This MIGHT sound stupid but is it possible...Nadal MIGHT be a transitional champion?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Mike Sams, Dec 22, 2011.

  1. Mike Sams

    Mike Sams Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    5,270
    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...:)
     
    #1
  2. celoft

    celoft Guest

    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).
     
    #2
  3. AM95

    AM95 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,245
    ^this.

    10transitions
     
    #3
  4. tacou

    tacou Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,038
    Nadal is already regarded as one of the greatest to play the sport so no
     
    #4
  5. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    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.
     
    #5
  6. niff

    niff Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    5,390
    Location:
    Henman Hill
    This counts as a Nadal/Djokovic thread, ahem.
     
    #6
  7. svijk

    svijk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    Messages:
    664
    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'
     
    #7
  8. Mike Sams

    Mike Sams Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    5,270
    :oops: sorry
     
    #8
  9. niff

    niff Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    5,390
    Location:
    Henman Hill
    Well since it's christmas... <3
     
    #9
  10. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Even I would say no to this. Nadal has won 10 slams. More than most other fully fledged champs from the past. So no.
     
    #10
  11. DeShaun

    DeShaun Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,837
    I am put off by Nadal's game but transitional champs don't win double digit slams
     
    #11
  12. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    Exactly. And DFTW just said that. Wow... haha.
     
    #12
  13. Mike Sams

    Mike Sams Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2011
    Messages:
    5,270
    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).
     
    #13
  14. CMM

    CMM Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    6,713
    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?"
     
    #14
  15. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,020
    Location:
    Weak era
    What the heck!?! That's my line :mad:
     
    #15
  16. DeShaun

    DeShaun Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2,837
    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
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2011
    #16
  17. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,234
    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.
     
    #17
  18. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,066
    Nadal thrived in the weak era of Federer.
     
    #18
  19. FlashFlare11

    FlashFlare11 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,328
    Location:
    Philadelphia, United States
    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.
     
    #19
  20. j00dypoo

    j00dypoo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    275
    Location:
    Atlanta
    transitional champs win a few majors... nadal has won 10. And he's still ranked #2.
     
    #20
  21. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    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.
     
    #21
  22. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Defining transitional champs as winning 2-3 slams is just as stupid as calling Nadal a transitional champ.
     
    #22
  23. ledwix

    ledwix Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    3,122
    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.
     
    #23
  24. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    Read further on, I said winning 2-3 slams in between periods of guys that dominate the game.
     
    #24
  25. Biscuitmcgriddleson

    Biscuitmcgriddleson Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,098
    yea thrived so well to never defend a non clay title. Face it SUREHS, yo boy is a bustaaaaaaa
     
    #25
  26. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    Ridiculous argument.
     
    #26
  27. Subventricular Zone

    Subventricular Zone Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    202
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
    #27
  28. Terre Battu

    Terre Battu Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    251
    Location:
    SF, CA
    I think Hingis is a true transitional champ not Nadal.
     
    #28
  29. passive_aggressive

    passive_aggressive Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    220
    Nadal is the ultimate example of a 10-time one-slam-wonder.
     
    #29
  30. Clarky21

    Clarky21 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    12,686
    What a dumb thread. If anyone is a transitional champion it's Cvac.
     
    #30
  31. Hitman

    Hitman G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    11,912
    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.
     
    #31
  32. Fredrik

    Fredrik Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    113
    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.
     
    #32
  33. Xizel

    Xizel Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    1,404
    Djokovic won't even get 10 Slams.
     
    #33
  34. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    29,628
    Location:
    In the middle of tomorrow and yesterday..
    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.
     
    #34
  35. paulorenzo

    paulorenzo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,587
    Location:
    Virginia Beach
    10 majors in one helluva transition.
     
    #35
  36. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    30,419
    Location:
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    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.
     
    #36
  37. sbengte

    sbengte Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    8,700
    And moreover his 10 slams do not include the Real Slam, so sadly I have to agree with you and sureshs.
     
    #37
  38. Polaris

    Polaris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    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 :) .
     
    #38
  39. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    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.
     
    #39
  40. Blinkism

    Blinkism Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    8,598
    I think this begs the question "Was Federer just a transitional champion between Hewitt and Nadal?"
     
    #40
  41. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    30,419
    Location:
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    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.
     
    #41
  42. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    12,409
    10 grand slam titles *facepalm*

    OP's posts are ridiculous as usual.
     
    #42
  43. Bendex

    Bendex Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,037
    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. :)
     
    #43
  44. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    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. :)
     
    #44
  45. PSNELKE

    PSNELKE Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,134
    This indeed sounds stupid, especially coming from a hater.
     
    #45
  46. tusharlovesrafa

    tusharlovesrafa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,396
    Location:
    Lucknow to kolkata
    ...[/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...
     
    #46
  47. Wilander Fan

    Wilander Fan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,555
    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.
     
    #47
  48. celoft

    celoft Guest

    I concur.

    Something more balanced like Borg's 6 slams on clay and 5 slams outside of clay is better.
     
    #48
  49. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,234
    Pete waiting for Laver to decline?

    Please, go back to your psychiatric hospital.

    Why are there so many trolls/mentally disabled people around GPPD?
     
    #49
  50. Dilettante

    Dilettante Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,107
    Location:
    Katy Perry's belly button
    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.
     
    #50

Share This Page