Has Nadal surpassed Borg yet?

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Like I said Nadal is by far the most hated player on this forum so any poll he is by some miracle winning on Planet Nadal Hate Warhouse is obviously one he has to be clearly ahead in. The same goes for Serena, the other most hated player on Tennis Hate Serena and Nadal Warehouse. Likewise any poll Federer, on a forum 99% of posters are lovesick ****s, is losing, is obviously something he clearly by a slam dunk is not.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Nadal is not "clearly ahead" of Borg, even if you believe he is greater than Borg. The two are very evenly matched.

[President]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Nobody has talked about Tomic since his U.S tank job vs Roddick so how is he most hated. He isnt relevant enough to be that hated. The most hated player under 24 is definitely Donald Young who is much more talented about on here than Tomic, and of course Young is black on a visibly anti black forum.

Visibly anti-black? The only black player on here who is really disliked is Serena, and you can't say that is unjustified with all her antics over the years (far more than any other top player, even Cvac). And Tomic is way more hated and talked about these days than Donald Young. Stop looking for racism to excuse Serena's poor behavior. I'm not even white and I dislike Serena too, she's just an unpleasant and unlikeable person. I like Tsonga, Blake, Venus, Monfils, and Sloane Stephens. Serena definitely has something that sets her apart from these players.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by abmk

yes, his knee problems are well documented ... But you can see signs in the players movement when they have problems - see his QF vs ferrer @ AO 2011 for example ... or when he injured himself at the closing stages of the murray match @ AO 2010 ......

there were no signs whatsoever before or during the match of any injury or problems in movement - same case - soderling RG 2009 , rosol wimbledon 2012 ..... all these injury "excuses" came up after the matches were over

Only someone hugely biased would say this when the player in question missed months and big tournaments afterwards.

And you cannot be seriously saying you can tell with certainty if a player is injured (or how much) just by looking at him play on TV.

Originally Posted by Gizo

One area that Nadal and Borg have been very similar to each other in, has been the constant injury excuses that have circulated the media whenever they have lost big matches.

As we know it has been an all too common occurrence with Nadal and Uncle Toni, and it was exactly the same with Borg and his coach Lennart Bergelin back in the 70s/80s (Bergelin always seemed to be moaning and talking about injuries). It has been very annoying with Nadal in recent years, and it was just as annoying with Borg back then.

Yeah, I'm sure Fed fans/Nadal haters have been so annoyed Rafa has been injured so often.

[Zimbo]

After reading all the arguments its quite clear that Borg is still slightly ahead and I'm a huge Nadal fan. Being objective he's not at Borg's level YET. I think it's a little weird that people don't see that. Come on people, can anyone every change their minds when good evidence trumps their arguments?

[Feather]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Remind me how long did that match go for again? Long enough to produce all these aces and winners. Look at the Isner Mahut match and the aces and winners in that one, you want to tell me they played well? It was a borefest.

I didn't say Fed played bad I said he didn't play too well by his standards. So he still played well, but not anything special. Roddick hit only 27 aces in that match and had a lower points won on first serve % despite having a higher first serves in % yet Fed still only managed to break ONCE. Oh and that was after about 4 hours. Normally he would break Roddick far more often than that.

I didn't see the Isner - Mahut match, so I don't have any comments about that. In any case Roger Roddick match was not as long as that match

I saw the Roger Federer - Andy Roddick 2009 final. I felt Roger did very well against Andy Roddick. Andy Roddick was playing very well, you see, he was really good. It's not just about aces, there were many serves which Roger was merely able to just put a raquet. It may not be an ace but Roger couldn't get the ball back in. You don't think the fact that Roger couldn't break him more means Andy was serving well? I guess after the match Roddick said, it was the first time Roger had trouble reading his serves or words to that extent. Andy was broken only once in that match, the very last game of the match. Andy Roddick played very well and I felt Roger was lucky to scrape through. This coming from a die hard Roger fan. It was one match result that I couldn't enjoy despite Roger winning Wimbledon after his painful loss last year (2008 ) and breaking Pete's record, I really really felt very bad for Andy Roddick.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

Only someone hugely biased would say this when the player in question missed months and big tournaments afterwards.

