PDA

View Full Version : This MIGHT sound stupid but is it possible...Nadal MIGHT be a transitional champion?


Mike Sams
12-22-2011, 10:08 AM
Between the fading great Sampras and the arrival of Federer, Lleyton Hewitt was having his day. When Federer came to prime, Hewitt's time was over. Hewitt was generally regarded as the transitional champ, basically picking up his titles until the next great player came along.

When Federer became older and suffered mono in early 2008, he began losing to many different players whom he seldom lost to before (Fish, Blake, Roddick, Stepanek, Karlovic, etc). It took Nadal several years to finally move ahead of what seemed like a declining and shaky Federer.

Now a few years later, Djokovic has entered his prime and is taking titles off of Nadal.

If 2012 is anything close to 2011, is it quite possible that Nadal was merely a transitional champ even despite his 10 Slam wins (6 on clay)? Did Nadal have to wait for Federer to decline in order to begin getting Slams on other surfaces and now struggles to win anything off clay as Djokovic seems to be taking them all?

Was Nadal only able to get Slams on the other surfaces between the time of the fading of Federer and the arrival of prime Djokovic?

If Djokovic continues to win Slams, does that not make Nadal a transitional champion who took his non-clay titles because of a few years drought where there wasn't another great player to challenge him? Maybe 2012 will tell us the whole story.

Just something to think about...:)

celoft
12-22-2011, 10:15 AM
If Djokovic dominates like Sampras and Federer and wins 14-16 slams, then yup. Nadal was the transitional champ between two GOATs(Fed and Nole).

AM95
12-22-2011, 10:17 AM
^this.

10transitions

tacou
12-22-2011, 10:18 AM
Nadal is already regarded as one of the greatest to play the sport so no

Towser83
12-22-2011, 10:21 AM
It's too early to call it a Djokovic era. Also if you're saying he might be a transitional DOMINATOR as in all surfaces, then maybe, we'll see. But he stil ruled RG from 2005 til now and counting so he's unlike a Hewitt who couldn't rule anywhere with a prime Sampras or Federer around. Nadal can't really be compared with him because he was always the guy to beat at RG.

niff
12-22-2011, 10:21 AM
This counts as a Nadal/Djokovic thread, ahem.

svijk
12-22-2011, 10:26 AM
will have to wait until Djokovic wins at least 11 slams, lets bring back this thread then.......or if Nadal wins another slam, we can file this under 'stupid threads'

Mike Sams
12-22-2011, 10:27 AM
This counts as a Nadal/Djokovic thread, ahem.

:oops: sorry

niff
12-22-2011, 10:28 AM
:oops: sorry
Well since it's christmas... <3

DjokovicForTheWin
12-22-2011, 10:30 AM
Even I would say no to this. Nadal has won 10 slams. More than most other fully fledged champs from the past. So no.

DeShaun
12-22-2011, 10:31 AM
I am put off by Nadal's game but transitional champs don't win double digit slams

Towser83
12-22-2011, 10:32 AM
Even I would say no to this. Nadal has won 10 slams. More than most other fully fledged champs from the past. So no.

Exactly. And DFTW just said that. Wow... haha.

Mike Sams
12-22-2011, 10:34 AM
I am put off by Nadal's game but transitional champs don't win double digit slams

More than half of his Slams on 1 surface. And the other 2 Slams against a fading legend (Federer in his decline at Wimby 2008 and AO 2009). And the other 2 against junk competition (Wimby 2010) and a baby Djokovic who was about to enter his prime (USO 2010).

CMM
12-22-2011, 10:46 AM
This thread is funny but I still prefer the one from MTF called

"Will Nadal go down as the ultimate example of a 10 slam wonder?"

zagor
12-22-2011, 10:48 AM
Between the fading great Sampras and the arrival of Federer, Lleyton Hewitt was having his day. When Federer came to prime, Hewitt's time was over. Hewitt was generally regarded as the transitional champ, basically picking up his titles until the next great player came along.

When Federer became older and suffered mono in early 2008, he began losing to many different players whom he seldom lost to before (Fish, Blake, Roddick, Stepanek, Karlovic, etc). It took Nadal several years to finally move ahead of what seemed like a declining and shaky Federer.

