Who is the biggest beneficiary of nadal absence from tour??

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by MG1, Feb 6, 2013.

?

Beneficiaries of nadal's absence??

Poll closed May 7, 2013.
  1. Tennis Rules & Regulation - Don't have to be assaulted openly!

    21.7%
  2. Tennis Balls - Don't have to bear that crazy spin!

    7.2%
  3. Harcourts - Don't have to be blamed for nothing!

    15.7%
  4. Knees - Such a bad image for them!

    10.8%
  5. Murray - This Mug has been super consistent in big events..Coincidence!

    54.2%
  6. Ferrer- The vulture has taken a long flight which any vulture in future could only dream!

    34.9%
  7. Xisca - You Know ;)

    12.0%
  8. Facebook & Twitter- Rafa FB & Twitter page is worship place for nards!

    8.4%
  9. Vina Del Mar- what the hell ...many even heard the name before!

    24.1%
  10. Tennis experts- They could talk more nonsense !

    9.6%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. MG1

    MG1 Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    984
    Who is the biggest beneficiary of nadal absence from tour??

    Options are available in poll..you can share your own thoughts :)
     
    #1
  2. octogon

    octogon Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    749
    Murray. If Nadal were still in the mix, I doubt he'd have a slam right now.

    Either Nadal would beat him in the US open semi-final, or Murray would beat Nadal, but kill himself in the process, leaving him easy meat for Djokovic in the final. Or he'd face Nadal in the final and choke.
     
    #2
  3. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    or it could have been like shanghai or Tokyo where Murray barely broke sweat in beating Nadal, therefore would have been an easier opponent than Berdych..
     
    #3
  4. kalyan4fedever

    kalyan4fedever Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,959
    haha i like ur fifth option all epic options
     
    #4
  5. Murrayfan31

    Murrayfan31 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    4,059
    I would've picked the fans. But I didn't see that there.
     
    #5
  6. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,120
    I guess Murray. At least if you don't count Wimbledon as Nadal's absence.
     
    #6
  7. Murrayfan31

    Murrayfan31 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Messages:
    4,059
    Lendl fit Murray would destroy Nadal.
     
    #7
  8. joeri888

    joeri888 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    13,120
    Might be, but not so sure he would everytime. In Nadal's absence, Murray went to win Olympics, USO and make the AO final.

    Djokovic might have had some luck with it as well, since he ended up not being in Murray's half at the USO and the AO and played Delpo in the semis of the WTF.
     
    #8
  9. octogon

    octogon Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    749
    Get real. Tokyo and Shanghai are not the latter stages of a slam. Nadal in the semis of a slam is not going to get crushed by Murray. The only way Murray gets an easy victory is if Nadal is injured. Otherwise, it's a minimum of 4 sets, probably 5.
     
    #9
  10. always_crosscourt

    always_crosscourt Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2013
    Messages:
    496
    Murray beat Fed to get the the 2013 AO final, so Nadal's absence has little to do with that. Unless you wanted Murray to go through Nadal in the QF, then Fed in the SF, then Djokovic in the F?

    The guy getting Ferrer instead of Nadal in the semi's has also benefited hugely (as a Ferrer SF is basically a bye to the final) and this has been Djokovic on the 2 slams Nadal has absent from.
     
    #10
  11. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,216
    Location:
    Toronto
    Nadal Knees....Murray reaches Wimbledon final.

    Nadal Absence.....Murray wins OG Singles, US Open and reaches Aussie final.....lucky but deserved.
     
    #11
  12. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,979
    Most definitely David Ferrer.
     
    #12
  13. Alchemy-Z

    Alchemy-Z Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,548
    Location:
    Augusta, GA
    Murray

    and then Vina Del Mar ...they are probably racking in the dough from his appearance.

    but whatever tournament he came back to was going to get big attention...so I am kinda Happy he chose a lesser known tournament to boost
     
    #13
  14. Chanwan

    Chanwan Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    Messages:
    9,610
    Need I mention US 2008 and AO 2010? (and no, I don't buy that Nadal's injury was bad enough to cause him to lose - he was flat out beaten and chose to withdrew. It worked, he kept Murray as a lapdog for a little longer)
     
    #14
  15. octogon

    octogon Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    749
    US Open 2008 was a tough 4 setter (and I said it'd be a minimum of 4 sets), and, and you can be as skeptical as you like about Nadal's injury in the AO 2010, but the fact is, it goes down as a loss due to retirement because of injury. Nadal is a champion. He generally takes his beatings like a man. If he can't continue, then he's injured.

