Will Nadal pass Federer?

[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?

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

Brother, you wouldn't feel sorry for Rafa if he woke up one day and he heard Xisca had left him for Radek Stepanek! :laydownlaughing

 

[DarthFed]

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?

Rafa does use a 2HBH right? So overdoing it in practice could be fathomable especially when it's Rafa we are talking about. The wrist is naturally a common injury in tennis. Djokovic has had it too, just not as severe as he only missed Madrid last year.

The virus did not cause Rafa to skip AO, that was his choice and a pretty weak one it was. It shows his mentality that he is a bit of a baby when it comes to playing when he is not 100%. Roger, Nole, Andy, hell even the world #150 getting a WC would have played that major. Who is to assume he would "only" reach the QF. You have to play to give yourself a chance, no?

Roger was hospitalized a week before the AO but started feeling the effects in late December if I recall.

 

[Kieran]

Well now, we'll leave aside the fanboy stuff about Rafa and how much he was ready or wasn't ready for Oz in 2013, and of course, we'll take it as partisan joshing when you call his mentality into question. I know this is a witticism but it's got nothing to do with the realities.

But you just contradicted yourself, I think: did Roger contract mono a week before Oz, or December? It doesn't really matter anyway, but was he "hospitalised" or did he visit a hospital and leave the same day? How could he be hospitalised then play a slam the following week, showing such Herculean powers of recovery as he did after the Tipsy match? Seems like there's something missing here...

 

[britbox]

^ Yeah, what's missing is a kettle, pot and the colour black.

 

[Kieran]

Well, that's true, we've felt that way for days, when we hear about stuff like "excuses" and injuries, as if it was only Nadal fans at it. I agree with you there, buddy. But there's timeline issues or something here that doesn't add up, which I suppose I'll put down to brother Darth watching the match and mistyping things, which could happen to a bishop...

 

[DarthFed]

Well now, we'll leave aside the fanboy stuff about Rafa and how much he was ready or wasn't ready for Oz in 2013, and of course, we'll take it as partisan joshing when you call his mentality into question. I know this is a witticism but it's got nothing to do with the realities.

But you just contradicted yourself, I think: did Roger contract mono a week before Oz, or December? It doesn't really matter anyway, but was he "hospitalised" or did he visit a hospital and leave the same day? How could he be hospitalised then play a slam the following week, showing such Herculean powers of recovery as he did after the Tipsy match? Seems like there's something missing here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/sports/tennis/08tennis.html?_r=0

And I don't see how it's fanboyism to suggest that Rafa should have played AO 2013. He withdrew 3 weeks before with his stomach issue. Even with all that time off he was at worst the 3rd favorite for that tourney.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Actually, it's flat out disrespectful to one of the greatest tennis players of all time to deny his decline when his results had been so piss poor, and he's physically depreciated so much. You flat out said there is NO EVIDENCE. Sugar coat it all you want, that was a flat out asinine claim. It's one thing if you'd said his declining results were not enough evidence, but to say "no evidence" is nothing short of intelligence-insulting. The guy was getting injured more, moving like crap, and having super crappy results in which he couldn't buy a win in the second half of last year. You think it's respectful to say THAT was no evidence of a decline?

But please, keep trying to justify the indefensible. It's quite hilarious.

I'm sure you didn't think he was unlucky to freakishly hurt his back early in a slam final. Honestly, your posts about Nadal are an insult to any person with brain cells.

It shocks me that genuinely intelligent people agree with your take, too. It's becoming contagious.

 

[Kieran]

Thanks for that Darth! The article tells an even different story, maybe skimming through it I missed the part about hospitalisation. Seems to have said he received no medical treatment in Oz. No worries! He did great without it... :clap

 

[brokenshoelace]

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?

Nadal was moving like $hit. I said as much back then. I'll forever say this. Best thing about it is the first time I noted that was after he beat Novak in the Monte Carlo final that year, and huntingyou threw a fit at me that I was "seeing things."

Then Roland Garros begins and Elena Dementieva notes that Nadal hasn't been moving well at all and she flat out predicted he won't win RG. That was right after he beat Hewitt. I even made a thread about that back then.

Revisionist history at its finest.

