Nadal: 2 things are quite clear

[Mustard]

I can discredit both, and it's not in the least disrespectful: Borg took his toys and ran home to momma the moment he encountered adversity, unlike great athletes in tennis and other sports, and Nadal is a proven cheater on one level and suspected of being a cheater on many others.

Borg left because of disputes with the tennis authorities over how many tournaments he would have to play.

 

[dafinch]

Borg left because of disputes with the tennis authorities over how many tournaments he would have to play.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, I SEE, I'm glad you cleared that up! And, the fact that McEnroe beat him at Wimbledon(thus ending Borg's long streak there) and the US Open(the 4th loss in a final at a tournament he was NEVER able to win, virtually the only one of the top 20 male Slam winners with that stain on his record) right before Borg decided to take a powder had NOTHING to do with it, right?

Anything you say, Slick...

 

[gsharma]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, I SEE, I'm glad you cleared that up! And, the fact that McEnroe beat him at Wimbledon(thus ending Borg's long streak there) and the US Open(the 4th loss in a final at a tournament he was NEVER able to win, virtually the only one of the top 20 male Slam winners with that stain on his record) right before Borg decided to take a powder had NOTHING to do with it, right?

Anything you say, Slick...

It's not like Borg did not play a single match after the 1981 US Open. As for what his reasons were, we can only speculate.

On a similar note, Becker did accept that he gave up when he realized Sampras was better than him at almost everything: serving, power, speed etc.

 

[dafinch]

It's not like Borg did not play a single match after the 1981 US Open. As for what his reasons were, we can only speculate.

On a similar note, Becker did accept that he gave up when he realized Sampras was better than him at almost everything: serving, power, speed etc.

Well, let's see: how many matches DID he play in 1982? Oh, one? Please. For all intents and purposes, he clearly retired after the humiliating loss, walking off without even staying for the ceremony.

 

[abmk]

Borg's achieved more on grass and indoor. Nadal achieved more on clay and hard. All in all, their achievements are close. As for their playing style, Borg wore his opponents down with long rallies. If anything, Nadal is the more aggressive of the 2 (especially on clay).

lol, wut ? nadal is only more aggressive on clay ....... off clay, borg was quite a bit more aggressive ......

 

[Big_Dangerous]

I don't believe that at all. I don't think confidence and injury issues have anything to do with what is going on. Put Nadal on any court tomorrow and I would not bet against him.

If he was playing Murray, Djokovic, or Federer I would bet against him.

 

[Mustard]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, I SEE, I'm glad you cleared that up! And, the fact that McEnroe beat him at Wimbledon(thus ending Borg's long streak there) and the US Open(the 4th loss in a final at a tournament he was NEVER able to win, virtually the only one of the top 20 male Slam winners with that stain on his record) right before Borg decided to take a powder had NOTHING to do with it, right?

Anything you say, Slick...

Like I said, Borg left because of disputes with the tennis authorities over how many tournaments he would have to play. If Borg didn't agree to the ITF's demands, they threatened to make him go through the qualifying rounds before he could play at the majors. This is why Borg only played Monte Carlo and exhibition events in 1982, and stayed off the tour. It was thought that Borg would return to the tour in 1983, but Borg announced during the January 1983 Masters event that he wouldn't be returning to tennis full-time.

The myth that Borg left tennis because of McEnroe really has taken on a legend of its own over the years. Another such myth is that Sampras won the 2002 US Open and immediately retired.

 

[OddJack]

1. People have always been wondering about Rafa's "injury" concerns. It had to be a combination of injury+confidence issues+gamesmanship. His most recent withdrawal confirms that confidence issues are definitely playing a huge role. Gamesmanship is also obvious from the ill-times MTOs, but I think confidence issues are bigger.

2. Djokovic has probably ruined his chance at GOAThood. Those 3 consecutive losses in slam finals really hurt his legacy and confidence. He will still certainly be the man to beat on clay for 2-3 more years, but I think he has lost the chance to pass Fed in slam count (and weeks at #1, etc).

BTW I think that this silent ban stuff is all nonsense. Athletes may dope or not dope, but a silent ban is impossible in this day and age.

Really, certainly? 2-3 more years? for a cripple on clay?
This guy is good for golf only, the only reason he'd pick up a racket is to satisfy millions he got from contracts.
And the paret from passing Rodge, comon man, that's way concluded long time ago.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Like I said, Borg left because of disputes with the tennis authorities over how many tournaments he would have to play. If Borg didn't agree to the ITF's demands, they threatened to make him go through the qualifying rounds before he could play at the majors. This is why Borg only played Monte Carlo and exhibition events in 1982, and stayed off the tour. It was thought that Borg would return to the tour in 1983, but Borg announced during the January 1983 Masters event that he wouldn't be returning to tennis full-time.

The myth that Borg left tennis because of McEnroe really has taken on a legend of its own over the years. Another such myth is that Sampras won the 2002 US Open and immediately retired.

Who cares why Borg retired?

The fact is, he couldn't, physically and mentally, keep on playing a full schedule past his mid-20s - hence his demand to play fewer tournaments. We can't excuse this and assume he would have won more slams had he kept on playing.