    So you've got no point. A fully fit Nadal would either beat Muzza in the US Open semi, or take him to 4 or 5 tough sets in a loss.
     
    #15
  16. *Sparkle*

    *Sparkle* Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    858
    The sensible answer is either Djokovic or Ferrer.

    Ferrer obviously has had the advantage of being seeded #4, giving him a great chance of getting to the semis, and boosting his ranking points.

    In theory, Djokovic and Federer should have equal advantage, as one of them has been getting a theoretically clear run to the finals, so fresher for the final, plus more points assured - except only really Djokovic has taken full advantage of that.

    All players who may have faced Nadal will probably have faced an easier competitor instead, and Murray was more likely to meet Nadal than most players, but he still had to (theoretically) go through Federer and Djokovic to win a title, which isn't much different to what he had to do when Nadal was around.
     
    #16
  17. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    this! :twisted:
     
    #17
  18. vive le beau jeu !

    vive le beau jeu ! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,570
    Location:
    Ometepe, Pink Granite, Queyras, Kerguelen (...)
    to make it simple: tennis.
     
    #18
  19. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,600
    Yep - that's definitely what would happen. Or maybe Nadal would lose to Rosol?

    I guess we'll never know with any certainty what would have happened.

    The only facts we have to go on are that Murray hasn't choked in the last 4 big finals he's played in and that Nadal and Murray are 2:2 in hardcourt slams.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
    #19
  20. bluetrain4

    bluetrain4 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    8,876
    I'd agree, generally. He now gets his own quarter of the draw and can avoid playing Fed, Murray, or Djoker until the SFs - basically he has a much, much better chance at making Slam SFs, which he promptly took advantage of at the USO and AO (with thanks to Almagro).
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
    #20
  21. batz

    batz G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    14,600
    And the USO.

    Nothing has really changed much for Murray - he went through Nole and Roger to win the OG and would have had to do the same at the USO had Roger made semis. Had he won the AO, he would also have gone through Roger and Nole.

    I'm struggling to see why Rafa's absence has had much bearing on Murray's OG and USO wins.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
    #21
  22. kOaMaster

    kOaMaster Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,030
    Location:
    Basel/Switzerland
    ferrer & people who prefer fast played tennis.
     
    #22
  23. cc0509

    cc0509 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    14,979
    Hope Ferrer had some fun while it lasted because Nadal should be able to get the number four ranking back soon if he does well in the S. American clay court swing I believe.
     
    #23
  24. sportsfan1

    sportsfan1 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,867
    Murray's 5-13 vs Rafa, and especially last couple of years has been unable to get past Rafa in the slams - 2011 USO, Wimby and RG. Maybe it's a bad matchup for him. It could have played out differently, but based on the stats, you would have to think that Murray's certainly one of the beneficiaries.
     
    #24
  25. Hawkeye7

    Hawkeye7 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,003
    Location:
    Cologne
    The little fact you all seem to ignore is that if Murray had faced Rafa it would have been in the final at the earliest in ALL of those events. That's assuming he would have beaten Djokovic. The 3rd and 4th seeds are always drawn in different halves.
     
    #25
  26. tennisbuck

    tennisbuck Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,052
    marcos bagdatius
     
    #26
  27. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,777
    Nadal............
     
    #27
  28. octogon

    octogon Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    Messages:
    749
    Then it's even more likely that Murray wouldn't have a slam. Murray plays free-er in slam semis than in slam finals, when the occassion often gets to him (he's admited as much). That's why he's got such an awful record in slam finals. He's have a better chance of beating Nadal in a semi than a final, imho. If he faced Nadal in a final, Nadal's superior composure in finals and Murrary's tendency to choke in finals would probably spell doom for Murray. Djokovic would soften up Murray in the semi, and Nadal would likely kill him off.
     
    #28
  29. Hawkeye7

    Hawkeye7 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,003
    Location:
    Cologne
    So you are assuming that Nadal would have won against Djokovic? Isn't Djokovic the lucky guy then, because he got to finals when he would have otherwise lost to Rafa in the semis???

    Besides what is all this bs anyway? Is Djokovic's Aussie Open win any less legitimate because Murray was having physical problems during that final? I thought not. Being fit is part of the job, if you aren't healthy and can't compete it's your problem. The world goes on. Rafa was the only Big 3 guy Murray had ever beaten in a slam prior to his USO triumph, so all these claims are ridiculous tbf. Coulda, shoulda, woulda... but wasn't fit enough.
     
    #29
  30. steenkash

    steenkash Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2012
    Messages:
    250
    Rodger Federer. Nadal brushed RF aside in the 2012 AO semi finals, and would have done the same this year if in the same draw.
     