And you cannot be seriously saying you can tell with certainty if a player is injured (or how much) just by looking at him play on TV.

An injured player should hinder his movement. But that wasn't the case for Nadal when he played against Soderling and Rosol. In fact, he was moving even better after the MTO when he played Petzschner, which raises eyebrows.

Are we not allow to judge with our own eyes?
Nadal claim he was injured but we shouldn't automatically believe he was handicap. Everyone saw the matches, and there was no sign of injury.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

No he would not have a shot. Not even half a chance.

LOL , see the part regarding djoker and wimbledon 2011 final again ....

Originally Posted by The_Order

AO11 wasn't a knee problem it was a hamstring tear. Try and run with that happening to you, oh wait I forgot you don't play tennis so you wouldn't have a clue.

Many of Nadal's losses are because of injury, if you think he was moving well against Murray you're kidding yourself. BTW I still think he would've lost that match anyway, but it is a fact that he injured his knee during that one.

correction : some of nadal's losses are due to injury ...... but you *******s make it out like most of them are due to injury .......

I did say he injured himself near the end of the 2nd set vs murray >> go and read it again ......

Originally Posted by The_Order

Rubbish.

wow, what a retort ! I am astounded !

Originally Posted by The_Order

You yourself claimed that Novak couldn't win big/important matches against Nadal even on HC. So you were either full of it back then or your full of it now, either way, you're full of it.

Novak beat Nadal consecutively not only on HC but in CC finals as well. If you think that wasn't a big deal then you're a nutcase.

clueless, I'm saying before the wimbledon 2011 final actually occured, *******s like you would be saying :

djoker would have very less chance because :

he was 0-5 vs nadal in slams
0-2 vs nadal on grass
nadal was in better form by some distance compared to novak
clay season, nadal was sub-par, that's why novak beat him there ...

similar to how you'd be saying a big hitter like rosol/haase/petzschener or ancic in 2006 final would have no chance vs nadal

Originally Posted by The_Order

Here we go, I knew this was your reason the whole time. You only rate Roddick's 09 WIM campaign because your lover struggled against him in the final. You know Nadal would've beaten him.

jeez, like I said, dumbo, it wasn't just the federer match, it was the 2 matches before that as well, murray and hewitt, both very good returners and both had trouble vs roddick's serve ...and federer who is the best returner of roddic's serve by far , also struggled with it ...this on top of roddick playing very well off the ground .......

anything less than the 2007/2008 final form >> guarantee nadal would have lost ... and even with his 2007/08 form , it would have been a close one

nadal doesn't handle roddick's serve close to as well as these 3 as is evidenced by their matches ... he'd naturally struggle a lot more ......

Originally Posted by The_Order

If you watched the match, Fed was on top in the Davis cup match and should've won in straights. He had a mental lapse which let Hewitt back in and momentum took him through to make the comeback. In that AO04 match, Fed had him figured out, hence he won a set 6-0 and pretty much dominated after the first set...

so the mental aspect isn't important ?????? clueless, that was one of prime hewitt's most valuable assets ........ even when being outplayed , he hung in and fought back .... but then you are a thick ******* who'll only see whatever you want that favours nadal

Originally Posted by The_Order

Yeah so fast he got beaten by Chris Guccione in Sydney leading up to it LOL.

and nadal was beaten by monfils in doha in 2009 and 2012 , just before the AO and he had very successful AOs both times ... your point ? players developing well on a surface can't lose to lesser players ?

rafa was losing to garcia lopez, melzer etc in 2010 ...... so ?

Originally Posted by The_Order

I said that, still having reading problems are we?