Now a few years later, Djokovic has entered his prime and is taking titles off of Nadal.

If 2012 is anything close to 2011, is it quite possible that Nadal was merely a transitional champ even despite his 10 Slam wins (6 on clay)? Did Nadal have to wait for Federer to decline in order to begin getting Slams on other surfaces and now struggles to win anything off clay as Djokovic seems to be taking them all?

Was Nadal only able to get Slams on the other surfaces between the time of the fading of Federer and the arrival of prime Djokovic?

If Djokovic continues to win Slams, does that not make Nadal a transitional champion who took his non-clay titles because of a few years drought where there wasn't another great player to challenge him? Maybe 2012 will tell us the whole story.

Just something to think about...:)

What the heck!?! That's my line :mad:

DeShaun
12-22-2011, 10:49 AM
More than half of his Slams on 1 surface. And the other 2 Slams against a fading legend (Federer in his decline at Wimby 2008 and AO 2009). And the other 2 against junk competition (Wimby 2010) and a baby Djokovic who was about to enter his prime (USO 2010).

Double digits is a lot of slams bro, plus his consistency with master shields. It's not like he simply got lucky a few times. . .he's been banging hard for these titles for a long time; and I guess that don't regard him as some transitional champ, that's all. Cheers

mattennis
12-22-2011, 10:54 AM
Even if Nadal doesn't win any additional GS, he is in the top-10 of the Open Era (achievementwise). You cannot compare him to Hewitt or Kuerten.

And who cares that 6 out of 10 were on clay?

7 out of 14 of Sampras's were on grass.
9 out of 16 of Federer's were on hardcourts.
6 out of 11 of Borg's were on clay.
6 out of 8 of Agassi's were on hardcourts.
5 out of 8 of Lendl's were on hardcourts.
4 out of 6 of Edberg's were on grass.
7 out of 7 of Newcombe's were on grass.

sureshs
12-22-2011, 10:55 AM
Nadal thrived in the weak era of Federer.

FlashFlare11
12-22-2011, 10:58 AM
10 slams is a lot to be called a "transitional champion." Even if he hit his prime with a prime Federer, he would still most likely have 6-7 slams. I don't know what would have happened if Djokovic peaked earlier, but Nadal is still one of the greats. We can still argue about where exactly among the greats Nadal has earned his place, but we can be sure he is there.

10 is just too great a number to be called a transitional champion. Sorry, but I have to disagree with you, Mike.

j00dypoo
12-22-2011, 10:59 AM
transitional champs win a few majors... nadal has won 10. And he's still ranked #2.

namelessone
12-22-2011, 11:35 AM
Transitional champs win 2-3 slams(or less) in between eras of greater champions that dominate.

Nadal won 10 SLAMS and had two year end nr.1 finishes(and if he managed his 2009 better it could have been three).

Djokovic would have to dominate like Federer and win another 7 slams at least in the next 2-3 years to make Nadal a transitional champ.

If Nadal with his 10 slams would sit between a guy with 16 and another 12-13 slams(or more), then maybe he would be a transitional champ.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-22-2011, 11:37 AM
Defining transitional champs as winning 2-3 slams is just as stupid as calling Nadal a transitional champ.

ledwix
12-22-2011, 11:41 AM
Nadal won majors from 2005-2011 and counting. Every player has a prime, since that's just life for you. Since he won 10 majors, it would be wrong to compare him to Hewitt, who won just 2 majors.

Djokovic would be very lucky to reach 10 slams. He already had to get very lucky to win the US Open this year, having been down double-match point and receiving two first serves.

namelessone
12-22-2011, 11:59 AM
Defining transitional champs as winning 2-3 slams is just as stupid as calling Nadal a transitional champ.

Read further on, I said winning 2-3 slams in between periods of guys that dominate the game.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-22-2011, 12:13 PM
Nadal thrived in the weak era of Federer.

yea thrived so well to never defend a non clay title. Face it SUREHS, yo boy is a bustaaaaaaa

dh003i
12-22-2011, 12:34 PM
Ridiculous argument.

Subventricular Zone
12-22-2011, 01:14 PM
OP: It doesn't just sound stupid. It IS stupid.

