Would Rafa be wiser to cut back on...

[Kieran]

He's blessed!

But the point remains: Rafa has the most historically significant - and exhilarating - rivalries, win or lose. Having Nole peak in 2011, just when he'd returned to the top himself, was an exciting development for the sport, but not for Rafa's slam total. Going forward, how best to maximise his opportunities? Well, how better, than to be better prepared for grass and hards, by cutting back on clay...

 

[britbox]

Not for Federer either... he faced 2011 Djoker three times in slams to Rafa's two. He was "lucky" enough to win one of them... even though Rafa turned out to be the main beneficiary.

 

[Kieran]

All the better for Federer, then, that Nole didn't peak in 2006. Looking at ways in which Rafa maybe kept from equalling Roger's 17, then injuries and having significant rivalries through his career would make it more difficult than not having a main rival at all.

However, I've never felt that Rafa would reach 17 majors, or have to. The main point in question is how he maximises the next 8-12 slams. Could he that he wins none of them, but of these majors, only 2-3 will be on clay. Given how many clay slams he has, and how good he is on hards, would you agree with my suggestion that he should focus more on non-clay majors, and schedule accordingly?

 

[britbox]

^ The problem with your argument mate, is that it doesn't exist. Historical "main rivals" haven't really been a major thorn in Nadal's side when it comes to racking up slam counts. He's got a significant edge on all of them. Unless of course, you think he should be 100% perfect throughout his entire career. Tennis is about beating the field and being the last man standing.

Since Nadal won his first major, he's been knocked out of other slams by Gilles Muller, James Blake, Mikhail Youhzny, Fernando Gonzalez, David Ferrer (x2), JW Tsonga, Andy Murray(x2), Robin Soderling, Del Potro, Lukas Rosol, Steve Darcis and Stan. The field has done Rafa's count more damage than his "historical rivals".

 

[Kieran]

It's true you beat the field, brother. Since he started,Rafa has reached the final of half the majors he's entered. Not a bad ratio. He's beaten Roger 9 times, and Nole 8. Lost twice to Roger, and 3 to Nole in 2011. That's a lot of matches against fellow greats, but my reply was to Buster, who said he didn't think Rafa will match Roger because his knees will give out and he won't play so long.

I don't know if this will be true, or not, though certainly injuries have had a negative impact. So too has having Nole peak in 2011, just when Rafa rose again to the top. Rather than face Nole in those three slam finals - and in potential future finals, I would rather an injury free Rafa face non-greats.

In other words, not just injuries will stop him, but having great rivals too. There maybe upsets too, but a 50% rate of reaching the finals of majors is quite a record, I think you'll agree.

On the notion of foregoing clay, even pulling a Lendl and skipping Paris, what do you think?

 

[britbox]

I can't see any circumstances under which he'll voluntarily skip Paris. I can see a reasonable argument on why he would skip Miami. Nadal needs to quit playing these rinky dink tournaments in South America, rest and recuperate without flying around the globe playing meaningless exhibitions and withdraw from that ridiculous Indian Tennis League he's signed up to. Putting his health before money should be top priority.

 

[Kieran]

Part of the problem seems to be that he just can't seem to sit still. I curse those late season exos, and stupid trips like down to Rio - no offence to that tourney intended...

 

[britbox]

Part of the problem seems to be that he just can't seem to sit still. I curse those late season exos, and stupid trips like down to Rio - no offence to that tourney intended...

Agreed... but I also think that mentality had made him the player he is as well.

 

[DarthFed]

Well, maybe not the knees of a 69 year old, Busted! :laydownlaughing

To some Fedfans like GS&M, the injuries are a reason to purr delightedly, but it wasn't his knees that gifted Stan Oz. It was his back, and for this reason I agree, injuries will be one factor that might keep Roger ahead in the slam count.

Another, more obvious reason is that Rafa actually has had historic rivals throughout his career. For jus first nine majors, Roger had no great rival. Rafa had Roger, then Novak. But at his best, Rafa can beat any of them, which is the point of the thread: not that Rafa play til he's 33, but that he maximise his opportunities in the next 2-3 seasons. Preferably, off clay, since he's secure there. Not even at the expense of clay, either, but that clay shouldn't be played unnecessarily, at the expense of the other surfaces. He's the only player to have two majors on clay-grass-hards.

He can add to this resume, off clay, to make his legacy even more impressive...

So Rafa wasn't a rival until 2007 then? I must have missed the part where he was on about a 100 match clay win streak from 2005 - Hamburg 2007 and happened to keep Roger from winning the calendar year slam in 06 which was at the height of his powers. By the time Nadal peaked Roger was on the downside and Nole has had only one truly stand out year. A year in which way past his prime Roger proved to be his only threat. By 2010, a year Rafa turned 24, Roger has mostly been done as a serious threat at majors only making 2 of the 16 slam finals since AO 2010. So again this leaves Nole and aside from 2011 he is just another great player, one that has only proved amazing at AO. The fact remains that Roger and Rafa have won the exact same amount of slams since Rafa broke onto the scene in 2005.

