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

[TheNatural]

1/ Fed. A fit Nadal would have blocked his path to Wimbledon 2012 and Fed would be irrelevant now and most likely retired.

2/ Murray, no chance Murray wins both the Olympic Gold and the USO if Nadal was around.

3/ The Czechs. Spain wins the Davis Cup final again with Nadal around.

[kalyan4fedever]

The biggest beneficiaries are equally shared by Murraa followed by djokovic, if nadal would have been in ao as expected, djoker could have faced him going by this years draw so that he would be half tired after playing semis with nadal or murray and will be drained in the final. The only one who could not utilise this opportunity to his advantage is poor feddy who treated murraa like he is great champion and couldn't see for the mug he is

[kalyan4fedever]

Originally Posted by TheNatural

1/ Fed. A fit Nadal would have blocked his path to Wimbledon 2012 and Fed would be irrelevant now and most likely retired.

2/ Murray, no chance Murray wins both the Olympic Gold and the USO if Nadal was around.

3/ The Czechs. Spain wins the Davis Cup final again with Nadal around.

are you delusional , nadal did play wimby and he was outplayed and federer beat peak djokovic (who defeated nadal in 4 sets in '11) on his way to winning wimby

[Rogael Naderer]

Originally Posted by kalyan4fedever

are you delusional , nadal did play wimby and he was outplayed and federer beat peak djokovic (who defeated nadal in 4 sets in '11) on his way to winning wimby

I have to agree here.

[batz]

Originally Posted by TheNatural

1/ Fed. A fit Nadal would have blocked his path to Wimbledon 2012 and Fed would be irrelevant now and most likely retired.

2/ Murray, no chance Murray wins both the Olympic Gold and the USO if Nadal was around.

3/ The Czechs. Spain wins the Davis Cup final again with Nadal around.

Really? No chance? So you think it's an absolute certainty that Rafa would beat Nole and Murray back to back at the USO? Really?

I guess it must've been a certainty that Rafa would win the OG too - as long as he didn't draw Rosol.

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by TheNatural

Agassi loved tennis so much that he spent 4 more years sweating it out after Sampras retired so that Sampras would only end up with 175% the # of slams as him.

It's true. By that phase of his life he did appreciate tennis a lot more. Sampras was bloody lucky Agassi didn't appreciate it as much during his prime.

[TERRASTAR18]

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt

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.

nadal has been #2 and murray 4, so andy was the beneficiary because he would have lost to nadal in the semis.

[NJ1]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Ferrer can't beat the other 3 guys either much less Nadal. So Ferrer isn't exactly benefitting regardless

Don't forget prize money.

[TERRASTAR18]

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.

because he lost to nadal more than fed and nadal is more in his prime than fed. add to that fed's game is more likely to break down than nadal's because he is more aggressive. nadal vs murray is like 2 human backboards with a green apple in the middle.

[Fintft]

Joker of course. Second Murray.

[Gonzo_style]

Originally Posted by Fintft

Joker of course.

LOL I hope you're kidding, outside of clay, his last victory over Djoker was in WTFs 2010

[serengetisunset]

Nadal. Silent ban and low key return on clay = win-win.

[NatF]

Originally Posted by Gonzo_style

LOL I hope you're kidding, outside of clay, his last victory over Djoker was in WTFs 2010

Not to mention the fact that Djokovic lost at Wimbledon to Federer, Olympics to Murray and Del Potro and the USO to Murray as well...unless Nadal was going to win the WTF there's no way him being apart of the tour could have done much to change Djokovic's fate for the worse...

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by TheNatural

1/ Fed. A fit Nadal would have blocked his path to Wimbledon 2012 and Fed would be irrelevant now and most likely retired.

Not sure about this one... Federer beat the #1 and then Murray. Djokovic was the medium term form player and Federer convincingly beat him.

Murray seemed to get the lucky breaks here, as has Ferrer.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by TMF

No it isn't. He's 26 and wasting precious time because it only gets harder winning slams as he age. Nadal can't afford to wait any longer.

Please see the chart below.

It's better to be away for 6 months when you need to heal your body than to continue playing, not winning anything, and busting your knees for good. Therefore, Nadal is the biggest beneficiary. It's not so hard to understand.

[Hawkeye7]

Originally Posted by TERRASTAR18

nadal has been #2 and murray 4, so andy was the beneficiary because he would have lost to nadal in the semis.

Rafa was #3 after Wimbledon (so different halves) and although people like to forget, he did play Wimbledon and lost. Nothing to do with luck.

I guess, del Potro was also very lucky at the 2009 USO, because Murray lost to Cilic in R4.

[doobiedoodoo]

Djokovic and Murray for sure. Just look at the 2 GS finals since Nadal went down.

[Vrad]

Originally Posted by TERRASTAR18

nadal has been #2 and murray 4, so andy was the beneficiary because he would have lost to nadal in the semis.

Right, and Nadal was #2 and Rosol was #100.

Honestly, this whole thing is ridiculous. The only person who benefited from Nadal being away was Nadal. If he didn't, he wouldn't have been away.

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by batz

Really? No chance? So you think it's an absolute certainty that Rafa would beat Nole and Murray back to back at the USO? Really?

I guess it must've been a certainty that Rafa would win the OG too - as long as he didn't draw Rosol.

Some people forget that this guy hasn't won a non-clay tournament since 2010.

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.

I am not going to get overly invested in this topic, but a healthy Nadal is definitely a better player than Federer these days, in fact a healthy Nadal has been better than Federer since 2008, with no exceptions really (the only times Federer has ever been better since the start of 2008 is the second half of 2009 and the second half of 2012, both when Nadal went down with injury for an extended period of time). Most players would rather have to go through Federer to win an event in recent years than Nadal, unless the event is the WTF. Nadal is also the player Murray has the worst record against of all the top players, Djokovic included.