How many Open Era greats other than Nadal have won double digits in majors? Right, a grand total of 3. Are you saying that Connors, Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl, etc. were chumps?

McEnroe beat Borg in 3 straight slams before Bjorn retired...is 7-slammer McEnroe considered better than Borg with 11 major wins? No.

Like it or not, Nadal, even if he retires right now, is an all-time great, top 5 in the Open Era, top 10 or so of all time. He is also one if not the greatest clay courter of all time. A 10 slam winner will never be considered a transitional champion except in mind of the delusional.

Whatever he has accomplished, he has accomplished already. Let Djokovic accumulate his own titles first before proclaiming him as the next big double digit slam winner. And whatever Djokovic accomplishes in the end, it in no way diminishes what Nadal has already done.

And comparing 2-slam wonder Hewitt with Nadal is certainly laughable if not outright outrageous.

Terre Battu
12-22-2011, 01:38 PM
I think Hingis is a true transitional champ not Nadal.

passive_aggressive
12-22-2011, 01:51 PM
This thread is funny but I still prefer the one from MTF called

"Will Nadal go down as the ultimate example of a 10 slam wonder?"

Nadal is the ultimate example of a 10-time one-slam-wonder.

Clarky21
12-22-2011, 02:01 PM
What a dumb thread. If anyone is a transitional champion it's ****.

Hitman
12-22-2011, 02:08 PM
I think there are many past multi slam winning greats that would love to have the resume of this 'Transitional Champion'. Career Slam, record tie for most FOs, record for most MS, two years world number one, Olympic singles gold, four Davis Cup wins. I guess if he is a Transitional Champion, then he would likely be the GOAT of Transitional Champions. LOL!

In all seriousness, Nadal is an all-time great even if he calls it a day today. He has contested 14 slam finals, including six on clay, five on grass and three on hardcourt.

Fredrik
12-22-2011, 02:59 PM
I am sure some of you realize how bloody hard it must be to stay at the very top of tennis for such a long time.

Never mind who the player is and whether you´re a fan or not. The consistency, day in day out for years on end, displayed by the top players since 2003 is something we have not seen in previous eras.

Nadal has been in the top two since ´05. Fed´s domination was a display in skill and consistency that may go unrivaled in our lifetime.

In the past, most of the great players had their ups and downs and surprise exit from slams and big tournaments. These days, not so much. Fed lost to Canas in 2007 (or 8 ?) and it was news for weeks.

Tennis is an incredibly hard sport to dominate consistently. The mental demands to deliver the goods week in week out are extremely draining.

Use your heads, people, anyone who is able to stay at the top of tennis for more than 5 years can not in any way be called transitional.

Xizel
12-22-2011, 03:06 PM
Djokovic won't even get 10 Slams.

MichaelNadal
12-22-2011, 08:09 PM
Even I would say no to this. Nadal has won 10 slams. More than most other fully fledged champs from the past. So no.

Seriously, this is a ridiculous thread. And Nadal was beating Federer even at slams long before he was "shaky and declining". A guy wins 10 slams over 6 years and is a transitional champion, unbelievable.

paulorenzo
12-22-2011, 08:44 PM
10 majors in one helluva transition.

Sentinel
12-22-2011, 09:08 PM
Even I would say no to this. Nadal has won 10 slams. More than most other fully fledged champs from the past. So no.
Yes, but for a 10 slam winner to be spanked repeatedly by someone with only one slam (at the beginning of the year) on all surfaces (including his favorite one) while very much in his peak prime, with an age difference of only ONE year ...

... now that's food for thought. Maybe Nadal was not as great as we thought. Maybe we were wrong to put him the list of legends or greats.

For once sureshs is correct, Nadal won his slams when his competition was 5 years older. Now when someone of his age stands up to him, he withers and runs for cover.

2012 will tell us more.

sbengte
12-22-2011, 09:53 PM
For once sureshs is correct, Nadal won his slams when his competition was 5 years older. Now when someone of his age stands up to him, he withers and runs for cover.


And moreover his 10 slams do not include the Real Slam, so sadly I have to agree with you and sureshs.

Polaris
12-22-2011, 10:44 PM
Nope, I disagree. Nadal is not a transitional champion, but a champion who split the reins of power with Federer. "10 Slams" and "transitional champion" just do not go hand in hand.

