Would you like Federer to be on tour when Nadal wins 18th slam title?

[brokenshoelace]

I bet you were very disappointed when Nadal turned up to Montreal without bandages on his knees for the first time in many years. His tendons are 100%. His doctor told him that in February, and again just before Roland Garros. That's what 7 months of rest does for you. I mean, it wouldn't work for a traditional knee injury. But this is tendinitis, not a traditional knee injury. Serena has had tendinitis all her career (in her knees and her wrists). She outlasted EVERYONE. Nadal too....the only man ever to win slams for 9 years in a row, and plenty more to come.

Just a point to note. Broken_Shoelace is a Nadal fan so I doubt he was very disappointed Nadal's knees are ok. Quite the opposite. He's a very realistic fan though.

Yeah.....I'm not convinced. I've seen a 'Nadal fan' on Talk Tennis, name is Clarky21. Some of the biggest Nadal-detractors in the world like to call themselves Nadal fans, just so they can avoid being called detractors or racists. Proof is in the pudding.

I can tell you with great certainty that B/Shoelace is neither a detractor or a racist. He's regarded by most as quality poster and a valuable one on this board.

I guess we'll never know. He'll be negative all the way to 18, that is for sure.

Actually WE will know. YOU won't. Everyone here knows I'm a Nadal fan because they've known me since 2008. You're the one being skeptical, and hey, suit yourself. Honestly, you and Samson are the only two people I've seen who would question someone's allegiances if they don't predict their player will win everything for the rest of history, and isn't the greatest of all time at every single thing.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I was. I was bitterly disappointed that my FAVORITE PLAYER was healthy, and was even more disappointed when he won the title! Makes sense.

Also, for someone who claims to be "never wrong about Nadal" get your facts straight. It wasn't the first time in many years Nadal plays without bandages on his knees, not even on hards.

Proof? Here's a video of him playing at Indian Wells and Miami in 2012:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY-cgvdj9Lg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmhwYpDnf0o

Now here's Nadal at Indian Wells, Miami, and US Open 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10iNxobZOxc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzXLfY6LJCg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR9xA8-kRkk

Where are those magical bandages you speak of? I'll help you: Before this year, Nadal hadn't worn bandages on his knees since 2009. Since then he did it for ONE tournament at the Australian Open in 2012 because he felt a "crack" in his knee while sitting in his hotel room (yeah, I don't know how that happened, but a big deal was made out of it).

When he ditched the bandages for Montreal this year, he said it's because they're not helping him, not because he's feeling much better (though I suspect that he is, at least for now).

That's true, I don't focus on Nadal's knees. While others were sucked in by tendinitis, I knew it would never stop Nadal from winning 18+ slam titles. Michael Jordan had knee tendinitis for most of his career, and he had some problems but in his FINAL season in the NBA (playing for Washington at age 40) he played all 82 games and averaged 20ppg and 6.1rpg. Serena Williams, also plagued by knee tendinitis throughout her career, outlasted everyone and is reaching a new prime. And as Nadal said last year "Nobody has ever retired with what I have". I'm shocked at how uneducated tennis fans are regarding tendinitis (although a lot of it is wishful thinking). Meanwhile back injuries are ending most careers.

Except nobody said tendinitis will end his career. It will slow him down however, as it has in the past (including a recent 7 months layoff). His knees will never truly be fully healed, and that's something he said himself. He looked healthy this summer, and was moving very well. And yet, according to him, his knees were "killing him" in Barcelona. Maybe YOU should take a hint from Nadal when he says that in regards to the knees, it's pretty much one day at a time, one week at a time. Sometimes they hurt, other times they won't. That's pretty much going to be his career.

That doesn't mean he can't reach 18 slams. It just means that the knees make this task a bit more complicated (and it's already complicated without the knees).

This has nothing to do with being a Nadal detractor, not as a person, not as a player. It's just a reality he's unfortunately had to deal with. And may I add that he's dealing with it far better than some of his fans.

PS: Comparing tennis and Basketball is laughable. Nadal doesn't have teammates to help him out, nor does he have the luxury of substitutions to rest. Furthermore, each case is different (just because it's the same injury, doesn't mean the extent is the same).

Of course Nadal was in pain in Barcelona, because Team Nadal was using 'bandaid solutions' instead of resting when required. Tendinitis was only serious for Nadal because he played with it. Once he took a few months off, his doctor told him he was 100%. That's all it took. Not a serious problem if you rest when required. That's why Serena has outlasted everyone from her generation. She rested when required.

Nadal in 2013 proved you have no idea what you are talking about. 22-0 on hardcourts, and showing no signs of slowing down. Nadal is now in the category of Serena Williams and Michael Jordan, as perfect examples of players with knee tendinitis AND outstanding longevity. Nadal is the only man in world history to win slams for 9 years in a row. Despite being a prodigy with an extremely heavy workload during teenage years, he's reached a long-term consistency nobody else could.