Fact is, he is in the same tier of greatness as Nadal, no matter that some old-timers wish to state he is an "icon" who will never be touched by Nadal.

 

[dafinch]

Like I said, Borg left because of disputes with the tennis authorities over how many tournaments he would have to play. If Borg didn't agree to the ITF's demands, they threatened to make him go through the qualifying rounds before he could play at the majors. This is why Borg only played Monte Carlo and exhibition events in 1982, and stayed off the tour. It was thought that Borg would return to the tour in 1983, but Borg announced during the January 1983 Masters event that he wouldn't be returning to tennis full-time.

The myth that Borg left tennis because of McEnroe really has taken on a legend of its own over the years. Another such myth is that Sampras won the 2002 US Open and immediately retired.

I love your pompous air of finality spoken as if YOU know exactly why he retired, ROTFLMAO!!!! I don't, either, but a reasonable, detached person with knowledge of the sport who viewed the situation would likely conclude that his inability to beat McEnroe was FAR more likely to have been the catalyst than any silly dispute with tournament officials. But you believe that if it helps yo sleep at night.

 

[SLD76]

The other poster didn't say he wasn't mentally or physically strong. He/she simply said he's overrated in that department, and that is very debatable. For the record, I think he's one of the strongest players on both accounts that tennis has ever seen never mind the last 20 years.

But for example, a lot of people look at Nadal's 5 set record and his wins over Federer, and say he's mentally tough. This is true obviously, however they fail to mention his really bad losses to Gonzalez, Delpo, Tsonga, and Federer (at WTF 2007 and 2011). Contrast this with say Federer and off the top of my head I can only recall 2 matches in a longer career where he's been absolutely blown off the court. Those being RG 2008 and Olympics 2012. The general consensus is that if Nadal can get it to 5 (or 3) sets he will win, but he's been "destroyed" a fair bit in his career for someone of his standard. The thing about this logic is that no one actually questions Nadal's mental toughness. Everybody just says "Well that guy was way too good today" and everybody moves on. He's also had many injuries and MTO's, but he's known for fitness and stamina. People will say if he wins he was healthy or he was injured but he fought through it, but when he loses "He was injured!" is a favourite line. Again, I still believe he is one of the strongest on both accounts in all time, but this is some food for thought.

Contrast this again with Federer, and you have almost total opposites. Federer has an average 5 set record for someone of his standard, but he rarely gets blown off the court. Therefore Federer often loses very close matches, mostly to rival players because lesser players can't take him to 5 sets and are often beaten very easily. Then it is more prudent to question mental toughness because he lost a 5 set match where he often had a thousand chances to break and never took advantage of them. It's a study in how you want to lose matches with both these guys. Also physically, he has only 2 walkovers in over 1000 matches (a significant amount more than Nadal obviously as he's older by 5 years), and has never retired in his career. In fact, aside from Wimbledon 2012 I can't remember the last time he called a trainer on the court.

Just some food for thought.

good poast.

Not to mention, Fed has picked himself off the mat after some *devastating* losses ( FO 2008, WB 2008, AO 2009,). I cant even mention USO 2009 cuz Fed was smiling and laughing even at the trophy ceremony even though he blew a chance to add another slam to the tally.

Meanwhille Rafa tanked WB after 2009 FO, choked when he had the chance to beat Djoker at the 2012 AO, and seemed grumpy and bitter in 2011 when Djoker was beating him in all those slam finals, and was downright nasty during the Rosol match. We can go back to the Soderling 2006 Wimby match when Soder called rafa out for his timewasting, to his great displeasure. Im just saying, if Rafa is the mental giant that his fans/****s say he is, why does it seem that his feathers get ruffled so easily.

 

[dafinch]

Who cares why Borg retired?

The fact is, he couldn't, physically and mentally, keep on playing a full schedule past his mid-20s - hence his demand to play fewer tournaments. We can't excuse this and assume he would have won more slams had he kept on playing.

Fact is, he is in the same tier of greatness as Nadal, no matter that some old-timers wish to state he is an "icon" who will never be touched by Nadal.

I'm in total agreement with the "We can't excuse this and assume he would have won more slams had he kept on playing." part. It's like when it's pointed out that Borg won no Aussie Opens, his defenders say, yeah, well, he only played once. Yeah, and that was his choice, but he shouldn't actually get CREDIT for that, any more than those who claim that Fed's one French is "tainted" because he didn't play Nadal-not because Nadal didn't play(like, say, Delpo who waxed Nadal 2,2, and 2 on his way to winning the US Open and watched helplessly as Nadal won his one and only US Open the following year in his absence), but because Nadal got his ass kicked by Sod, who then preceded to lose to Fed-so, OF COURSE, give Nadal some sort of credit for not reaching the final-brilliant!

 

[Mustard]

I love your pompous air of finality spoken as if YOU know exactly why he retired, ROTFLMAO!!!! I don't, either, but a reasonable, detached person with knowledge of the sport who viewed the situation would likely conclude that his inability to beat McEnroe was FAR more likely to have been the catalyst than any silly dispute with tournament officials. But you believe that if it helps yo sleep at night.