The next year, when Nadal beat Soderling in the final, Magnus Norman (Soderling's coach) noted that the biggest difference was that Nadal's movement was much better.

Don't worry, give me a few minutes and I'll find you all the "sources."

How crippled was Nadal? I don't know. I don't think he was anywhere near crippled. But pulling out of Wimbledon was a pretty big indicator of the extent of his injuries.

 

[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.

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.

Congrats, you've reached Cali level of stupid posts.

My statement about Pete's pipe dream record meant that had Nadal won RG 2009, history could have been very different. That point was so obvious. Fed fans including yourself were predicting doom and gloom after the AO final and that literal sob fest. Fed's RG win completely revitalized his year. Nadal winning that would have created an insane wave of momentum that Nadal was already carrying anyway (having won 3 masters and a slam, being world number 1, and having a huge edge over Roger). So Roger's RG win clearly carried over to Wimbledon, the US Open and the AO. Where he won 2 out of 3, and reached a final in between.

 

[DarthFed]

Thanks for that Darth! The article tells an even different story, maybe skimming through it I missed the part about hospitalisation. Seems to have said he received no medical treatment in Oz. No worries! He did great without it... :clap

He didn't receive treatment at AO. And I'd say he did terrible that tournament for his standards, snapped the 10 straight GS final streak.

 

[britbox]

I think Fed won a bunch of Wimbledons, USO's and AO's previously without needing a RG to inspire him, BS old pal.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think Fed won a bunch of Wimbledons, USO's and AO's previously without needing a RG to inspire him, BS old pal.

We both are smart enough to understand how the landscape in 2009, pre-Roland Garros, was looking vastly different. Fed is to good not to have won any more slams for the rest of his career, but let's not be disingenuous here.

 

[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.

Congrats, you've reached Cali level of stupid posts.

My statement about Pete's pipe dream record meant that had Nadal won RG 2009, history could have been very different. That point was so obvious. Fed fans including yourself were predicting doom and gloom after the AO final and that literal sob fest. Fed's RG win completely revitalized his year. Nadal winning that would have created an insane wave of momentum that Nadal was already carrying anyway (having won 3 masters and a slam, being world number 1, and having a huge edge over Roger). So Roger's RG win clearly carried over to Wimbledon, the US Open and the AO. Where he won 2 out of 3, and reached a final in between.

Nah, you've reached Cali level of retardation.

"Not nearly as much as Roger benefitted from Rafa being "less active" for so many stretches of his career. Let's not forget that the Sampras record could have remained a pipe dream had it not been for that.

Please, let's not play that game."

There's your response to Front. So now you're saying it all comes down to RG 09 (which frickin Nadal actually played) that would've signaled the end of Roger's career if he hadn't won. Let's remember that Roger had gotten to 5 straight GS finals by the time he reached that RG final. He wasn't going anywhere. And he wasn't staying stuck on 13 or even 14. That's a Kieran narrative that Roger was basically going to go away after RG 09 if he hadn't won that tournament.

Again, from the above it seems clear from the plural word "stretches" you are referring to all the majors Rafa has missed. You probably thought that there was a lot more than Wimbledon 09 that Roger won in Rafa's absence and are simply backtracking and getting all PO'ed for looking foolish.

 

[Kieran]

Thanks for that Darth! The article tells an even different story, maybe skimming through it I missed the part about hospitalisation. Seems to have said he received no medical treatment in Oz. No worries! He did great without it... :clap

He didn't receive treatment at AO. And I'd say he did terrible that tournament for his standards, snapped the 10 straight GS final streak.

The article said he received no medical treatment before going to Oz, and you said he received none at the AO. I wonder when the hospitalisation occurred. Could you be mixing this up with a much later visit to the hospital?

 

[Federberg]

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.

Actually, it's flat out disrespectful to one of the greatest tennis players of all time to deny his decline when his results had been so piss poor, and he's physically depreciated so much. You flat out said there is NO EVIDENCE. Sugar coat it all you want, that was a flat out asinine claim. It's one thing if you'd said his declining results were not enough evidence, but to say "no evidence" is nothing short of intelligence-insulting. The guy was getting injured more, moving like crap, and having super crappy results in which he couldn't buy a win in the second half of last year. You think it's respectful to say THAT was no evidence of a decline?