 

[Kieran]

No Darth, Rafa was only a rival to Roger on clay until he faced him almost as an equal in grass in 2007. On hards, no. Just like Roger when he was in his teens, Rafa also had to develop...

 

[DarthFed]

And now suddenly clay doesn't count? He also made the final of Wimbledon 06 where his effort was much tougher than the 2 USO finals Nole has been blown out of by Rafa. If Rafa wasn't a true rival in 05 and 06 then maybe Nole wasn't a rival to Rafa aside from 2011 and start of 2012?

 

[Kieran]

Buddy, the major rivals are chopping each other everywhere. Rafa was out of his depth at Wimbledon in 2006, but was closer in 2007. He wasn't a factor on hards. Who was, but Roger? Nole beat Rafa in three slam finals in a row and has been the biggest threat - an actual one - on clay since 2011.

Roger had nobody who stood in similar relation to him in 2004-2006.

The point in question is, that injuries may not scupper Rafa in the next few seasons, as much as having a major rival on all surfaces. To combat this, the suggestion is that he should not only schedule wisely, but actually prioritise the other surfaces at the expense of clay, in the interests of his legacy...

 

[DarthFed]

Saying Rafa was out of his depth in 2006 is not much different then saying Nole is out of his depth on clay. Nole hasn't proven to be much of a threat at RG afterall, having only had one competitive match there. The point I'm making is that Nole is being lifted to greater heights than he has earned so far. Remember, 1 awesome year and the rest we are talking just another very good player with ups and downs.

 

[Kieran]

Nole has six majors. He's been in 12 slam finals. He's been world #1 for 100 weeks. He's beaten Rafa 17 times, 3 on clay, and shoved him up against the wall in two RG finals. I think he's earned the right to be called a great player. Not overrated at all, imo...

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

lets not get carried away with the old "but lendl skipped the French to focus on Wimbledon"..scenario.

i think he missed FO in 1990 and 1991, lendl was 30yrs old in 1990, won FO 3 times, got to sf/f of Wimbledon loads of times, it made more sense back then, also the contrast between fo / wimby was greater then.

rafa isn't going to miss the FO in order to try for Wimbledon again, he will go all out in the clay season and turn up for grass with whatever he has left, which is not much by the look of recent years.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Well, maybe not the knees of a 69 year old, Busted! :laydownlaughing

To some Fedfans like GS&M, the injuries are a reason to purr delightedly, but it wasn't his knees that gifted Stan Oz. It was his back, and for this reason I agree, injuries will be one factor that might keep Roger ahead in the slam count.

Another, more obvious reason is that Rafa actually has had historic rivals throughout his career. For jus first nine majors, Roger had no great rival. Rafa had Roger, then Novak. But at his best, Rafa can beat any of them, which is the point of the thread: not that Rafa play til he's 33, but that he maximise his opportunities in the next 2-3 seasons. Preferably, off clay, since he's secure there. Not even at the expense of clay, either, but that clay shouldn't be played unnecessarily, at the expense of the other surfaces. He's the only player to have two majors on clay-grass-hards.

He can add to this resume, off clay, to make his legacy even more impressive...

Completely uncalled for and unsubstantiated cheap shot, not worth of a rebuttal.

 

[Kieran]

Long overdue, I'd say...

 

[Kieran]

lets not get carried away with the old "but lendl skipped the French to focus on Wimbledon"..scenario.

i think he missed FO in 1990 and 1991, lendl was 30yrs old in 1990, won FO 3 times, got to sf/f of Wimbledon loads of times, it made more sense back then, also the contrast between fo / wimby was greater then.

rafa isn't going to miss the FO in order to try for Wimbledon again, he will go all out in the clay season and turn up for grass with whatever he has left, which is not much by the look of recent years.

Certainly, when Rafa is 30, skipping RG should be considered. Until then? Skip Barce - and Madrid. And play no more clay than MC, Roma and RG...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It's true you beat the field, brother. Since he started,Rafa has reached the final of half the majors he's entered. Not a bad ratio. He's beaten Roger 9 times, and Nole 8. Lost twice to Roger, and 3 to Nole in 2011. That's a lot of matches against fellow greats, but my reply was to Buster, who said he didn't think Rafa will match Roger because his knees will give out and he won't play so long.

I don't know if this will be true, or not, though certainly injuries have had a negative impact. So too has having Nole peak in 2011, just when Rafa rose again to the top. Rather than face Nole in those three slam finals - and in potential future finals, I would rather an injury free Rafa face non-greats.

In other words, not just injuries will stop him, but having great rivals too. There maybe upsets too, but a 50% rate of reaching the finals of majors is quite a record, I think you'll agree.

On the notion of foregoing clay, even pulling a Lendl and skipping Paris, what do you think?

There should be a standing order prohibiting all other players from peaking until
Rafa crosses 17.

Come on Kieran. If you are going to present this kind of ridiculous arguments,
one could easily say that if Rafa peaked 5 years later, Federer would have acquired
five French Open Titles to go along with his other grand slam titles.

 

[Kieran]

Or what if Rafa peaked five years earlier? But I'm not confident you understood the point I made, which was in reply to Busted and the idea that injuries would be a main reason that Rafa won't get 17.

I don't believe he will get seventeen, for the record...