Why would Borg be running away from McEnroe? Borg was still the reigning champion of the Masters and the French Open in 1981. There are myths out there that Borg got into a car and left tennis altogether after the 1981 US Open final finished, despite the fact that Borg won a clay-court tournament in Geneva straight after.

And by January 1983, when Borg actually did announce that he wouldn't be returning to tennis full-time, McEnroe's lustre wasn't exactly what it had been a year earlier, anyway. McEnroe won no majors in 1982, nor the Masters nor the WCT Dallas finals.

It's like when it's pointed out that Borg won no Aussie Opens, his defenders say, yeah, well, he only played once. Yeah, and that was his choice, but he shouldn't actually get CREDIT for that

Those who showed up and won the Australian Opens back then deserve full credit. But also, many top players did not play the tournament back then. That has to be taken into account when discussing overall career records. Borg won 11 majors at age 25, despite only playing an average of 3 majors per year during his career.

 

[mattennis]

The amount of "stories" that people write here as if they were actually facts that happened....makes you wonder what kind of people write here in these forums.

The silent ban, Borg retirement because of this or that....my goodness.

Don't ever let the facts get in the way of your favourite delusion.

 

[dafinch]

Why would Borg be running away from McEnroe? Borg was still the reigning champion of the Masters and the French Open in 1981. There are myths out there that Borg got into a car and left tennis altogether after the 1981 US Open final finished, despite the fact that Borg won a clay-court tournament in Geneva straight after.

And by January 1983, when Borg actually did announce that he wouldn't be returning to tennis full-time, McEnroe's lustre wasn't exactly what it had been a year earlier, anyway. McEnroe won no majors in 1982, nor the Masters nor the WCT Dallas finals.



Those who showed up and won the Australian Opens back then deserve full credit. But also, many top players did not play the tournament back then. That has to be taken into account when discussing overall career records. Borg won 11 majors at age 25, despite only playing an average of 3 majors per year during his career.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that, given the choice between being Wimbledon and US Open champion, or French Open and Masters champion, that most players would opt for the former. Like I said, you wanna convince yourself Mac's flipping things and supplanting Borg as the world's top player had nothing to do with Borg's retirement, you go right ahead...

 

[intrepidish]

What would you all do without Nadal to moan about? Even when he is gone, most of this forum feels a need to complain, asterisk, pretend he is "hiding" because of a loss and not really injured.

Pretty pathetic.

 

[veroniquem]

Only on clay would I say Nadal is a tad more aggressive than Borg but not off clay.

Maybe but I was discussing GOAT on clay and Nadal has the edge over Borg on that surface by a landslide. Overall, they're close. Borg has 5 W title but Rafa has all 4 slams. Borg has more titles overall but Rafa has twice as many masters. Borg won WTF twice but Rafa has twice as many titles on hard and the Olympics (most Borg indoor titles were on carpet).
I'm not sure if Borg was more aggressive than Rafa on grass, more consistent maybe but more aggressive? That's very arguable. Borg didn't do much on hard, that leaves carpet where it's impossible to compare Borg and Rafa since carpet is a defunct surface and has been pretty much for quite a while.

 

[Cup8489]

Maybe but I was discussing GOAT on clay and Nadal has the edge over Borg on that surface by a landslide. Overall, they're close. Borg has 5 W title but Rafa has all 4 slams. Borg has more titles overall but Rafa has twice as many masters. Borg won WTF twice but Rafa has twice as many titles on hard and the Olympics (most Borg indoor titles were on carpet).
I'm not sure if Borg was more aggressive than Rafa on grass, more consistent maybe but more aggressive? That's very arguable. Borg didn't do much on hard, that leaves carpet where it's impossible to compare Borg and Rafa since carpet is a defunct surface and has been pretty much for quite a while.

Nadal does not have an edge over Borg by a landslide on clay. What makes you say that? 1 major is the only difference, and Borg quit while he was defending champion. There's no reason to assume he would never have won another FO..he just didn't play it again after number 6.

 

[veroniquem]

Nadal does not have an edge over Borg by a landslide on clay. What makes you say that? 1 major is the only difference, .

That is where you're 100% wrong. 1 major is the SMALLEST difference between the 2. The winning % on clay, # of overall titles and # of masters on clay all give Rafa the edge by quite a comfy margin.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Borg has nothing on Nadal on clay. Even with 6 French Open titles Nadal was ahead of Borg since all his other stats were superior. With 7 it is no contest. Borg isnt even really the 2nd best clay courter of all time. Rosewall is atleast 2nd and maybe even 1st ahead of Nadal when one examines his clay court record, but of course since most of that was in the pro ranks nobody credits him as he deserves.

 

[abmk]

Maybe but I was discussing GOAT on clay and Nadal has the edge over Borg on that surface by a landslide. Overall, they're close. Borg has 5 W title but Rafa has all 4 slams. Borg has more titles overall but Rafa has twice as many masters. Borg won WTF twice but Rafa has twice as many titles on hard and the Olympics (most Borg indoor titles were on carpet).
I'm not sure if Borg was more aggressive than Rafa on grass, more consistent maybe but more aggressive? That's very arguable. Borg didn't do much on hard, that leaves carpet where it's impossible to compare Borg and Rafa since carpet is a defunct surface and has been pretty much for quite a while.

you cannot be serious !!!!!

borg consistently SnVed @ wimbledon and was aggressive off the ground as well........ he played completely different from how he played at RG ....... it is why many praise his versatility .....

he was WAYYYYYYYYYY more aggressive than rafa on grass and it isn't even a contest .........