But please, keep trying to justify the indefensible. It's quite hilarious.

I'm sure you didn't think he was unlucky to freakishly hurt his back early in a slam final. Honestly, your posts about Nadal are an insult to any person with brain cells.

It shocks me that genuinely intelligent people agree with your take, too. It's becoming contagious.

Well then.. at least I'm not insulting you :lolz:

Rafa never comes back from layoffs and hits the ground running. He has clearly had enough time to get back to speed, something we've seen before. I'm not going to claim I watch Rafa closely enough and divine at what angle he picks his behind to figure out if he's still the same Rafa. Instead of wasting my time watching him (something I don't particularly enjoy doing), I let the results speak. They've spoken, I have conceded he is not playing at the same level as before, as I believe I mentioned somewhere after he lost for a 2nd time to Fog or Almagro I forget who, I said the evidence was building up, but I would still wait. It would only take one good match to spark him. Clearly it didn't happen, although I would add that it wasn't so much the loss to Novak, but the manner of the loss which decided it for me. Why would I waste my time sugar coating to you anyway? :nono

 

[britbox]

I think Fed won a bunch of Wimbledons, USO's and AO's previously without needing a RG to inspire him, BS old pal.

We both are smart enough to understand how the landscape in 2009, pre-Roland Garros, was looking vastly different. Fed is to good not to have won any more slams for the rest of his career, but let's not be disingenuous here.

He won one slam other than RG - Wimbledon. His winning percentage during 2009 (84%) wasn't much different than most other years since. He's had 83%(2010), 84% (2011), 86%(2012), 73% (2013) and 83% (2015).

The USO 2009 was hardly his finest hour against Del Potro and I thought he laboured to the Wimbledon title against Roddick.

This is a circular argument anyway... I've never felt Federer was lucky. You make your own luck.

 

[DarthFed]

Thanks for that Darth! The article tells an even different story, maybe skimming through it I missed the part about hospitalisation. Seems to have said he received no medical treatment in Oz. No worries! He did great without it... :clap

He didn't receive treatment at AO. And I'd say he did terrible that tournament for his standards, snapped the 10 straight GS final streak.

The article said he received no medical treatment before going to Oz, and you said he received none at the AO. I wonder when the hospitalisation occurred. Could you be mixing this up with a much later visit to the hospital?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/federer-brushes-aside-food-poisoning/story-e6frf9if-1111115327468

I already know you'll be fixated on Roger talking about how he feels fine and is practicing well, (as though he'd talk about feeling bad if he was).

 

[Kieran]

He didn't receive treatment at AO. And I'd say he did terrible that tournament for his standards, snapped the 10 straight GS final streak.

The article said he received no medical treatment before going to Oz, and you said he received none at the AO. I wonder when the hospitalisation occurred. Could you be mixing this up with a much later visit to the hospital?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/federer-brushes-aside-food-poisoning/story-e6frf9if-1111115327468

I already know you'll be fixated on Roger talking about how he feels fine and is practicing well, (as though he'd talk about feeling bad if he was).

Oh, he lets us know when he's feeling bad. He's been very generous with his disclosures over the years, which isn't something I have a problem with.

Thanks for this article. It says he visited the hospital, which is different to being hospitalised. Lucky enough he was able to recover enough to play and muster up a terrible run to the semis :laydownlaughing

 

[Federberg]

I think Fed won a bunch of Wimbledons, USO's and AO's previously without needing a RG to inspire him, BS old pal.

We both are smart enough to understand how the landscape in 2009, pre-Roland Garros, was looking vastly different. Fed is to good not to have won any more slams for the rest of his career, but let's not be disingenuous here.

He won one slam other than RG - Wimbledon. His winning percentage during 2009 (84%) wasn't much different than most other years since. He's had 83%(2010), 84% (2011), 86%(2012), 73% (2013) and 83% (2015).

The USO 2009 was hardly his finest hour against Del Potro and I thought he laboured to the Wimbledon title against Roddick.

This is a circular argument anyway... I've never felt Federer was lucky. You make your own luck.

The idea that a sportsman of Federer's calibre is lucky to win anything is one of the most retarded ideas promoted on this forum. An utter joke. It does a disservice not just to Roger but to all tennis professionals