physical game; understood it to be a turbo charged version of all the Spaniards including Ferrer, Verdasco, Granollers, & Lopez! I have a real problem with pros who play part time; already hit on The Williams! He very well could surpass Roger in majors one of these days, but I'd still have reservations of crowning him "The Greatest!" Rafa still hasn't defended a title off clay surface, has only 2 USO, 1 AO, & 2 Wimbledons! Those are "big ONLY's," but I still gave Borg more credit due to his greatness showing through by winning 5 Wimbledons with 6 straight finals; with wood racket btw! Nadal has huge holes in his resume that I can't overlook like no WTF wins, early exists at Wimbledon in consecutive years, and more, but it would seem like piling on and nitpicking! :angel: :snigger

LOL @ Nadal playing "part time." Yeah, he's been on tour for over a decade, and was going deep in most tournaments since the age of 19. What's this "part time" you're talking about?

And how ironic, you have an issue with a player taking time off to injury, but champion Borg, who got out of the game at 26. I guess "part time" is not acceptable, but an "early retirement" is.

Borg was already seeded 5th or 6th at Wimbledon at 15 due to men's boycott in '73! No one played as much or as hard as Borg! He never took off weeks and months like Rafa; NEVER! He was truly burned out and the ATP sabotaged themselves by not giving him a break or lighter schedule when he asked; hence the new rules for veterans! :nono uzzled :huh:

You do realize there's a difference between being injured and "taking time off" right?

 

[brokenshoelace]

If he skips the rest of the season, that's 13 months he'll have missed through injury outta 30... :nono

The more he misses the better.

This makes zero sense. These months he's missing are sometimes preventing him from playing at majors. How is that suppose to help his case adding to his tally?

 

[brokenshoelace]

he never took extended time away from the tour!

You mean except when he wussied out of the game for good at the age of 25?

 

[Front242]

If he skips the rest of the season, that's 13 months he'll have missed through injury outta 30... :nono

The more he misses the better.

This makes zero sense. These months he's missing are sometimes preventing him from playing at majors. How is that suppose to help his case adding to his tally?

Bet you missed logical posts like this gem above the last few months when you were away

 

[NADAL2005RG]

If he skips the rest of the season, that's 13 months he'll have missed through injury outta 30... :nono

The more he misses the better.

This makes zero sense. These months he's missing are sometimes preventing him from playing at majors. How is that suppose to help his case adding to his tally?

What I'm saying is, Nadal doesn't need to play Wimbledon or US Open to break the record.
Nadal will very likely win 3 more French Opens and a great chance at another Australian Open.
And to be able to say "I missed a hundred slams and still got the record" is huge gravy

 

[Front242]

^ Except he didn't miss a hundred slams did he.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

^ Except he didn't miss a hundred slams did he.

The more the merrier :clap

 

[Moxie]

^ His chances of beating Roger's record or any others decreases every time he misses a Major. No one can pick an choose which ones he'll win. This US Open might have been a great opportunity to defend his title, given the way things went, but he wasn't there. (Though, in fairness, if Nadal's being there were as simple as that he might have played Cilic instead of Roger in that semi, I doubt he'd have beaten him on that day, either.)

 

[El Dude]

This conversation got me curious about the "Slam win rate" of all-time greats - that is, what percentage of Slams they played in that they won.

Borg 40.7% (11/27)
Nadal 35.9% (14/39)
Federer 27.4% (17/62)
Sampras 26.9% (14/52)
Djokovic 17.5% (7/40)
Wilander 15.9% (7/44)
McEnroe 15.6% (7/45)
Connors 14.0% (8/57)
Lendl 14.0% (8/57)
Agassi 13.1% (8/61)
Becker 13.0% (6/46)
Edberg 11.1% (6/54)
Courier 9.5% (4/42)
Vilas 8.2% (4/49)
Nalbandian 0.0% (0/36)

(See if you can spot the outlier in my list of "all-time greats"...my little joke).

Anyhow, it wasn't surprising to see Borg on the top of the list as he retired in his prime.

A couple other interesting things that popped out at me: One, Roger has now played more Slams than any other tennis great of the Open Era. He's tied with Lleyton Hewitt for second on the all-time list, behind #1, the incomparable Fabrice Santoro with 70 Slam appearances.

Also, I found it interesting that Novak Djokovic has now played in one more Slam than Rafa - although with half the wins.

Finally, now while I don't think this is a particularly useful indicator of greatness on its own, it does clearly show us something: the gap between the top four and the rest of the field. I think in this list we see just how great those four players are, certainly the four greatest of the Open Era. I think it differentiates "GOAT candidates" from mere "all-time greats."

 

[herios]

^ Except he didn't miss a hundred slams did he.

In Nadal2005RG's opinion, most likely a Nadal in his sixties will still be coming back every spring, take a WC at RG and win it:laydownlaughing

 

[isabelle]

Murray'll play Shenzen and Beejing so he can take some points and hopefully qualify for London
Go Andy, Go

 

[Federberg]

This conversation got me curious about the "Slam win rate" of all-time greats - that is, what percentage of Slams they played in that they won.

Borg 40.7% (11/27)
Nadal 35.9% (14/39)
Federer 27.4% (17/62)
Sampras 26.9% (14/52)
Djokovic 17.5% (7/40)
Wilander 15.9% (7/44)
McEnroe 15.6% (7/45)
Connors 14.0% (8/57)
Lendl 14.0% (8/57)
Agassi 13.1% (8/61)
Becker 13.0% (6/46)
Edberg 11.1% (6/54)
Courier 9.5% (4/42)
Vilas 8.2% (4/49)
Nalbandian 0.0% (0/36)

(See if you can spot the outlier in my list of "all-time greats"...my little joke).

Anyhow, it wasn't surprising to see Borg on the top of the list as he retired in his prime.

A couple other interesting things that popped out at me: One, Roger has now played more Slams than any other tennis great of the Open Era. He's tied with Lleyton Hewitt for second on the all-time list, behind #1, the incomparable Fabrice Santoro with 70 Slam appearances.

Also, I found it interesting that Novak Djokovic has now played in one more Slam than Rafa - although with half the wins.

Finally, now while I don't think this is a particularly useful indicator of greatness on its own, it does clearly show us something: the gap between the top four and the rest of the field. I think in this list we see just how great those four players are, certainly the four greatest of the Open Era. I think it differentiates "GOAT candidates" from mere "all-time greats."

It's interesting to see, but I really don't think it tells you that much. You can't get true comparability as some of the earlier guys intentionally missed a lot of slams. Much more interesting would be a loot at wins vs participation by slam in my view.