Will Nadal pass Federer?

[britbox]

Since Rafa's first FO in 2005 there has also been 20 other opportunities to win a major where he competed and fell short. It seems pointless making assumptions that he would have won tournaments when he was out injured. The records of both guys stand tall as they are.

 

[Federberg]

Roger's older and played more matches than Pete did but when was the last time you saw him do that on a hard court? This is was no normal overhead, Sampras jumped pretty high for some of those and the force on your joints doing that on hard court must be massive. Roger's largely unaffected because he's careful and doesn't overdo things. The polar opposite of Nadal and this again has nothing to do with Roger's genetics or luck but simply a more intelligent long term playing style. He could probably play 5-6 more years if he wanted to because of how he plays. Not that he will but he could.

It's hilarious really, we're supposed to feel sorry for Nadal because he plays a style that causes the wear and tear? How on earth is that unlucky? Logic in Nadalfanworld :nono It's the very price of his success, the idea that his injuries have anything to do with bad luck is just sad deluded thinking. And to twist it around and suggest Federer is lucky shows a faulty appreciation of biomechanics. But as I said before the sky looks different in Nadalfanworld!

Here's how he's unlucky:

Appendicitis, wrist injury that forces him out of the US Open, stomach virus that forces him out of the AO, hamstring tear against Ferrer at the 2011 AO in the third game of the match when he was going for the Rafa slam (none of this has to do with wear and tear) tendinitis that forces him to be out for SEVEN MONTHS. Yes, he plays a physical style, but you think this leads to a seven months absence? Really? That's not unlucky?

Compared to other players not really. When the word luck is brought into a discussion about Nadal possibly passing Federer's records the conversation has already deteriorated in my view

 

[britbox]

Another question is Will Djokovic pass Nadal?

As it stands now, I'd say no... but if he wins this week and takes one more major this year - he'll be on 10. If that happens, I think he's well placed to launch an assault.

 

[Federberg]

Since I'm responding to everything allow me to point out the absolutely most short sighted argument in this thread:

- Roger's only won one slam that Rafa missed (Wimbledon 2009), and therefore how much did he really benefit from Nadal's absence?

Uh...he doesn't have to win to benefit, right? Nadal not playing in a slam means he has no chance to win it, and therefor no chance to close in on Roger's record.

This is the thing you folks keep repeating, and we keep pointing it out to you. The presumption that Federer has benefited by Nadal not playing at a slam is wrong on so many levels. How many slams has Roger won while Rafa has been in attended? The idea that Nadal missing a slam makes a difference is a fantasy in your own mind, I'm sorry :nono

As for the other... Nadal not playing a slam benefits Federer. You are making a gargantuan leap that he would have won, and furthermore, let Federer take care of his own business, Nadal takes care of his. I don't think Roger wakes up in the morning worrying about Rafa matching his records. I really don't. That's just in fanboys heads. He just wants to win for himself

 

[Federberg]

Another question is Will Djokovic pass Nadal?

As it stands now, I'd say no... but if he wins this week and takes one more major this year - he'll be on 10. If that happens, I think he's well placed to launch an assault.

I was actually thinking about creating a thread about that. As things stand it seems like Novak has a better chance of catching Rafa than Rafa does of catching Roger.

 

[Kieran]

If this question was asked in 2010 - and most likely it was - I would have considered it a no-brainer. 2009 was gone, Roger was vanquished, and Rafa could reasonably expect a couple of years like Roger's 2004-2006 years, toying with the Gonzos and Roddicks.

Then Novak happened, which was electrifying for the sport, if not for Rafa.

Ask me after Paris in 2012, and then after the US Open 2013, and I would still have said it's very doable, given how Rafa solved the problem of Novak, and how Novak has tendencies to decline from the heights.

But the cycle of "withdrawal through injury - recovery - return" is taking its toll. And this is the only reason why I'd be reluctant to say he could do it. 3 of the last 11 slams missed, and at the last two he's been a husk. Like Moxie, I'm not totally saying it's impossible because, realistically, I think he will get his form back, and so that means at least one more, maybe two.

Three?

It's too far away to contemplate. He's won 3 since the FO in 2012. If this punishing cycle continues, we'd be expecting him to win 3 more between now and 2018. It's just too far away to contemplate...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Since Rafa's first FO in 2005 there has also been 20 other opportunities to win a major where he competed and fell short. It seems pointless making assumptions that he would have won tournaments when he was out injured. The records of both guys stand tall as they are.