Yet you still don't believe he's winning 18 slams. It is now inevitable, more than ever before, now that Team Nadal is aware of the need for rest. But I bet the next time Nadal takes a few months off you'll be talking like its a sign his career is slowing down. And then he'll return to the tour and dominate with 100% healthy tendons. Its a cycle of Nadal vs the uneducated detractors. You are welcome to continue that cycle all the way to 18 slams and beyond. Its fun from where I'm sitting.

so a Nadal fan has to say that Rafa will win 18+ majors for sure or he is a detractor..... hmmm, no fan should be realistic huh? or reasonable?

Being negative all the way to 18 is realistic and reasonable? Sounds like a detractor to me.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Being negative all the way to 18 is realistic and reasonable? Sounds like a detractor to me.

Being negative is predicting that he'll win say, 15-16 slams as opposed to 18? Wow, WHAT NEGATIVITY!

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Being negative all the way to 18 is realistic and reasonable? Sounds like a detractor to me.

Being negative is predicting that he'll win say, 15-16 slams as opposed to 18? Wow, WHAT NEGATIVITY!

I think Nadal's greatest doubters would give him 15-16 slams at this point. Its not like there is any chance of him bottoming out at 14.

 

[ClayDeath]

I am not even sure I understand the real purpose of this thread.

what does it prove exactly?

this borders on ridiculosity.

 

[Correspondent Kiu]

How many major titles does Rafa have?

I like this thread but we're kinda way off here!
Rafa will never get 17 titles with his bum knees and his age...

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Don't forget....this thread will be bumped in a couple of years.

I know myself and Uncle Toni will enjoy reading it.

 

[Kieran]

How many major titles does Rafa have?

I like this thread but we're kinda way off here!
Rafa will never get 17 titles with his bum knees and his age...

That's it. And it has more to do with the knees. He's missed too much tennis and 2009 certainly helped Roger, who admitted he took advantage. So it cuts against him both ways. Plus, he had Novak's great season to contend with and Roger at the start of his career. It's been a hectic career. If he wins a couple more off clay - particularly a single Oz - then people would be idiots if they thought the #17 was magically significant...

 

[brokenshoelace]

How many major titles does Rafa have?

I like this thread but we're kinda way off here!
Rafa will never get 17 titles with his bum knees and his age...

That's it. And it has more to do with the knees. He's missed too much tennis and 2009 certainly helped Roger, who admitted he took advantage. So it cuts against him both ways. Plus, he had Novak's great season to contend with and Roger at the start of his career. It's been a hectic career. If he wins a couple more off clay - particularly a single Oz - then people would be idiots if they thought the #17 was magically significant...

If he does win the AO, that would put him at 14.

17-14 = 3. That's still a relatively significant disparity when we're essentially splitting hairs.

However, even if you were to balance those out with the H2H record, you still have Roger's unparalleled dominance to take into consideration, his unbelievable consistency, his run of GS finals/semi-finals in a row, four consecutive years as world number 1, god knows how many YEC titles, not having a single "off" season (form and result-wise) until much later in his career, etc...

Before, you have (rightly) raised the argument that GOAT-ness can't strictly be determined by the major count, since that criteria is a relatively recent phenomenon. Agreed. But, by the same token, nobody can act like this is all Federer has. The list of complimentary accomplishments is HUGE, and again, unrivaled.

Now with that said, if Nadal does add an AO title to his resume next year, he won't be stopping at 14. I think that's safe to assume. If he finishes within that 17 range (say 16 slams), I think most will then consider him on equal levels with Federer as far as all-time greatness goes, especially with the Masters 1000's record, the Olympic gold medal, and the direct H2H between the two, which includes overwhelming dominance at the Grand Slam level.

 

[Kieran]

How many major titles does Rafa have?

I like this thread but we're kinda way off here!
Rafa will never get 17 titles with his bum knees and his age...

That's it. And it has more to do with the knees. He's missed too much tennis and 2009 certainly helped Roger, who admitted he took advantage. So it cuts against him both ways. Plus, he had Novak's great season to contend with and Roger at the start of his career. It's been a hectic career. If he wins a couple more off clay - particularly a single Oz - then people would be idiots if they thought the #17 was magically significant...

If he does win the AO, that would put him at 14.

17-14 = 3. That's still a relatively significant disparity when we're essentially splitting hairs.

However, even if you were to balance those out with the H2H record, you still have Roger's unparalleled dominance to take into consideration, his unbelievable consistency, his run of GS finals/semi-finals in a row, four consecutive years as world number 1, god knows how many YEC titles, not having a single "off" season (form and result-wise) until much later in his career, etc...

Before, you have (rightly) raised the argument that GOAT-ness can't strictly be determined by the major count, since that criteria is a relatively recent phenomenon. Agreed. But, by the same token, nobody can act like this is all Federer has. The list of complimentary accomplishments is HUGE, and again, unrivaled.