I reiterated my point , that's it ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

I already explained how these guys would never be able to finish the job against a player like Federer. Why do you need to keep saying the same **** over and over and over and over again?

Whenever Fed sees these guys in his draw he laughs and knows he straight through them.

only because its federer, who wouldn't let them ....... against most of the other great players , they would ...

see sampras : korda 97 USO, kucera AO 98, scud AO 96 , schallar FO 95 , delgado FO 98

see nadal : rosol 2012, murray 2008 (was just coming into his own then ), gonzalez AO 2007, ferrer USO 2007

should I go on ? jeez !

Originally Posted by The_Order

No he didn't, he played ****.

if you call that level of play as sh*t, then murray played sh*t in the wimbledon 2010 and 2011 SFs as well ,especially in the 2011 one , after the first set ... so all in all, nadal faced zero credible threats in the semis @ wimbledon ... so much for 5 finals in a row ( when he played )

Originally Posted by The_Order

Yes it is a credit to Federer, but at the same time, those two lose a lot of credit because they could never beat him at a major. Ever. Yep that's right Hewitt and Roddick's combined wins over Federer in a major = 0. If they were as good as you pump them up to be (which BTW I know you're only doing so to pump Fed's tyres up) they would've beat him at least ONCE.

no, I'm not pumping them, I'm rating them as good as they are ... its only a ******* like you who puts them down

Originally Posted by The_Order

Yeah so Agassi had to recover and get back out there day after day. A lot harder to do when in your mid 30's and Hewitt's brilliant form turned to absolute crap in that final only you won't admit that because you have nfi about this sport.

Do you really think Hewitt played well in that match? In that case Berdych played well against Rafa in the WIM10 final...

no, hewitt didn't play brilliantly in that match , he played decent tennis ...major part of that was because of federer's briliance ...

the berdych case wasn't the same because it was his first final and the nerves clearly showed , not the case with hewitt

Originally Posted by The_Order

Even the commentators noticed how Delpo was running out of gas. That break back was Delpo showing his fighting characteristics but reality is he could not keep up his level of play.

what do you expect ? after so much of absolute brutal hitting , level and energy was bound to come down... its not that he was playing bad tennis , he was still playing decent tennis

Originally Posted by The_Order

Yeah that's right Fed was good enough to not allow them to beat him even when they were playing well, but when Nadal or Novak play well Fed struggles big time, so much so that he can't beat Nadal in a major in 5 years and counting.

Those guys were never going to beat Federer even if Fed was in trouble against them you knew that Fed was still going to come back and beat them. That has never been the case with Nadal and Novak at a major.

15/17 of Fed's majors where he didn't have to beat Nadal. Most of those were before Nadal could play well consistently on HC, Grass and Clay.

7/11 majors Nadal HAD to beat Federer. So you must admit Nadal has had a pretty tough blow considering he had to beat the greatest player to win the majority of his majors, whereas Fed did not have to beat his greatest threat to get 15 of his 17 majors. And before you say that's not Fed's fault, well it is because he lost to Rafa in 8 different majors, why wasn't he able to win more against Nadal? That IS his fault for losing to him. And before you start flapping on about RG, remember Nadal DID overcome Fed at Wimbledon where Fed FAILED to overcome Nadal at RG.

And you still couldn't even answer this simple question:

Rafa's had to win 7 of his 11 majors by beating the greatest player. Tell me how many times did Borg have to beat anyone near Fed's level to win his majors?

again, that's where you are plain thick, out of those 7, 5 were on clay, which is federer's worst surface ...where he's not in the top tier .........

mac on grass and mac/connors at the USO are quite a bit better than federer on clay ..

loads of credit to nadal for those wins @ wimbledon 2008/AO 2009 ..... but it wasn't that tough @ the FO ( though it is very credible that he didn't lose 1 times of 5 to fed there )

if everything has to go by reputation, then why even bother playing the matches , why even consider the forms ? bah !

