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

[batz]

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

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 AO (with thanks to Almagro).

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.

[kOaMaster]

ferrer & people who prefer fast played tennis.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by bluetrain4

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 AO (with thanks to Almagro).

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.

[sportsfan1]

Originally Posted by batz

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.

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.

[Hawkeye7]

Originally Posted by sportsfan1

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.

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.

[tennisbuck]

marcos bagdatius

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by MG1

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

Nadal............

[octogon]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye7

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.

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.

[Hawkeye7]

Originally Posted by octogon

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.

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.

[steenkash]

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.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by steenkash

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.

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!!!

[steenkash]

Originally Posted by mariecon

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!!!

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.

[90's Clay]

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

[DropShotArtist]

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.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

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.

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

[DragonBlaze]

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.

[DragonBlaze]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

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

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.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by DragonBlaze

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.

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

[DragonBlaze]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

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

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.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by steenkash

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.

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.