 

[veroniquem]

Rafa is also more aggressive at W than he is on other surfaces, not this year obviously but all the years he made the final which is pretty much every year he entered the tournament since 2005.

 

[Mustard]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that, given the choice between being Wimbledon and US Open champion, or French Open and Masters champion, that most players would opt for the former. Like I said, you wanna convince yourself Mac's flipping things and supplanting Borg as the world's top player had nothing to do with Borg's retirement, you go right ahead...

I will. Meanwhile, you can continue to ignore the real reasons for Borg's retirement. Those reasons don't sound as interesting as "McEnroe sent Borg into retirement", but why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

 

[NatF]

I'd say the difference between Nadal and Borg on clay is quite large. When a player steps onto a clay court against Nadal it's a foregone conclusion Nadal is going to beat them. Was the same true for Borg at his peak? His win percentage while very high suggests otherwise.

For those who want to know why Borg quit:

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

 

[Phoenix1983]

I'd say the difference between Nadal and Borg on clay is quite large. When a player steps onto a clay court against Nadal it's a foregone conclusion Nadal is going to beat them. Was the same true for Borg at his peak?

Yes.

Nadal and Borg, between them, have won 101 out of 104 matches they contested at RG.

Nadal: 52-1 (only lost to Soderling)
Borg: 49-2 (only lost to Panatta)

Both men won the FO twice without dropping a set. Borg's victories were actually more dominant than Nadal's in terms of how few games he lost.

Anyway I believe Nadal is greater than Borg on clay - due to his 7th FO and his amazing record at other clay court events - but please don't try and claim that Borg was just some kind of "extremely good" clay courter. He was phenomenal and, at his best, almost unbeatable on the surface.

PS. Rosewall won 6 clay majors - the same as Borg - in many more appearances. He is not as great as Borg on the surface. I don't know why people keep trying to bump up Rosewall as a GOAT contender!

 

[Mustard]

I'd say the difference between Nadal and Borg on clay is quite large. When a player steps onto a clay court against Nadal it's a foregone conclusion Nadal is going to beat them. Was the same true for Borg at his peak? His win percentage while very high suggests otherwise.

In 1976, Borg went 22-3 on clay. The losses were to Fibak in Monte Carlo, Panatta at the French Open and Connors at the US Open. Borg won a clay-court tournament in Boston, and also won the World Team Cup with Sweden.

In 1977, Borg went 24-1 on clay. The only loss was at the US Open to Stockton, where Borg retired with a shoulder injury. Borg won the clay-court tournaments in Nice, Monte Carlo, Madrid and Barcelona. Borg chose to play World TeamTennis for the Cleveland Nets in 1977, so was banned from the 1977 French Open.

In 1978, Borg went 18-0 on clay. Borg won the clay-court tournaments of Rome, the French Open and Bastad.

In 1979, Borg went 26-1 on clay. The only loss was to Teltscher in Hamburg, a match where Borg retired despite leading 4-1 in the first set. Borg won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, the French Open, Bastad and Palermo.

In 1980, Borg went 22-1 on clay. The only loss was to Vilas at the World Team Cup. Borg won the clay-court tournaments of Nice, Monte Carlo and the French Open.

In 1981, Borg went 17-1 on clay. The only loss was to Pecci in Monte Carlo. Borg won the clay-court tournaments of the French Open, Stuttgart Outdoor and Geneva.

 

[NatF]

In 1976, Borg went 22-3 on clay. The losses were to Fibak in Monte Carlo, Panatta at the French Open and Connors at the US Open. Borg won a clay-court tournament in Boston, and also won the World Team Cup with Sweden.

In 1977, Borg went 24-1 on clay. The only loss was at the US Open to Stockton, where Borg retired with a shoulder injury. Borg won the clay-court tournaments in Nice, Monte Carlo, Madrid and Barcelona. Borg chose to play World TeamTennis for the Cleveland Nets in 1977, so was banned from the 1977 French Open.

In 1978, Borg went 18-0 on clay. Borg won the clay-court tournaments of Rome, the French Open and Bastad.

In 1979, Borg went 26-1 on clay. The only loss was to Teltscher in Hamburg, a match where Borg retired despite leading 4-1 in the first set. Borg won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, the French Open, Bastad and Palermo.

In 1980, Borg went 22-1 on clay. The only loss was to Vilas at the World Team Cup. Borg won the clay-court tournaments of Nice, Monte Carlo and the French Open.

In 1981, Borg went 17-1 on clay. The only loss was to Pecci in Monte Carlo. Borg won the clay-court tournaments of the French Open, Stuttgart Outdoor and Geneva.

Thanks for that. That's pretty damn dominant.

Yes.

Nadal and Borg, between them, have won 101 out of 104 matches they contested at RG.