One more thing: You're thinking about this way too much :) .

helloworld
12-22-2011, 11:28 PM
Djokovic wasted many of his prime years losing to Federer and Nadal. He still has 2-3 prime years left at most, but that's not enough to compare him to Federer or Sampras. I like Djokovic, but part of his legacy has been ruined by Nadal and Federer for many years.

Blinkism
12-22-2011, 11:50 PM
I think this begs the question "Was Federer just a transitional champion between Hewitt and Nadal?"

Sentinel
12-23-2011, 04:33 AM
Djokovic wasted many of his prime years losing to Federer and Nadal. He still has 2-3 prime years left at most, but that's not enough to compare him to Federer or Sampras. I like Djokovic, but part of his legacy has been ruined by Nadal and Federer for many years.
Maybe it was ruined by gluten. Perhaps Zagor can throw some light on this. Then maybe Nadal wouldn't have even been a champion, let alone a transitional one.

Russeljones
12-23-2011, 04:42 AM
10 grand slam titles *facepalm*

OP's posts are ridiculous as usual.

Bendex
12-23-2011, 04:50 AM
If by "Champion" you mean #1 ranking, then yes, his time at #1 was very short. But clearly Nadal's level of play has gone down, he obviously has many niggling problems stopping him from training/playing like he used to. If he somehow pulls himself together, he will wipe the floor with Novak once again.

And they are all just filling space waiting for Tomic to peak, anyway. :-)

helloworld
12-23-2011, 04:55 AM
If by "Champion" you mean #1 ranking, then yes, his time at #1 was very short. But clearly Nadal's level of play has gone down, he obviously has many niggling problems stopping him from training/playing like he used to. If he somehow pulls himself together, he will wipe the floor with Novak once again.

And they are all just filling space waiting for Tomic to peak, anyway. :-)

Tomic has 2 more years to prove if he will be the one to dominate the next generation. If he doesn't make a major breakthrough in 2 years, he'll be the next Donald Young. :)

PSNELKE
12-23-2011, 05:24 AM
This indeed sounds stupid, especially coming from a hater.

tusharlovesrafa
12-23-2011, 06:01 AM
...[/QUOTE]

Between the fading great Laver and the arrival of Federer, PETE was having his day. When Federer came to prime, Pete's time was over. Pete was generally regarded as the transitional champ, basically picking up his titles until the next great player came along.

When Laver became older,he began losing to many different players whom he seldom lost to before . It took Pete several years to finally move ahead of what seemed like a declining and shaky Laver.

Now a few years later, Fedrer has entered his prime and is taking titles off of Pete.

Is it quite possible that Pete was merely a transitional champ even despite his 14 Slam wins (7 on Grass,no clay titles,dud!)? Did Pete have to wait for Laver to decline in order to begin getting Slams on other surfaces and now struggles to win anything off Grass and hard as Federer seems to be taking them all?

Was Pete only able to get Slams on the other surfaces between the time of the fading of Laver and the arrival of prime Freddy?

Does that not make Pete a transitional champion who took his titles because of a few years drought where there wasn't another great player to challenge him?

Just something to think about...

Wilander Fan
12-23-2011, 06:21 AM
If Nadal gets shut down in slams going forward I would definitely say his legacy as an all time great would be in question. He would be an all time clay great but since the overwhelming number of GS titles he owns are clay people would be more dismissive of his belonging to the top echelon.

celoft
12-23-2011, 06:25 AM
If Nadal gets shut down in slams going forward I would definitely say his legacy as an all time great would be in question. He would be an all time clay great but since the overwhelming number of GS titles he owns are clay people would be more dismissive of his belonging to the top echelon.

I concur.

Something more balanced like Borg's 6 slams on clay and 5 slams outside of clay is better.

mattennis
12-23-2011, 06:25 AM
Pete waiting for Laver to decline?

Please, go back to your psychiatric hospital.

Why are there so many trolls/mentally disabled people around GPPD?

Dilettante
12-23-2011, 06:26 AM
Y'all are transitional posters between Aykham Mammadov and me.