There also has been 13 in which he competed and won, and 5 in which he wasn't able to compete. I agree it's pointless because the course of history cannot be changed and nothing can be known for sure, but it's hardly the ludicrous hypothetical many are making it out to be.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's hilarious really, we're supposed to feel sorry for Nadal because he plays a style that causes the wear and tear? How on earth is that unlucky? Logic in Nadalfanworld :nono It's the very price of his success, the idea that his injuries have anything to do with bad luck is just sad deluded thinking. And to twist it around and suggest Federer is lucky shows a faulty appreciation of biomechanics. But as I said before the sky looks different in Nadalfanworld!

Here's how he's unlucky:

Appendicitis, wrist injury that forces him out of the US Open, stomach virus that forces him out of the AO, hamstring tear against Ferrer at the 2011 AO in the third game of the match when he was going for the Rafa slam (none of this has to do with wear and tear) tendinitis that forces him to be out for SEVEN MONTHS. Yes, he plays a physical style, but you think this leads to a seven months absence? Really? That's not unlucky?

Compared to other players not really.

Really? You know of many all time greats whose quest for GOATness has been hampered by injuries as much as Nadal?

Compared to what others? Haas and Del Potro? I guess (except these guys weren't nearly as good and aren't as big a factor). What about the other million players who have had healthy careers?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Another question is Will Djokovic pass Nadal?

As it stands now, I'd say no... but if he wins this week and takes one more major this year - he'll be on 10. If that happens, I think he's well placed to launch an assault.

I think if he wins two more majors this year he'll pass Nadal or at least tie him when it's all said and done.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Since I'm responding to everything allow me to point out the absolutely most short sighted argument in this thread:

- Roger's only won one slam that Rafa missed (Wimbledon 2009), and therefore how much did he really benefit from Nadal's absence?

Uh...he doesn't have to win to benefit, right? Nadal not playing in a slam means he has no chance to win it, and therefor no chance to close in on Roger's record.

This is the thing you folks keep repeating, and we keep pointing it out to you. The presumption that Federer has benefited by Nadal not playing at a slam is wrong on so many levels. How many slams has Roger won while Rafa has been in attended? The idea that Nadal missing a slam makes a difference is a fantasy in your own mind, I'm sorry :nono

Jesus, this is so obvious.

Nadal cannot win a slam if he doesn't compete in it. Therefore, he can't get closer to Roger's record while missing a slam. Would Nadal have absolutely won those slams he missed? I don't think he would have even won half of them.

But is it ludicrous to suggest that a guy with 14 majors to his record and who's never had a slamless year since 2005 (though that will change come September) might have won ONE of the 6 slams he missed? In your biased look, maybe. In my biased look, absolutely not.

 

[Federberg]

Here's how he's unlucky:

Appendicitis, wrist injury that forces him out of the US Open, stomach virus that forces him out of the AO, hamstring tear against Ferrer at the 2011 AO in the third game of the match when he was going for the Rafa slam (none of this has to do with wear and tear) tendinitis that forces him to be out for SEVEN MONTHS. Yes, he plays a physical style, but you think this leads to a seven months absence? Really? That's not unlucky?

Compared to other players not really.

Really? You know of many all time greats whose quest for GOATness has been hampered by injuries as much as Nadal?

Compared to what others? Haas and Del Potro? I guess (except these guys weren't nearly as good and aren't as big a factor). What about the other million players who have had healthy careers?

Am I going to feel more sorry for a guy who's won loads, or someone else who could have won even a few only to have his career blighted by injury. If we're going to do woulda coulda then let's do it properly. How many tennis players could have become greats if not for injury? How many more slams would Mac have won if he hadn't met Tatum O'neil. It's futile and pointless. And it makes no sense to me why I should give Rafa Nadal special dispensation

 

[brokenshoelace]

Compared to other players not really.

Really? You know of many all time greats whose quest for GOATness has been hampered by injuries as much as Nadal?

Compared to what others? Haas and Del Potro? I guess (except these guys weren't nearly as good and aren't as big a factor). What about the other million players who have had healthy careers?

Am I going to feel more sorry for a guy who's won loads, or someone else who could have won even a few only to have his career blighted by injury. If we're going to do woulda coulda then let's do it properly. How many tennis players could have become greats if not for injury? How many more slams would Mac have won if he hadn't met Tatum O'neil. It's futile and pointless. And it makes no sense to me why I should give Rafa Nadal special dispensation

Am I asking you to feel sorry for him? There are about 3 billion people in the world I'd feel sorry for before I feel sorry for a famous, mega successful, multi-millionaire athlete.