Nadal: 52-1 (only lost to Soderling)
Borg: 49-2 (only lost to Panatta)

Both men won the FO twice without dropping a set. Borg's victories were actually more dominant than Nadal's in terms of how few games he lost.

Anyway I believe Nadal is greater than Borg on clay - due to his 7th FO and his amazing record at other clay court events - but please don't try and claim that Borg was just some kind of "extremely good" clay courter. He was phenomenal and, at his best, almost unbeatable on the surface.

PS. Rosewall won 6 clay majors - the same as Borg - in many more appearances. He is not as great as Borg on the surface. I don't know why people keep trying to bump up Rosewall as a GOAT contender!

I never tried to claim Borg was just an extremely good clay courter. My question was actually a genuine one about how dominant he was.

My question has now been answered. I'd be interesting in season a clay season by clay season breakdown for Nadal.

 

[Mustard]

My question has now been answered. I'd be interesting in season a clay season by clay season breakdown for Nadal.

In 2002, Nadal went 1-1 on clay on the main tour. The loss was to Olivier Rochus in Mallorca.

In 2003, Nadal went 11-6 on clay on the main tour. Stand out moments were beating Costa (reigning French Open champion) in Monte Carlo, as well as Moya (1998 French Open champion) in Hamburg. The 6 losses were to Coria in Monte Carlo, Corretja in Barcelona, Gaudio in Hamburg, Lapentti in Bastad, Gonzalez in Stuttgart and Moya in Umag. Nadal missed the French Open after fracturing his elbow in a bizarre incident just before the tournament began.

In 2004, Nadal went 14-3 on clay. The losses were to Gaudio in Bastad, Ferrer in Stuttgart and Mutis in Palermo. Nadal won the clay-court tournament in Sopot. Nadal was out of action from mid-April to early-July with an ankle stress fracture.

In 2005, Nadal went 50-2 on clay. The losses were to Gaudio in Buenos Aires and Andreev in Valencia. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Costa Do Sauipe, Acapulco, Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, the French Open, Bastad and Stuttgart.

In 2006, Nadal went 26-0 on clay. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome and the French Open.

In 2007, Nadal went 31-1 on clay. The only loss was to Federer in Hamburg. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, the French Open and Stuttgart.

In 2008, Nadal went 24-1 on clay. The only loss was to Ferrero in Rome. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Hamburg and the French Open.

In 2009, Nadal went 24-2 on clay. The losses were to Federer in Madrid and Soderling at the French Open. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Barcelona and Rome.

In 2010, Nadal went 22-0 on clay. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid and the French Open.

In 2011, Nadal went 28-2 on clay. The losses were Djokovic in both Madrid and Rome. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Barcelona and the French Open.

In 2012, Nadal went 23-1 on clay. The loss was to Verdasco on the blue of Madrid. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome and the French Open.

 

[NatF]

In 2002, Nadal went 1-1 on clay on the main tour. The loss was to Olivier Rochus.

In 2003, Nadal went 11-6 on clay on the main tour. Stand out moments were beating Costa (reigning French Open champion) in Monte Carlo, as well as Moya (1998 French Open champion) in Hamburg. The 6 losses were to Coria in Monte Carlo, Corretja in Barcelona, Gaudio in Hamburg, Lapentti in Bastad, Gonzalez in Stuttgart and Moya in Umag. Nadal missed the French Open after fracturing his elbow in a bizarre incident just before the tournament began.

In 2004, Nadal went 14-3 on clay. The losses were to Gaudio in Bastad, Ferrer in Stuttgart and Mutis in Palermo. Nadal won the clay-court tournament in Sopot. Nadal was out of action from mid-April to early-July with an ankle stress fracture.

In 2005, Nadal went 50-2 on clay. The losses were to Gaudio in Buenos Aires and Andreev in Valencia. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Costa Do Sauipe, Acapulco, Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, the French Open, Bastad and Stuttgart.

In 2006, Nadal went 26-0 on clay. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome and the French Open.

In 2007, Nadal went 31-1 on clay. The only loss was to Federer in Hamburg. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, the French Open and Stuttgart.

In 2008, Nadal went 24-1 on clay. The only loss was to Ferrero in Rome. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Hamburg and the French Open.

In 2009, Nadal went 24-2 on clay. The losses were to Federer in Madrid and Soderling at the French Open. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Barcelona and Rome.

In 2010, Nadal went 22-0 on clay. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid and the French Open.

In 2011, Nadal went 28-2 on clay. The losses were Djokovic in both Madrid and Rome. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Barcelona and the French Open.

In 2012, Nadal went 23-1 on clay. The loss was to Verdasco on the blue of Madrid. Nadal won the clay-court tournaments of Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome and the French Open.

I guess what really stands out is 2005, 50-2! They're actually pretty comparable otherwise.

 

[Amelie Mauresmo]

I wonder if people realize pro tennis is a real grind for the players constantly travelling all over the world not having time to see family or friends. Even though Nadal is a superstar in tennis I hear even sometimes the top players say the pro tour can be a lonely place. Now that Nadal's had six months off the tour maybe he's enjoying life and not in a rush to comeback? Nadal is so wealthy he can do whatever his heart desires now. I think Nadal is going to comeback but maybe now he realizes he needs to have a life beyond tennis and not just focus on tennis 100% of the time. Maybe Nadal was getting burned out and the injury gave him time to heal physically and emotionally.