Originally Posted by The_Order

Even Fed's 2009 major wins were because he didn't have to deal with Nadal. By his standards, he didn't play too well against Roddick in that 09 final (could only break his serve once or twice in the whole match IIRC). If Fed faced Rafa in that form he would've been beaten in straight sets.

lol, that's plain dumb, with the way federer was serving, even better than in the 2007,08 finals, rafa would still find it very tough ... he didn't play that well by his standards in the wimbledon 2008 final either ... 1/13 on BPs, half of them dumping second serves into the net or wide or long ? gimme a break !

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

Only someone hugely biased would say this when the player in question missed months and big tournaments afterwards.

And you cannot be seriously saying you can tell with certainty if a player is injured (or how much) just by looking at him play on TV.

you can certainly tell if it is affecting their play in any way ......... that is if you are a good enough observer ....

nadal plain demolished hewitt in the round before the soderling match in 2009 FO ....

the next year, the match vs hewitt was a LOT closer ....so a healthy nadal had a lot more trouble vs hewitt than an injured nadal , makes a lot of sense ....

yeah, I know hewitt was in better form in 2010 than in 2009, still doesn't make up for the huge gap in the competitiveness of those matches ...

in 2012, nadal had won RG easily, there were no reports whatsoever before the rosol match that anything was wrong with him ...

before you bring up that he lost early @ queens - it was the same case in 2010, 2011 ....

hell, before AO 2012, there were some so called reports that nadal was "injured" ........... and what does he go and do .....defends and frustrates the hell out of in-form berdych and federer in the quarters and semis and then goes on to play a marathon, brutal 5-setter vs novak in the finals .......

I mean how the hell is anyone sane expected to believe these excuses coming from the nadal camp ...

If there is a problem that affects his play and is clearly visible , only then ... otherwise, its just the boy and the sheep story

[zagor]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

The fact is Nadal has won the CYGS, and he's also won slams in all surfaces in the same year. Plus the 21 Masters Shields.

Sure, Nadal has a case, though the only one repeating ad nauseum that Nadal won slams on all surfaces in the same year is *********.

Regarding CYGS, while it's still a tremendous achievement, I don't regard either Nadal or Fed's CYGS on the same as someone like Agassi's, surface homogenization just made it easier to achieve, it has lost some of it's value in my eyes..

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Nobody gifted any of that to Nadal. No doubt Nadal is not as versatile as Federer or Borg, but this in my opinion even lends more weight to his achievements.

While I agree that nobody gifted that to Nadal, I disagree with him being less versatile lending more weight to his achievements, every player achieves what he can with a set of skills he possesses, there are no bonus points if you achieve more with less so to speak (and Nadal is an extremely talented player overall anyway).

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Yes, I think Borg was more versatile than Nadal. Still, Nadal has achieved things that Borg didn't.

I don't think anyone is as versatile as Borg overall and yes Nadal did achieve things Borg didn't but vice versa also applies.

Borg won 5 Wimbledons in a row, 4 USO finals, won 2 YECs (which was basically the 4th slam in his day) on indoor carpet.

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

Regarding being able to compare players, it's always difficult to compare players from different eras. Even comparing Sampras and Federer is tough because of their very limited H2H and the fact that they met when Sampras was in deep decline.

Well while when they met Sampras has been declined Fed also wasn't even in top 10 but regardless one match is too small of a sample size anyway and I don't give that much relevance to H2H anyway (which is subjective obviously, some people value it far more than I do), the main reason I find them difficult to compare is because of different playing conditions and different seeding system.

Regardless, my point wasn't that it's easy to compare Fed and Sampras but rather easier than comparing Borg and modern day pros given how much emphasis is put on slam count these days and Borg basically played 3 slam a year (with no fault of his own, AO was a small tourney, it would be like faulting Nadal he doesn't play Basel).