The question is whether he was unlucky with these injuries, their extent, and their frequency. As has been proven (yes, proven), these injuries are not all related to this physical style you guys like to keep bringing up. He's been unlucky to miss so many chunks of his prime years. The guy has never had a full year on tour since 2011! And didn't have a full year on tour on a couple of occasions before that.

Don't feel sorry for him, but facts are facts. Then again, you are the person who, on February 22, 2015 said: "I don't see any evidence of a decline" re: Nadal. So yeah, I'll take you with a grain of salt on all things Nadal.

 

[Federberg]

Since I'm responding to everything allow me to point out the absolutely most short sighted argument in this thread:

- Roger's only won one slam that Rafa missed (Wimbledon 2009), and therefore how much did he really benefit from Nadal's absence?

Uh...he doesn't have to win to benefit, right? Nadal not playing in a slam means he has no chance to win it, and therefor no chance to close in on Roger's record.

This is the thing you folks keep repeating, and we keep pointing it out to you. The presumption that Federer has benefited by Nadal not playing at a slam is wrong on so many levels. How many slams has Roger won while Rafa has been in attended? The idea that Nadal missing a slam makes a difference is a fantasy in your own mind, I'm sorry :nono

Jesus, this is so obvious.

Nadal cannot win a slam if he doesn't compete in it. Therefore, he can't get closer to Roger's record while missing a slam. Would Nadal have absolutely won those slams he missed? I don't think he would have even won half of them.

But is it ludicrous to suggest that a guy with 14 majors to his record and who's never had a slamless year since 2005 (though that will change come September) might have won ONE of the 6 slams he missed? In your biased look, maybe. In my biased look, absolutely not.

Lol! I might appear biased to you. But actually I'm not. I'm merely pointing out something that has been a fact of sports since time immemorial. People get injured. I'm not going to waste my time giving pseudo credits to a player because if they'd been there, of if this had happened or that had happened they would have won. They weren't and they didn't, end of story. If I'm going to sympathise with any tennis player for misfortune befalling them, it's not going to be Nadal given his style of play. Rather I would look at Monica Seles, but that's a whole other toxic discussion, so let's not go there!

 

[Kieran]

Look, regardless of peoples allegiances, and we all have them, only a troll or an idiot would deny that Nadal missing 3 out of the last 11 majors has affected his chances of actually winning those majors, and getting closer to Roger's total.

And if you think the cycle of withdrawal/recovery/return hasn't been at least debilitating and detrimental to his game, then I wonder what planet you live on...

 

[Federberg]

Really? You know of many all time greats whose quest for GOATness has been hampered by injuries as much as Nadal?

Compared to what others? Haas and Del Potro? I guess (except these guys weren't nearly as good and aren't as big a factor). What about the other million players who have had healthy careers?

Am I going to feel more sorry for a guy who's won loads, or someone else who could have won even a few only to have his career blighted by injury. If we're going to do woulda coulda then let's do it properly. How many tennis players could have become greats if not for injury? How many more slams would Mac have won if he hadn't met Tatum O'neil. It's futile and pointless. And it makes no sense to me why I should give Rafa Nadal special dispensation

Am I asking you to feel sorry for him? There are about 3 billion people in the world I'd feel sorry for before I feel sorry for a famous, mega successful, multi-millionaire athlete.

The question is whether he was unlucky with these injuries, their extent, and their frequency. As has been proven (yes, proven), these injuries are not all related to this physical style you guys like to keep bringing up. He's been unlucky to miss so many chunks of his prime years. The guy has never had a full year on tour since 2011! And didn't have a full year on tour on a couple of occasions before that.

Don't feel sorry for him, but facts are facts. Then again, you are the person who, on February 22, 2015 said: "I don't see any evidence of a decline" re: Nadal. So yeah, I'll take you with a grain of salt on all things Nadal.

I took a mature approach. I was going to wait until after the French. Clearly we all have to go with the decline theory now. Does that mean it's over for him no. Frankly my caution was based on respect of Nadal as an all time great champion. For you to try to use that against me, or as a sign of bias doesn't make much sense to me.

But as to the question of whether he's been unlucky... I take the same view as I would a wealthy man who doesn't win the lottery. I don't see him as unlucky. We are what we are and do, he has been extremely successful doing what he does. If the flipside is that he gets injured more than his rivals, it's just the cost of doing business to me. Luck has very little to do with it. Certainly not with the dearth of specific facts we have to hand.

 

[DarthFed]

...Nadal's knee injuries forced him to skip a major in which he was the defending champ?