 

[DeShaun]

They covered up for Agassi, but they let him continue to play. If Nadal were to be caught doping, then they would cover up for him too and let him continue to play, just like Agassi. That is why the silent ban theory is total bs.

Andre made a suspiciously hasty withdrawal from OZ one year upon being informed one of his samples had come back as flagged. If you assert the silent ban theory to be "complete bs,' at least acknowledge that 'they' did not 'let' him continue to play; at least have your facts straight.

 

[DeShaun]

good poast.

Not to mention, Fed has picked himself off the mat after some *devastating* losses ( FO 2008, WB 2008, AO 2009,). I cant even mention USO 2009 cuz Fed was smiling and laughing even at the trophy ceremony even though he blew a chance to add another slam to the tally.

Meanwhille Rafa tanked WB after 2009 FO, choked when he had the chance to beat Djoker at the 2012 AO, and seemed grumpy and bitter in 2011 when Djoker was beating him in all those slam finals, and was downright nasty during the Rosol match. We can go back to the Soderling 2006 Wimby match when Soder called rafa out for his timewasting, to his great displeasure. Im just saying, if Rafa is the mental giant that his fans/****s say he is, why does it seem that his feathers get ruffled so easily.

To me, Roger seems primarily enamored with playing the game of tennis, whereas Rafa seems addicted to winning tennis matches.

 

[namelessone]

good poast.

Not to mention, Fed has picked himself off the mat after some *devastating* losses ( FO 2008, WB 2008, AO 2009,). I cant even mention USO 2009 cuz Fed was smiling and laughing even at the trophy ceremony even though he blew a chance to add another slam to the tally.

Meanwhille Rafa tanked WB after 2009 FO, choked when he had the chance to beat Djoker at the 2012 AO, and seemed grumpy and bitter in 2011 when Djoker was beating him in all those slam finals, and was downright nasty during the Rosol match. We can go back to the Soderling 2006 Wimby match when Soder called rafa out for his timewasting, to his great displeasure. Im just saying, if Rafa is the mental giant that his fans/****s say he is, why does it seem that his feathers get ruffled so easily.

He didn't tank in WB 2009, he was injured and his physical problems had a role to play in his RG loss. Nadal was back on court in something like 2 months, 1 month being that time off anyway between WB and Canada.

As for being grumpy between Djoko losses in 2011, what do you expect him to be, cheerful and happy? How is this evidence of weak mental ability?Was Federer all smiles in losing to Nadal(and remember, Fed never lost 7 times in a row so we can't compare)? The Soderling incident proves that both were pretty immature back then, nothing more, nothing less. Nadal isn't a robot.

Every top player is overrated on these forums and as long as you have agendas you can poke holes into almost any statement. The user you quoted above said that Fed "bounced back" after FO2008,WB 2008 and AO 2009. Bounced back implied that he turned some sort of tide. In USO 2008, Nadal didn't make the finals and since Murray was a slam virgin, Fed capitalized. Fed "turned the tide" when Nadal got injured mid 2009, and he basically ruled the rest of 2009(hence the smiling even with losing against DelPo),even early 2010. Once Nadal gained some strength and form from winning clay titles, he won the next 3 slams.

Another quote was that Nadal gets steamrolled more often than Fed so why doesn't his royal mental toughness do anything to stop them? The reason is simple: Fed is a better player than Nadal, he can do more. Federer rarely has to call upon mental strength(which he obviously has) because in 90% of matches Federer's game doesn't put him in many tight spots. Nadal is the exact opposite, he has fewer facets to his game so his main quality is(or was I should say) that he gets better as the matches get tighter. When someone is getting everything in and painting the lines there is little Rafa can do.

Some of the commentators here need to be reminded that Nadal is no robot. He is a great player that also chokes on court. He just chokes less than others and people have noticed it in time. Hence the "mentally strong" stamp. This isn't something that the nards pinned on him, it was his opponents and the people commentating.

 

[edmondsm]

No one will catch Fed's slam total. I think Djokovic will win 3-4 more slams. Nadal might be done. I give him 1-2 more over the next couple years.

 

[zagor]

The user you quoted above said that Fed "bounced back" after FO2008,WB 2008 and AO 2009. Bounced back implied that he turned some sort of tide.

After FO 2008 he bounced back and played excellent Wimbledon, he narrowly lost but you can't win them all.

After heartbreaking 2008 Wimbledon loss he won 2008 USO.

After heartbreaking 2009 AO loss he made 4 straight slam finals, winning 3 of them.

Fed along with say Lendl is one of the best ever in bouncing back after hard losses, no amount of spinning will change that.

In USO 2008, Nadal didn't make the finals and since Murray was a slam virgin, Fed capitalized.

This is just too hilarious, Nadal fans just can't seem to make up their minds regarding Murray, if he's supposed to be part of this strong era which would have radically reduced Fed count if Fed was the same/similar age how can he at the same time be Fed's victim he takes advantage of? Fed also beat Murray in 2 other slam finals, was Murray a slam final virgin then as well?