And about Nadal winning double digits... one of those two digits is zero and the other is one, so those are crappy digits and you must be kidding if you consider him an all time top 10.

tusharlovesrafa
12-23-2011, 06:26 AM
Pete waiting for Laver to decline?

Please, go back to your psychiatric hospital.

Why are there so many trolls/mentally disabled people around GPPD?

Hello troll!!

oberyn
12-23-2011, 06:26 AM
Between the fading great Sampras and the arrival of Federer, Lleyton Hewitt was having his day. When Federer came to prime, Hewitt's time was over. Hewitt was generally regarded as the transitional champ, basically picking up his titles until the next great player came along.

When Federer became older and suffered mono in early 2008, he began losing to many different players whom he seldom lost to before (Fish, Blake, Roddick, Stepanek, Karlovic, etc). It took Nadal several years to finally move ahead of what seemed like a declining and shaky Federer.

Now a few years later, Djokovic has entered his prime and is taking titles off of Nadal.

If 2012 is anything close to 2011, is it quite possible that Nadal was merely a transitional champ even despite his 10 Slam wins (6 on clay)? Did Nadal have to wait for Federer to decline in order to begin getting Slams on other surfaces and now struggles to win anything off clay as Djokovic seems to be taking them all?

Was Nadal only able to get Slams on the other surfaces between the time of the fading of Federer and the arrival of prime Djokovic?

If Djokovic continues to win Slams, does that not make Nadal a transitional champion who took his non-clay titles because of a few years drought where there wasn't another great player to challenge him? Maybe 2012 will tell us the whole story.

Just something to think about...:)

I hope you're trolling, because this is one of the sillier things I've ever read.

DRII
12-23-2011, 06:54 AM
Nadal thrived in the weak era of Federer.

This is exactly what the oblivious OP is saying, he just doesn't realize it!

marc45
12-23-2011, 07:00 AM
nadal is a muslim terrorist

Mike Sams
12-23-2011, 07:18 AM
If by "Champion" you mean #1 ranking, then yes, his time at #1 was very short. But clearly Nadal's level of play has gone down, he obviously has many niggling problems stopping him from training/playing like he used to. If he somehow pulls himself together, he will wipe the floor with Novak once again.

And they are all just filling space waiting for Tomic to peak, anyway. :-)

He never even managed to wipe the floor with baby Djokovic, how will he now? :lol:

Mike Sams
12-23-2011, 07:21 AM
I hope you're trolling, because this is one of the sillier things I've ever read.

Read some of the comments. Some folk are saying that if Djokovic wins 14-16 Slams then Nadal indeed was a transitional champion between the Federer and Djokovic era. They said it. Not me. :lol:

celoft
12-23-2011, 07:24 AM
Read some of the comments. Some folk are saying that if Djokovic wins 14-16 Slams then Nadal indeed was a transitional champion between the Federer and Djokovic era. They said it. Not me. :lol:

Thing is, do you think Djokovic can reach those monumental heights? 14-16 Slams seems impossible not only for him but for Nadal who already has 10 and is way closer to 14 than Djokovic and his 4 slams. If I were to bet, I would say Nadal wins 11 and Djokovic wins 8 or 9 tops. Neither will reach 14. 16 is utopia.

Sentinel
12-23-2011, 07:26 AM
Between the fading great Laver and the arrival of Federer, PETE was having his day. ....

Just something to think about...
Cut-paste much ?:)

Oh, you just copied the OP..... lol

Bendex
12-23-2011, 07:35 AM
Between the fading great Laver and the arrival of Federer, PETE was having his day. When Federer came to prime, Pete's time was over. Pete was generally regarded as the transitional champ, basically picking up his titles until the next great player came along.

When Laver became older,he began losing to many different players whom he seldom lost to before . It took Pete several years to finally move ahead of what seemed like a declining and shaky Laver.

Now a few years later, Fedrer has entered his prime and is taking titles off of Pete.

Is it quite possible that Pete was merely a transitional champ even despite his 14 Slam wins (7 on Grass,no clay titles,dud!)? Did Pete have to wait for Laver to decline in order to begin getting Slams on other surfaces and now struggles to win anything off Grass and hard as Federer seems to be taking them all?

Was Pete only able to get Slams on the other surfaces between the time of the fading of Laver and the arrival of prime Freddy?