And yet he still played RG '09...that was before he skipped Wimbledon. Is anyone going to respond to the question regarding the fact that being run ragged by the Sod may have had something to do with Rafa not playing Wimbledon?

I'm sure it did. But here's a question, do you think he suddenly started feeling the pain AFTER that match? Didn't think so. Glad you agree Rafa was hurt in that match.

Never denied that Rafa wasn't 100%. But here's the thing, most players are usually playing with some kind of discomfort. How are we to measure how bad it was when Rafa was still moving pretty decent but hitting short? So again, how is Rafa playing RG 09 and losing different from Roger playing 08 AO and losing? Both weren't 100% but both lost to opponents playing red hot tennis. It's also been said many times that if Sod didn't beat Rafa then the latter probably would've won the tournament, similar with Roger if Nole wasn't there. So was Rafa really THAT crippled at RG 09 as all his fans will have you believe?

Regardless, the peasant style he plays is what has lead to his recurring knee injuries. The appendicitis is unlucky, but all it cost him was a few beatdowns he would have endured indoors. The wrist is a common injury that can happen to anyone and we all know Rafa tends to overdo it in practice. I won't even say his tummy problem caused him to miss AO. He CHOSE to miss/skip AO because of it. Roger contracting mono a week before AO is certainly unlucky just like having back spasms despite the fact he has a smooth style of play. A player on tour for close to 15 years is going to have injuries and some bad luck.

 

[DarthFed]

Since I'm responding to everything allow me to point out the absolutely most short sighted argument in this thread:

- Roger's only won one slam that Rafa missed (Wimbledon 2009), and therefore how much did he really benefit from Nadal's absence?

Uh...he doesn't have to win to benefit, right? Nadal not playing in a slam means he has no chance to win it, and therefor no chance to close in on Roger's record.

Lol, either you are poor at math (17-1=16 which is > 14) or you just completely backtracked following the incorrect statement "Pete's slam mark might still be a pipedream if it wasn't for Rafa's injuries" The argument was about how many slams Roger has won where Rafa was out with injury. And the answer is 2, including AO '06 before Rafa was relevant on hard courts. Again if you want to go all wild and say Rafa missing AO 06 is what won it for Roger then we still have 15 for Roger (since you seem inclined to hand him 09 Wimbledon, grass court monster that he is )

No one on here has said Rafa missing tournaments has hurt his chances at winning majors. I think that's basic common sense.

 

[Kieran]

Ah yeah, the old back spasms! I reckon Rafa deserved them for his thuggish style of play in beating Roger in the semis in Oz, but Roger was "unlucky." Or was Rafa similarly unlucky against Stan?

Now, the right wrist going isn't due to overdoing it in practice, right? I mean, the whippy throttling left wrist takes up the bulk of the load.

The virus that caused him to skip Oz in 2013 affected his preparation to the extent that he couldn't practice. Now, imagine he still played anyway, then lost similarly to the match with Berdy in January. Would he get props for trying anyway :Nono or would we read a lot of nonsense (as has been quoted above) about him not showing any signs of decline? :cover

Roger's mono struck a week before Oz? Are you sure of this? Because the party line usually totes the angle that he skipped so much practice, even if he didn't have to skip any matches.

Do you think it's possible that in the match against Sod that he was hitting the ball short because his knees were at their limit.

Is this even possible?

 

[Kieran]

No one on here has said Rafa missing tournaments has hurt his chances at winning majors. I think that's basic common sense.

Now, we could be finally getting back on topic here, which is great, but can you be clearer: are you saying missing tournaments has or hasn't affected his chances at winning majors?

Would you agree with me that skipping 3 of the last 11, and being a shell of himself since he came back this time, has most likely fatally hurt his chances of matching Federer on 17, which is what the OP is about? Nobody is saying he wudda dudda brudda, no, but with that run of events, it has made it most unlikely that he'll do it.

Would you agree with that?

 

[DarthFed]

No one on here has said Rafa missing tournaments has hurt his chances at winning majors. I think that's basic common sense.

Now, we could be finally getting back on topic here, which is great, but can you be clearer: are you saying missing tournaments has or hasn't affected his chances at winning majors?

Would you agree with me that skipping 3 of the last 11, and being a shell of himself since he came back this time, has most likely fatally hurt his chances of matching Federer on 17, which is what the OP is about? Nobody is saying he wudda dudda brudda, no, but with that run of events, it has made it most unlikely that he'll do it.

Would you agree with that?

Missing tournaments has affected his chances clearly, no question about that. I'm just not one to feel sorry for Rafa about "bad luck"