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

I also think that the depth of the field, and the level of competition, in general, was lower during Borg's time (even if you can point out a few giants that stood amongst the rest). But maybe this is just historical revisionism? I don't know. LIke I say, comparing players from different eras is very difficult.

It's hard to say, I never really bought the idea that the game constantly evolves and players just get better and better or that a larger poll of players (argument can be made that the game is more global than it was in Borg's day) automatically means better players, otherwise a small country like Serbia with absolutely no investment in tennis could have two top 10 players (even if I find it funny that Janko stumbled his way into top 10) with Novak being exceptionally talented.

My personal opinion is that you had a period (even if it was only say from 1979-1981) when you had 3 all time tennis greats playing great tennis at the same time which (again in my opinion) never happened in this era so I think the competition was more top heavy at the very least.

I also have to go back once again to the USO issue, some people arguing for Nadal in this thread are bringing up how Borg wouldn't have won 5 Wimbledons in a row if he had Fed as an obstacle but imagine for a second that Nadal had peak Fed and Sampras as his competition at Wimbledon cause that's roughly the situation Borg was in regarding USO.

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

I have to agree with you on this. Funny thing is that, didn't borg lose one USO in clay? Or was it grass?

He lost one of his USO finals on green clay against Connors.

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

I think that Borg might have been the best ever (again, a flawed statement) if he had pursued different objectives and had a longer career. But based on achievements alone, I feel Nadal has the upper hand. A CYGS still means something even in an era of homogeneized surfaces. And he still had to win 2 slams on his worst surface (hardcourt), which is a feat on its own. The 21 Masters titles also is a very important achievement. Nadal might end up with the highest Master win count to date (tied at the moment with Federer).

Well, as I said, you could certainly make a case for Nadal.

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

In general, I think Borg was more versatile in his era than Nadal is in his. But I also think that Nadal's achievements are superior. Borg had the stuff to probably become the best ever (relative factors nonwithstanding), but for whatever reason, he fell short.

I won't say Nadal is better than Borg, that's stupid. His achievements seem to have overtaken Borg's however.

Nadal's numbers probably look better on paper now and if not, will be by the time he's finished but there's always a subjective factor involved when comparing such great players.

For me personally Borg dominating clay and grass when they were such polar opposites with him being forced to completely change his game for one compared to the other puts him on a pedestal (so to speak) for me so regardless what current or future champions achieve I won't put them above him only equal to him, unless the conditions reverse to what they were in Borg's day (or even what they were during the 90s) and modern players achieve such feats under them.

Of course that might seem unfair to modern players but that's how I feel about it.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by zagor

I don't think anyone is as versatile as Borg overall

Nobody is as versatile as a player who couldnt win a U.S Open on 3 different surfaces, and couldnt win a hard court slam even though there was atleast 1 per year starting when he was only 22. Please.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by zagor

For me personally Borg dominating clay and grass when they were such polar opposites with him being forced to completely change his game for one compared to the other puts him on a pedestal (so to speak) for me so regardless what current or future champions achieve I won't put them above him only equal to him, unless the conditions reverse to what they were in Borg's day (or even what they were during the 90s) and modern players achieve such feats under them.

Of course that might seem unfair to modern players but that's how I feel about it.

In other word, you use versatility as an indicator to measure greatness. What about consistency, longevity, etc.?

Great post by the way.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by TMF

An injured player should hinder his movement. But that wasn't the case for Nadal when he played against Soderling and Rosol. In fact, he was moving even better after the MTO when he played Petzschner, which raises eyebrows.

Are we not allow to judge with our own eyes?
Nadal claim he was injured but we shouldn't automatically believe he was handicap. Everyone saw the matches, and there was no sign of injury.