Don't forget, Fed also beat Novak in 2008 USO, I'd say beating two strong era players back-to-back in a slam on their best surface is impressive enough to warrant calling it "bouncing back".

Fed "turned the tide" when Nadal got injured mid 2009, and he basically ruled the rest of 2009(hence the smiling even with losing against DelPo),even early 2010.

Fed didn't rule anything (going by his standards anyway), he barely scraped by in FO and Wimbledon and served poorly against Delpo in the USO final, his level of play was a far cry from his 2004-2007 days except for Cinci tourney that year.

Once Nadal gained some strength and form from winning clay titles, he won the next 3 slams.

No, he took advantage of slam final virgin and his pidgeon Berdych, beat the same player (some called him clown when Fed beat him in 2009 FO final) Fed did in last year's FO final to win his FO and in USO final prevailed over subpar Novak who had serving issues and was winless against top 10 for the vast majority of the year, he capitalized

On top of it, in a sense of fairness we also have to mention Fed's lung infection in 2010 which disrupted his training and played a role in him losing to everyone and their brother in early HC and clay season and his injury at Wimbledon which played a role in him being on the brink of losing to grasscourt beast Falla.

Another quote was that Nadal gets steamrolled more often than Fed so why doesn't his royal mental toughness do anything to stop them? The reason is simple: Fed is a better player than Nadal, he can do more. Federer rarely has to call upon mental strength(which he obviously has) because in 90% of matches Federer's game doesn't put him in many tight spots. Nadal is the exact opposite, he has fewer facets to his game so his main quality is(or was I should say) that he gets better as the matches get tighter. When someone is getting everything in and painting the lines there is little Rafa can do.

Some of the commentators here need to be reminded that Nadal is no robot. He is a great player that also chokes on court. He just chokes less than others and people have noticed it in time. Hence the "mentally strong" stamp. This isn't something that the nards pinned on him, it was his opponents and the people commentating.

Agree more or less though I do think Fed's mental toughness is overrated and his 5 set record doesn't tell the whole story, Nadal is tougher mentally but Fed is no slouch in that department either.

 

[Pet]

3 consecutive losses in slam finals? what?

 

[dafinch]

How about the ones straight from Borg himself?

First of all, why don't you provide these supposed quotes? Secondly, let's just say for the moment that he WAS humiliated into retirement; does it occur to you that a player in such a situation might not exactly be forthcoming about the situation?

 

[dafinch]

Well said.

Agree 100%

 

[Clarky21]

First of all, why don't you provide these supposed quotes? Secondly, let's just say for the moment that he WAS humiliated into retirement; does it occur to you that a player in such a situation might not exactly be forthcoming about the situation?

You are just assuming that's why Borg quit without having any solid proof to back it up. You instead choose to believe a sensationalized myth just because it's more exciting than the real reason. I believe Borg's word over yours, sorry.

Watch this video and educate yourself.


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

 

[dudeski]

After FO 2008 he bounced back and played excellent Wimbledon, he narrowly lost but you can't win them all.

After heartbreaking 2008 Wimbledon loss he won 2008 USO.

After heartbreaking 2009 AO loss he made 4 straight slam finals, winning 3 of them.

Fed along with say Lendl is one of the best ever in bouncing back after hard losses, no amount of spinning will change that.



This is just too hilarious, Nadal fans just can't seem to make up their minds regarding Murray, if he's supposed to be part of this strong era which would have radically reduced Fed count if Fed was the same/similar age how can he at the same time be Fed's victim he takes advantage of? Fed also beat Murray in 2 other slam finals, was Murray a slam final virgin then as well?

Don't forget, Fed also beat Novak in 2008 USO, I'd say beating two strong era players back-to-back in a slam on their best surface is impressive enough to warrant calling it "bouncing back".



Fed didn't rule anything (going by his standards anyway), he barely scraped by in FO and Wimbledon and served poorly against Delpo in the USO final, his level of play was a far cry from his 2004-2007 days except for Cinci tourney that year.



No, he took advantage of slam final virgin and his pidgeon Berdych, beat the same player (some called him clown when Fed beat him in 2009 FO final) Fed did in last year's FO final to win his FO and in USO final prevailed over subpar Novak who had serving issues and was winless against top 10 for the vast majority of the year, he capitalized

On top of it, in a sense of fairness we also have to mention Fed's lung infection in 2010 which disrupted his training and played a role in him losing to everyone and their brother in early HC and clay season and his injury at Wimbledon which played a role in him being on the brink of losing to grasscourt beast Falla.



Agree more or less though I do think Fed's mental toughness is overrated and his 5 set record doesn't tell the whole story, Nadal is tougher mentally but Fed is no slouch in that department either.

Looks like we have a rematch!

-zagor in black shorts
-shameless in white shorts

Heavyweight TT argument title fight:

 

[beast of mallorca]

Looks like we have a rematch!

Hahaha, I miss Aphex............:twisted:

 

[namelessone]

Hahaha, I miss Aphex............:twisted:

Aphex is/was a sad sack as evidenced by his failing attempts at humour and digging up what he thinks as humorous posts from a couple of years ago just to keep himself relevant. His main functions was to nod approvingly at everything ****s said to nards.