    #30
  31. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    Soooooo how did he benefit? He still lost in the SF. That makes no sense. And that is strange logic. Just because something happens one year doesn't mean it will happen the next. For instance: How many times has Nadal defended a tournament title that wasn't on clay? I'll give you three guesses. Beeeep. Wrong. NEVER!!!:twisted:
     
    #31
  32. steenkash

    steenkash Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2012
    Messages:
    250
    So why is Murray on the list? Murray is one the form of his life, there no saying he could or could not beat Nadal, he was already reaching finals even with Nadal not being injured.
     
    #32
  33. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,587
    Federer of course. No contest.

    If not for Nadal's absence and injuries (and not becoming an all surface threat until 2008 or 2009 ), Fed would still be searching for the record.


    Fed is always the one who benefits the most without having Nadal around.

    Murray benefits of course as well. Ferrer can't beat the other 3 guys either much less Nadal. So Ferrer isn't exactly benefitting regardless
     
    #33
  34. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    Imagine how much Sampras benefitted from playing in such a weak era. His only competition was headcase Agassi, LOL! Imagine if Agassi actually had his act together, Sampras would be sitting on about 9 slams.
     
    #34
  35. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,587
    Pete didn't lose to Agassi on ALL SURFACES like Roger has lost to Nadal.

    Agassi couldn't beat Pete at 2 of the 4 slams. Nadal is pretty much the heavy favorite over Federer on every surface aside from indoors
     
    #35
  36. DragonBlaze

    DragonBlaze Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,654
    Sampras ofcourse. The more Rafa plays, the more he wins, the closer he gets to surpassing Sampras and permanently pushing him out of the top tier. :twisted: :D
     
    #36
  37. DragonBlaze

    DragonBlaze Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,654
    LOL funny thing is Djokovic is on his way to surpass Agassi, which will really show the lack of real rivals for Sampras in the 90s.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
    #37
  38. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,587
    Djoker will nab a lot of slams obviously because Fed and Nadal are on their way out the door and passed their primes. Agassi had to deal with Sampras as a contemporary his ENTIRE career. Nole is more fortunate in that regard

    The field is more open now and opportunities for guys like Nole and Murray are more plentiful because Nadal-Fed are semi retired at this point
     
    #38
  39. DragonBlaze

    DragonBlaze Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,654
    Agassi won 3 of his 8 slams after 2000 when Sampras had essentially become as YOU put it a 'non-entity'. Thus he really should only be sitting on about 5 slams. Whereas Djokovic has now won 6 when Federer and Nadal have both been playing at a pretty good level, as well as Murray now. One could conclude that Djoker > Agassi.

    ^
    That is the type of logic you use in your arguments. Just accept that Federer has surpassed Sampras and move on.
     
    #39
  40. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    This is just a hypothetical poll. People offer their opinion that's all. It doesn't mean it's true. We're allowed to disagree.
     
    #40
  41. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,680
    Location:
    In The City
    Don't be so sure. John Isner is still a tricky opponent for Djokovic, as evidenced by Isner's epic win over Novak in IW. Even Novak's usual clutch play on match points could not save him from the 140 mph serves John was hitting.I think Isner will be in the picture over the next few years.

    [​IMG]
     
    #41
  42. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    Nadal has also lost to Roger on all surfaces. Actually Nadal has never beaten Federer on indoor hard court but he has lost to Federer on every surface.
     
    #42
  43. ellipticality_224

    ellipticality_224 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    Boones Mill, VA: Basically BFE, 285 people.
    I like Murray, but the likes of him winning a slam, the slam after rafa calls it quits for the year is a little too much coincidence
     
    #43
  44. Gonzo_style

    Gonzo_style Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,897
    Federer, Ferrer and Murray on grass
     
    #44
  45. DropShotArtist

    DropShotArtist Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,233
    That's because Agassi didn't take tennis seriously. LOL, even playing half assed he beat Pete :)
     
    #45
  46. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    The obvious biggest beneficiary is Nadal himself. He might have extended his career quite a bit longer than the 6 months he took off the court.
     
    #46
  47. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    Agassi hated tennis. His father forced him to play.
     
    #47
  48. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    Murray actually crushed Nadal at the USO 2008. Short memory?
     
    #48
  49. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,587
    You dont win 8 slams and the career grand slam, YEC, Davis Cup, Olympics etc.. "hating" tennis. ROFLMAO @ this nonsense
     
    #49
  50. mariecon

    mariecon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,960
    Location:
    the Great White North
    ROFLMAO I guess you never read his book. Open. Read it and then take back what you just said.
     
    #50

Share This Page