Originally Posted by abmk

you can certainly tell if it is affecting their play in any way ......... that is if you are a good enough observer ....

nadal plain demolished hewitt in the round before the soderling match in 2009 FO ....

the next year, the match vs hewitt was a LOT closer ....so a healthy nadal had a lot more trouble vs hewitt than an injured nadal , makes a lot of sense ....

yeah, I know hewitt was in better form in 2010 than in 2009, still doesn't make up for the huge gap in the competitiveness of those matches ...

in 2012, nadal had won RG easily, there were no reports whatsoever before the rosol match that anything was wrong with him ...

before you bring up that he lost early @ queens - it was the same case in 2010, 2011 ....

hell, before AO 2012, there were some so called reports that nadal was "injured" ........... and what does he go and do .....defends and frustrates the hell out of in-form berdych and federer in the quarters and semis and then goes on to play a marathon, brutal 5-setter vs novak in the finals .......

I mean how the hell is anyone sane expected to believe these excuses coming from the nadal camp ...

If there is a problem that affects his play and is clearly visible , only then ... otherwise, its just the boy and the sheep story

According to... you.

You guys are just ridiculously biased and it's a pity you can't see it. You cannot know if a player is injured from watching him on TV. You simply cannot. He could seem fine to you, that doesn't mean he was. The fact he missed months afterwards saying he's injured should point towards him having been injured (crazy idea, I know).

Don't be so arrogant as to believe you can know such a thing from watching a match on TV.

Really... just a couple of examples:

- Football player Robben - with a long history of frequent injuries - sustained a hamstring injury before the 2010 World Cup, and there were serious doubts he would be able to take part in the event for his country. He travelled with them anyway, missed the group matches, and played then brilliantly in the knock out matches leading his country to the final where he was an inch away from scoring the winning goal for Holland in the final (which Spain ended up winning). Back with his team Bayern Munich (in Germany) after the World Cup, it was discovered he played the tournament injured which aggravated the problem and he had then to miss half the season. Bayern argued with the Dutch Football Federation for months over compensation (since the Dutch played him while injured and it was Bayern who couldn't count with his services due to that).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...pe/8882453.stm

In case someone is missing the connection: he played brilliantly, way above the level of most players in the tournament. No one would have noticed from watching him he had an injury that would make him miss 6 months of play. Much like no one would have thought Nadal was injured in the clay season this year.

- Nadal won a 5 set final against Ljubicic in 2005 Madrid with the foot injury that would keep him some 4 months out of competition. You have heard him say he was injured... had he lost that match you'd be saying he was making excuses and too ashamed to play so he decided to stay away for 4 months.

[vernonbc]

Originally Posted by abmk

you can certainly tell if it is affecting their play in any way ......... that is if you are a good enough observer ....

in 2012, nadal had won RG easily, there were no reports whatsoever before the rosol match that anything was wrong with him ...

If there is a problem that affects his play and is clearly visible , only then ... otherwise, its just the boy and the sheep story

There are plenty of people whose observation skills are severely hampered when it comes to anything about Nadal.

For those of us who follow Nadal closely, there were plenty of indications that he was having problems before the Rosol match. In Halle he was very visibly having problems moving but most of us tried to be optimistic and just put it down to exhaustion after Roland Garros. However, at Wimbledon, it was quite obvious to his fans that something was wrong. A number of us on a Rafa forum who were chatting during the match against Bellucci mentioned over and over again that his movement wasn't up to normal Rafa standards. When the pictures came out that showed the injection marks on his knee, our worst fears were confirmed. Then there were the rumors that he had had several MRI's on his knee. Again in the live chat during the Rosol match we could all see his mobility was hampered. I'm not taking anything away from Rosol (nor has Rafa ever done so) because he played out of his head that day, but Rafa definitely wasn't at 100%. We could see it and we talked plenty about it.

The subsequent months have proven that there were no sheep involved.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by vernonbc

There are plenty of people whose observation skills are severely hampered when it comes to anything about Nadal.