Does that not make Pete a transitional champion who took his titles because of a few years drought where there wasn't another great player to challenge him?

Just something to think about...

Laver and Pete played each other??? This I have to see... nope, nothing on Youtube.

Are you taking any medication?

Crisstti
12-23-2011, 08:22 AM
OP: It doesn't just sound stupid. It IS stupid.

How many Open Era greats other than Nadal have won double digits in majors? Right, a grand total of 3. Are you saying that Connors, Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl, etc. were chumps?

McEnroe beat Borg in 3 straight slams before Bjorn retired...is 7-slammer McEnroe considered better than Borg with 11 major wins? No.

Like it or not, Nadal, even if he retires right now, is an all-time great, top 5 in the Open Era, top 10 or so of all time. He is also one if not the greatest clay courter of all time. A 10 slam winner will never be considered a transitional champion except in mind of the delusional.

Whatever he has accomplished, he has accomplished already. Let Djokovic accumulate his own titles first before proclaiming him as the next big double digit slam winner. And whatever Djokovic accomplishes in the end, it in no way diminishes what Nadal has already done.

And comparing 2-slam wonder Hewitt with Nadal is certainly laughable if not outright outrageous.

Exactly. Novak could reach 14 slams or whatever, but still then to suggest Rafa is a transitional champion would be as stupid as it is now. Just as stupid...

If Nadal gets shut down in slams going forward I would definitely say his legacy as an all time great would be in question. He would be an all time clay great but since the overwhelming number of GS titles he owns are clay people would be more dismissive of his belonging to the top echelon.

No, they wouldn't.

I concur.

Something more balanced like Borg's 6 slams on clay and 5 slams outside of clay is better.

It's somewhat better because he won 1 more slam... but then, he didn't win the career grand slam.

Laver and Pete played each other??? This I have to see... nope, nothing on Youtube.

Are you taking any medication?

Emmm... tusharlovesrafa is obviously not being serious.

Mike Sams
01-30-2012, 07:53 PM
A 5th Slam for Djokovic now achieved. So...how many more Slams does Djokovic need to win before Nadal is a transitional champion? :)

Fedalfan
01-30-2012, 08:20 PM
Nadal thrived in the weak era of Federer.

^ this! :twisted:

Fedalfan
01-30-2012, 08:21 PM
A 5th Slam for Djokovic now achieved. So...how many more Slams does Djokovic need to win before Nadal is a transitional champion? :)

Another 6 - till he crosses Nadal and steps upto Laver & Bjorg. So even if Djoko takes every slam from now on, let's talk in Jul '13.

jokinla
01-30-2012, 10:38 PM
Nadal has won EVERYTHING. He is just a champion. People can say whatever silly thing they want, but he is among the all time greats. He didn't just happen to come at the perfect time. He owns the current GOAT, what more does he need to do.

Nathaniel_Near
01-30-2012, 10:44 PM
Nadal has won EVERYTHING. He is just a champion. People can say whatever silly thing they want, but he is among the all time greats. He didn't just happen to come at the perfect time. He owns the current GOAT, what more does he need to do.

He is an all time great, but he is at risk now of being disgracefully molested by Nole in maybe 4, 5 straight Slam Finals and over the course of the next 2 or so years maybe more.

jokinla
01-30-2012, 11:02 PM
He is an all time great, but he is at risk now of being disgracefully molested by Nole in maybe 4, 5 straight Slam Finals and over the course of the next 2 or so years maybe more.

So because there is only one guy on the planet which he clearly can't beat, that's a problem, because oh by the way, NOBODY can beat this guy, and in the event someone does(see 2011 French Open), he will be waiting to take home another GS. And if he doesn't, then congrats on having a career that is among the all time greats.

Nathaniel_Near
01-30-2012, 11:07 PM
So because there is only one guy on the planet which he clearly can't beat, that's a problem, because oh by the way, NOBODY can beat this guy, and in the event someone does(see 2011 French Open), he will be waiting to take home another GS. And if he doesn't, then congrats on having a career that is among the all time greats.