I lost count at the times he called Nadal a monkey of some sorts.

A real class act of this forum.

 

[abmk]

^^

Oh come on, while aphex is no angel, he's pretty funny at times

 

[namelessone]

^^

Oh come on, while aphex is no angel, he's pretty funny at times

No, there are very few funny posters on these boards and aphex isn't one of them. A rommil wannabe at best but while rommil can be hit and miss, aphex just came off as mean spirited most times. Always seemed like a perpetually angry poster, the only times when he seemed content was when he was circle jerking with other ****s like himself, each of them agreeing with the other until they swamped entire threads.

 

[Feather]

No, there are very few funny posters on these boards and aphex isn't one of them. A rommil wannabe at best but while rommil can be hit and miss, aphex just came off as mean spirited most times. Always seemed like a perpetually angry poster.

Who is Aphex? Is he still around in new name?

 

[namelessone]

Who is Aphex? Is he still around in new name?

With the propensity of different troll names on all sides, who the hell keeps tabs anymore? The veterans of this forum can recognize the styles(someone mistook me for a poster called Zaragoza at one time) of posters but overall, we have too many trolls who either love a player to death(seethe Rafa2006/zillas) to the point of getting nauseous and trolls who do nothing but hate on one player and start flaming threads.

So yes, I think aphex is still lurking around here. Trolls will be trolls.

 

[Magnus]

After FO 2008 he bounced back and played excellent Wimbledon, he narrowly lost but you can't win them all.

After heartbreaking 2008 Wimbledon loss he won 2008 USO.

After heartbreaking 2009 AO loss he made 4 straight slam finals, winning 3 of them.

Fed along with say Lendl is one of the best ever in bouncing back after hard losses, no amount of spinning will change that.



This is just too hilarious, Nadal fans just can't seem to make up their minds regarding Murray, if he's supposed to be part of this strong era which would have radically reduced Fed count if Fed was the same/similar age how can he at the same time be Fed's victim he takes advantage of? Fed also beat Murray in 2 other slam finals, was Murray a slam final virgin then as well?

Don't forget, Fed also beat Novak in 2008 USO, I'd say beating two strong era players back-to-back in a slam on their best surface is impressive enough to warrant calling it "bouncing back".



Fed didn't rule anything (going by his standards anyway), he barely scraped by in FO and Wimbledon and served poorly against Delpo in the USO final, his level of play was a far cry from his 2004-2007 days except for Cinci tourney that year.



No, he took advantage of slam final virgin and his pidgeon Berdych, beat the same player (some called him clown when Fed beat him in 2009 FO final) Fed did in last year's FO final to win his FO and in USO final prevailed over subpar Novak who had serving issues and was winless against top 10 for the vast majority of the year, he capitalized

On top of it, in a sense of fairness we also have to mention Fed's lung infection in 2010 which disrupted his training and played a role in him losing to everyone and their brother in early HC and clay season and his injury at Wimbledon which played a role in him being on the brink of losing to grasscourt beast Falla.



Agree more or less though I do think Fed's mental toughness is overrated and his 5 set record doesn't tell the whole story, Nadal is tougher mentally but Fed is no slouch in that department either.

If there was ever an impressive bouncing back title, Fed's USO 08 would be it. Fed, after Wimbly, was lost. He lost to Simon in Canada and lost to Karlovic in Cincy. Nobody had any hopes for him, and some people already said his career was basically finished. He came very close to losing to Andreev, and with the way he played on that match it was pretty much clear he's not going to go very far in this USO. Then Djokoivc comes, a rematch of the 2007 final, and Fed finishes him in 4, and in glorious style I must add. The final was the same form as the semi, finishing Murray in straights.

Nadal, at the time, was a noboy in the USO. He was never even considered a threat at that year. I still don't consider Nadal one of the biggest threats at USO - he will need a 2010-like draw to win it again. Murray, Djokovic and Federer are all better on the surface than him.

As for 2009, I think you're spot on except that he also played well in the USO, its just the final that caught him off guard and his serve was awful. He also made those two funny clown droppers in the 2nd set, totally giving that set away. If he'd won that set, I'd be pretty sure he would have won the title.

 

[monfed]

aphex is one of the funniest posters ever and boy do I miss him!

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

aphex is one of the funniest posters ever and boy do I miss him!

the legendary diplomacy of aphex would be highly appreciated in order to establish healthy and warm relationships with the people of nardistan in these troubled times...

 

[Joseph L. Barrow]

2. Djokovic has probably ruined his chance at GOAThood. Those 3 consecutive losses in slam finals really hurt his legacy and confidence. He will still certainly be the man to beat on clay for 2-3 more years, but I think he has lost the chance to pass Fed in slam count (and weeks at #1, etc).

1. Djokovic has not lost three consecutive Slam finals. Perhaps you mean the French and US Open finals and the Wimbledon semifinal he's lost.

2. I really don't think he ever had the chance to pass Federer in any important respect.

BTW I think that this silent ban stuff is all nonsense.

I agree.