For those of us who follow Nadal closely, there were plenty of indications that he was having problems before the Rosol match. In Halle he was very visibly having problems moving but most of us tried to be optimistic and just put it down to exhaustion after Roland Garros. However, at Wimbledon, it was quite obvious to his fans that something was wrong. A number of us on a Rafa forum who were chatting during the match against Bellucci mentioned over and over again that his movement wasn't up to normal Rafa standards. When the pictures came out that showed the injection marks on his knee, our worst fears were confirmed. Then there were the rumors that he had had several MRI's on his knee. Again in the live chat during the Rosol match we could all see his mobility was hampered. I'm not taking anything away from Rosol (nor has Rafa ever done so) because he played out of his head that day, but Rafa definitely wasn't at 100%. We could see it and we talked plenty about it.

The subsequent months have proven that there were no sheep involved.

10GONADSexperts

[Mick]

probably not imo. Nadal is a great player without question but in his era, Federer is the greater player. Even Nadal would admit this.

Borg, on the other hand, was the greatest player in his era. McEnroe could have challenged him but Borg retired before that could happen.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by Mick

probably not imo. Nadal is a great player without question but in his era, Federer is the greater player. Even Nadal would admit this.

Borg, on the other hand, was the greatest player in his era. McEnroe could have challenged him but Borg retired before that could happen.

That still wouldn't mean Borg was better than Nadal.

[tusharlovesrafa]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

That still wouldn't mean Borg was better than Nadal.

I think they both are equal at the moment.Borg was better on Indoor Hard and Carpet whereas Nadal is superior on Hard courts having won both AO and US.It's pretty close I guess!!

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by Crisstti

In case someone is missing the connection: he played brilliantly, way above the level of most players in the tournament. No one would have noticed from watching him he had an injury that would make him miss 6 months of play. Much like no one would have thought Nadal was injured in the clay season this year.

- Nadal won a 5 set final against Ljubicic in 2005 Madrid with the foot injury that would keep him some 4 months out of competition. You have heard him say he was injured... had he lost that match you'd be saying he was making excuses and too ashamed to play so he decided to stay away for 4 months.

In other words, Nadal being injured or not is not something to consider o assess his level of play. Nadal is nearly always injured. It often don't hamper him at all (even if he ends having to take a long break). It often hamper him a little, and he win or lose, and so on. We know that he is always injured (or at least uncomfortable with something). We don't know wether or not the injury hamper him

The exemple of Madrid 2005 shows that. He played injured, won, and then took a long break. Against Rosol, he played injured, lost, and then took a long break. We don't know in any of thoose case how he was hampered, if he was.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

In other words, Nadal being injured or not is not something to consider o assess his level of play. Nadal is nearly always injured. It often don't hamper him at all (even if he ends having to take a long break). It often hamper him a little, and he win or lose, and so on. We know that he is always injured (or at least uncomfortable with something). We don't know wether or not the injury hamper him

The exemple of Madrid 2005 shows that. He played injured, won, and then took a long break. Against Rosol, he played injured, lost, and then took a long break. We don't know in any of thoose case how he was hampered, if he was.

If he was hampered of how much would naturally depend on how much pain the injury was causing him, and no one but him would know that. He says he was in both matches he discussed and more so in the Rosol match, and we indeed cannot simply tell by watching him.

Now, if you just keep playing like that you're obviously only going to be getting worse and it should hamper your play in some moment. Had he kept playing in 2005 is fair too assume he would have been more hampered. maybe he would have won that match against Ljubicic more easily had he not been injured, we can't really know. This year he could have gone to the Olympics and played, but he would have been even more hampered and worsened the injury. But it wasn't like he was unable to play.

The injury wasn't hampering him in a visible way at least during RG (though apparently he played infiltrated), and he could have stopped there and it would have looked very similar to 2005. There was Wimbledon though, and he appears to have played beyond what he did then, his game being more hampered which was noticeable to some and not to others. Had he played in the Olympics it would have been probably much more evident.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

10GONADSexperts

Not any different from any of the Nadal haters' assumptions that he looked just perfect.

Only that what happened later supports the idea that he wasn't.