I'm just saying that he has a big task now to overhaul Djokovic in future match-ups and could end up being brutally destroyed by the Serb enough for him to be considered a transitional all time great between 2 great all time greats.

jokinla
01-30-2012, 11:21 PM
I'm just saying that he has a big task now to overhaul Djokovic in future match-ups and could end up being brutally destroyed by the Serb enough for him to be considered a transitional all time great between 2 great all time greats.

Again, anyone who thinks that he is a transitional whatever, good for them, but it is the most ridiculous opinion out there. Hewitt, sure a "transitional" champion(which is still stupid, he was the man at the time.) I guess, but Nadal, are you kidding me, he showed up and owned/owns the guy who owned everyone, and is the GOAT. But somehow, Nadal just came in at the right time, lol, more like the wrong time, what would have happened if Nadal would have came along at the time Hewitt did, he could have racked up 20+ slams, and would undoubtedly be the GOAT.
And Djoker still has a way to go to be mentioned along side Nadal, much less above him.

namelessone
01-30-2012, 11:22 PM
I'm just saying that he has a big task now to overhaul Djokovic in future match-ups and could end up being brutally destroyed by the Serb enough for him to be considered a transitional all time great between 2 great all time greats.

What the hell is a transitional all time great? :)

You are either a all time great or you're not.

If Djoko ends up with more slams than Rafa and goes on a Fed-esque dominant run(2-3 years as nr.1) then I suppose you could say that Rafa was a intermitent nr.1 and then we would have one hell of a strong era if, with 10 slams in your pocket, you were the "in between" champ.

Netspirit
01-30-2012, 11:24 PM
"...overachiever's 10 fluke slams..."

Crazy man
01-30-2012, 11:24 PM
At least the OP's premise was correct, it does sound quite stupid IMO.

celoft
01-31-2012, 04:03 AM
Djoko needs 14-16 slams to be a GOAT contender these days.

Gorecki
01-31-2012, 04:26 AM
Even if Nadal doesn't win any additional GS, he is in the top-10 of the Open Era (achievementwise). You cannot compare him to Hewitt or Kuerten.

And who cares that 6 out of 10 were on clay?

7 out of 14 of Sampras's were on grass.
9 out of 16 of Federer's were on hardcourts.
6 out of 11 of Borg's were on clay.
6 out of 8 of Agassi's were on hardcourts.
5 out of 8 of Lendl's were on hardcourts.
4 out of 6 of Edberg's were on grass.
7 out of 7 of Newcombe's were on grass.

12 ou ot 35 of Spadeas raps are about fat bottomed ball girls & gangsta tennis life...

Nadal cures the Ebola eith his sweat!!!!

Gorecki
01-31-2012, 04:28 AM
What the hell is a transitional all time great? :)

You are either a all time great or you're not.

If Djoko ends up with more slams than Rafa and goes on a Fed-esque dominant run(2-3 years as nr.1) then I suppose you could say that Rafa was a intermitent nr.1 and then we would have one hell of a strong era if, with 10 slams in your pocket, you were the "in between" champ.

he was a all time great within transitions... or a all transitional great timer... i dont know... i'm confused...

i rather discuss the class act of challenging your own serve!!!

reversef
01-31-2012, 04:32 AM
More than half of his Slams on 1 surface. And the other 2 Slams against a fading legend (Federer in his decline at Wimby 2008 and AO 2009). And the other 2 against junk competition (Wimby 2010) and a baby Djokovic who was about to enter his prime (USO 2010).
A baby Djokovic who is 11 months younger than Nadal, was already 23 years old, had already won a Slam and had been ranked number 3 in the world for a few years. Certainly not a rookie. He reached his absolute prime in 2011, but he had been a real contender for years. And the declining Federer won the USO 2008, and then the FO and Wimbledon 2009.
Even talking about the peak years of a player is something that's not so easy in that kind of discussion. Federer, for example, played one of his best matches on clay this year. Is he in his prime in 2011? No, but he can still play as well as he used to. If not for Nadal, he would have won the FO, while he was not able to do that in 2004. He can't play consistently as great as he used to. That's the difference. He was also playing great during the AO 2009 and would have won it against any other player than Nadal.
While you can call Hewitt a transitional champion, you can't call one of the best players of the history that way. Most of his slams on clay? Yes, and then? Can't players have a best surface? We are talking about a player who has won all the slams at least once. Very few players have done that. Nadal is an all time great (currently somewhere between tier II and tier I). Impossible to be a transitional champion in these conditions. One of the best players of all time who happens to play in one of the strongest eras ever seen, that's what he is.