Now with that said, if Nadal does add an AO title to his resume next year, he won't be stopping at 14. I think that's safe to assume. If he finishes within that 17 range (say 16 slams), I think most will then consider him on equal levels with Federer as far as all-time greatness goes, especially with the Masters 1000's record, the Olympic gold medal, and the direct H2H between the two, which includes overwhelming dominance at the Grand Slam level.

We have to be careful about how bureaucratically we measure these things, as if statistics taken in isolation actually tell us anything. If Rafa achieves two career slams, say, then it would show him in a different light.

One thing that's interesting about people discussing GOATee's is that the discussion often becomes one where we imagine if Laver had played today, or Borg. Or what if Pete was ten years younger and stuck to the two-hander. We have to speculate and imagine. How would Federer face up to Borg, using an old wooden racket?

Or imagine Nadal and Federer played at the same time - who'd win the slam matches between them?

Obviously just counting up to seventeen and leaving it there is unsatisfactory, but on the other side, it's wrong to discount all these other things, such as Roger's consistency and so forth, all his records. They're hard earned and well-earned. I'm still finding it impossible to say he's a greater player than Nadal...

 

[brokenshoelace]

One thing that's interesting about people discussing GOATee's is that the discussion often becomes one where we imagine if Laver had played today, or Borg. Or what if Pete was ten years younger and stuck to the two-hander. We have to speculate and imagine. How would Federer face up to Borg, using an old wooden racket?

Why do we have to imagine these things? Personally, I don't. Sure, it would be fun to speculate, but in a GOAT debate in which, IMO, what you've atually done matters most (not what you would have done in a different era or with different weapons), I don't see why we have to.

The answer I'm trying to find out, when discussing GOATs, is not who would win a tennis match between Federer and Rod Laver in a parallel universe. THAT would be speculation that is just too difficult to formulate a proper opinion on. What I want to find out when I question who the GOAT is, is simply this: Who was the GREATER player. In other words, based on what they've done in their career, who is greater?

Yes, even there, there's a great deal of subjectivity, but I don't see what's the point of speculating what would Pete have done with a two-hander? That's completely irrelevant as to this topic. I'll just look at Pete's wins, losses, titles won, achievements, etc...

I understand why this would be more difficult with Laver, who played in a radically different era (in every way possible). But is it really that hard to compare Sampras to, say, Federer or Nadal? Hell, his career overlapped with Federer at one point. He wasn't from a VASTLY different era. In other words, winning say, the US Open then, means just as much as it does winning it now. Nothing's changed, except the players. The accomplishment is the same, and thus, can be compared.

I don't care how would Federer do against Borg in a wooden racquet, as you suggested. Why do I need to when assessing who the greater player was? Borg retired at 25? Well, if anything, that's a knock on his greatness. I have their accomplishments to compare, and Federer's eclipse those of Borg.

 

[Kieran]

One thing that's interesting about people discussing GOATee's is that the discussion often becomes one where we imagine if Laver had played today, or Borg. Or what if Pete was ten years younger and stuck to the two-hander. We have to speculate and imagine. How would Federer face up to Borg, using an old wooden racket?

Why do we have to imagine these things? Personally, I don't. Sure, it would be fun to speculate, but in a GOAT debate in which, IMO, what you've atually done matters most (not what you would have done in a different era or with different weapons), I don't see why we have to.

The answer I'm trying to find out, when discussing GOATs, is not who would win a tennis match between Federer and Rod Laver in a parallel universe. THAT would be speculation that is just too difficult to formulate a proper opinion on. What I want to find out when I question who the GOAT is, is simply this: Who was the GREATER player. In other words, based on what they've done in their career, who is greater?

Yes, even there, there's a great deal of subjectivity, but I don't see what's the point of speculating what would Pete have done with a two-hander? That's completely irrelevant as to this topic. I'll just look at Pete's wins, losses, titles won, achievements, etc...

I understand why this would be more difficult with Laver, who played in a radically different era (in every way possible). But is it really that hard to compare Sampras to, say, Federer or Nadal? Hell, his career overlapped with Federer at one point. He wasn't from a VASTLY different era. In other words, winning say, the US Open then, means just as much as it does winning it now. Nothing's changed, except the players. The accomplishment is the same, and thus, can be compared.

I don't care how would Federer do against Borg in a wooden racquet, as you suggested. Why do I need to when assessing who the greater player was? Borg retired at 25? Well, if anything, that's a knock on his greatness. I have their accomplishments to compare, and Federer's eclipse those of Borg.

That's fair enough. Totally agree, even though these discussions happen. So what we're left with is basically who's the greatest in their own era, since we can't say that what Fed did, or Rafa, is comparable to what others did in different eras, because they faced different players and in totally different conditions.

Therefore, a straight comparison of Borg or Laver and Federer or Nadal has to either factor in these differences (how?), or overlook them, in which case it becomes essentially meaningless, and often prejudicial...