Gorecki
01-31-2012, 04:36 AM
^^ it's funny how the same coaches, the same technology and the same surfaces, the same nutrition etc etc etc have produced one of the strongest eras in male tennis and probably the worst in females..

just sayin...

Apun94
01-31-2012, 04:37 AM
More than half of his Slams on 1 surface. And the other 2 Slams against a fading legend (Federer in his decline at Wimby 2008 and AO 2009). And the other 2 against junk competition (Wimby 2010) and a baby Djokovic who was about to enter his prime (USO 2010).

Baby Jokovic had just beaten an in form Fed, just 2 days ago

dominikk1985
01-31-2012, 04:39 AM
nadal beat prime federer at age 17. he went on beating him numerous times. if nadal is a transitional champion while winning 10 majors and dominating the GOAT h2h I don't know what a real champion ist.

Sentinel
01-31-2012, 04:46 AM
It isn't entirely outside the realm of reason to conclude that Nadal is "an ephemeral all-time great" due to his fleeting reign.

However, Nole is proving himself to be an eternal all-time great. That is not to say that Nadal's flickering brilliance will be forgotten.

Sentinel
01-31-2012, 04:49 AM
he was a all time great within transitions... or a all transitional great timer... i dont know... i'm confused...

i rather discuss the class act of challenging your own serve!!!
First, he could be the greatest transitional champion or a transitional great.

Second, didn't someone else challenge his own serve once. I think Roddick, or even Fred. Could someone with a sharp memory tell us.

Gorecki
01-31-2012, 04:58 AM
Yes. It was Federer, but that was a whole different story. Federer did it because he is arrogant and has a fat wife. Nadal because he is so humble that he didnt even want to see that serve in!!!!

lol omg lol.. ****s... so dense!

reversef
01-31-2012, 05:03 AM
^^ it's funny how the same coaches, the same technology and the same surfaces, the same nutrition etc etc etc have produced one of the strongest eras in male tennis and probably the worst in females..

just sayin...

At some point, the trend will be reversed. There will always be transitional eras, ups and downs in men and women tennis. In those moments, most people lose interest.

Gorecki
01-31-2012, 05:06 AM
At some point, the trend will be reversed. There will always be transitional eras, ups and downs in men and women tennis. In those moments, most people lose interest.

my point was that this era is extremely overrated due to the short number of dominant players. it's not the number of slam winning players that measures the quality of an era!!!

all i saw thus far in this era replicates at some other point in history years back (given the natural evolution differences)...

Leelord337
01-31-2012, 05:16 AM
This thread is funny but I still prefer the one from MTF called

"Will Nadal go down as the ultimate example of a 10 slam wonder?"

lol, i remember nadal saying a few years ago before he lost to soderling about why he loved playing at roland garros so much, he replied: "I never lose there before, no?" he did win a few in a row there.

Magnetite
01-31-2012, 05:25 AM
No way.

He beat prime Fed way too much to be considered a transitional champion. He's legit.

I'm a Fed fan btw.

reversef
01-31-2012, 05:30 AM
my point was that this era is extremely overrated due to the short number of dominant players. it's not the number of slam winning players that measures the quality of an era!!!

all i saw thus far in this era replicates at some other point in history years back (given the natural evolution differences)...

I agree with the way you see it till some extend. But I don't think that this era is overrated at all. There are dangerous floaters in the draws, but the best players are simply too strong most of the time. I don't know what is the best era you have seen during your years of watching tennis, but for me this one is the most impressive since the eighties. I started watching tennis as a very young child mid-eighties, so I know that I didn't have the keys to understand how strong that era was. I don't see anything comparable in the nineties though. Or until the very end of the noughties. They were many great players in the nineties for example, but they were erratic for some of them, very limited on some surfaces for other ones, others burned out pretty quickly. I always thought that the eighties had been much better than the nineties, even if as I said, I only saw the second part and with very few keys at that age.

marcub
01-31-2012, 05:58 AM
Congrats on sparking a debate on such a non topic though.
10 slams and still transitioning?