Nadal has no real rivals in tennis record books

TheFifthSet · May 4, 2017

clayqueen said:
How do you measure who returns them better?

a) return stats
b) more weight given to return %'s on surfaces where a premium is placed on returning ability
c) rudimentary observational skills

I'm not sure why I'm doing this. You wronged abmk by misrepresenting his argument and failing to cop to it, instead opting to project your faults onto him. You tried deflecting, time and time and time again. There's no use trying to reason with you as you're clearly incorrigible. Maybe I am reading too much into this, but to me it speaks volumes of your integrity; you'll go to almost any length necessary to besmirch somebody on here, as long as it makes a tennis player you don't know look better. I've sincerely tried to give you the benefit of the doubt before, but in light of this thread it's utterly impossible for me to do so moving forward.

tennisaddict · May 4, 2017

50 of 70 titles on clay. 0 titles defended in non clay in a career spanning 14 years .

He is a clay courter , who found the occasional success on other surfaces, when he came back rejuvenated after long sabbaticals and sometimes took advantage of transition years (2010)

EdSWright · May 4, 2017

Moonballer without parallel.

kabob · May 4, 2017

TMF said:
But the hip surgery took place in 2008, well before 2004/2005 when he was playing his best tennis.

As I mentioned, it was chronic. The hip was slowing him down well before he had surgery to address it.

helterskelter · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
Federer was in slam winning form (at least prime form) in 2010. Djokovic also played quite well in the final and was Nole-1.9...

No one was beating Nadal USO 2010, period! he had all his explosive movement, rhino mental toughness, daft touch (with his sick slices and drop volleys that year), supreme endurance, rocket FH, and on top of all that a 130+ mph serve. I would put that Nadal against any other player on a hard court and would find it hard to imagine any of them beating him over 5 sets.

The second paragraph might well be true; however, I don't think the first is. Federer's form dropped a long way off in the spring and summer of 2010, so his AO form was well behind him by the time of Nadal's streak. Moreover, Federer played outstandingly well between 2004 and 2007 almost uninterrupted (Djokovic too from mid-2014 to mid-2016), yet you pointed to absence of rivals. If you're going to discount great form because of absence of rivals, at least do so evenhandedly. Personally, I wouldn't dismiss any of those set of results on the grounds of absence of rivals.

2HBH-DTL · May 4, 2017

tennisaddict said:
50 of 70 titles on clay. 0 titles defended in non clay in a career spanning 14 years .

He is a clay courter , who found the occasional success on other surfaces, when he came back rejuvenated after long sabbaticals and sometimes took advantage of transition years (2010)

100% correct.

DRII · May 4, 2017

NatF said:
Hewitt's groundstrokes are underrated, he could unload with winners when he wanted to - off the forehand he could mix it up and change the direction on the ball well. His backhand was very solid, he had a good backhand DTL, though he tended to go cross court.

Hewitt himself as a commentator admitted he had few weapons, so please stop your hype machine, looks silly.

NatF · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
Hewitt himself as a commentator admitted he had few weapons, so please stop your hype machine, looks silly.

I'll believe my eyes and actual match stats thanks. Players aren't necessarily the most objective critics of their own games, unless you think Federer is playing his best tennis...

zagor · May 4, 2017

tennisaddict said:
50 of 70 titles on clay. 0 titles defended in non clay in a career spanning 14 years .

He is a clay courter , who found the occasional success on other surfaces, when he came back rejuvenated after long sabbaticals and sometimes took advantage of transition years (2010)

That occasional success on HC/grass still dwarfs what 99% of the players in the history of tennis achieved on those surfaces so hard to see the logic behind classifying him a clay courter. We're talking about the guy with two Wimbledons and USOs here, not Thomas Muster.

DRII · May 4, 2017

mike danny said:
So when Federer and Djokovic were cleaning up in their dominant years, they didn't make the tour look weak, instead the tour WAS weak.

But when Nadal does the same thing, then he makes the tour look weak.

Double standards much?

Federer had 04-07 with no other all court ATGs to deal with.
Djokovic only started to dominate once Federer and Nadal started to decline, with Nadal coming back in intervening years (2013 mainly) to beat him at the slams more often than not. then he had the luck of Murray having an ill-advised back surgery procedure.

all 3 of these ATGs have had hi and relatively low points, good and bad luck, but its clear to me that Nadal has had it the toughest in terms of cumulative competition and having to deal with the other ATGs during their peak/prime times.

DRII · May 4, 2017

NatF said:
I'll believe my eyes and actual match stats thanks. Players aren't necessarily the most objective critics of their own games, unless you think Federer is playing his best tennis...

Federer right now is playing his best offensive tennis, both off the ground and at the net.

and once they leave the game, players do tend to be quite objective regarding their own games and place in the sport.

DRII · May 4, 2017

zagor said:
That occasional success on HC/grass still dwarfs what 99% of the players in the history of tennis achieved on those surfaces so hard to see the logic behind classifying him a clay courter. We're talking about the guy with two Wimbledons and USOs here, not Thomas Muster.

James Blake had the audacity to do the same thing during this years IW in his knee-jerk instinct to brown-nose Federer at all cost.

mike danny · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
Federer had 04-07 with no other all court ATGs to deal with.
Djokovic only started to dominate once Federer and Nadal started to decline, with Nadal coming back in intervening years (2013 mainly) to beat him at the slams more often than not. then he had the luck of Murray having an ill-advised back surgery procedure.

all 3 of these ATGs have had hi and relatively low points, good and bad luck, but its clear to me that Nadal has had it the toughest in terms of cumulative competition and having to deal with the other ATGs during their peak/prime times.

But not in 2010. That was the whole point of my post. Nadal had 2010 as his weaker season to dominate.

TheAssassin · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
Federer had 04-07 with no other all court ATGs to deal with.
Djokovic only started to dominate once Federer and Nadal started to decline, with Nadal coming back in intervening years (2013 mainly) to beat him at the slams more often than not. then he had the luck of Murray having an ill-advised back surgery procedure.

all 3 of these ATGs have had hi and relatively low points, good and bad luck, but its clear to me that Nadal has had it the toughest in terms of cumulative competition and having to deal with the other ATGs during their peak/prime times.

DRII said:
Federer right now is playing his best offensive tennis, both off the ground and at the net.

and once they leave the game, players do tend to be quite objective regarding their own games and place in the sport.

So Djokovic only started dominating (2011) when Federer started to decline but Federer right now (2017) is playing his best offensive tennis, both off the ground and at the net? You're quite inconsistent.

DRII · May 4, 2017

helterskelter said:
The second paragraph might well be true; however, I don't think the first is. Federer's form dropped a long way off in the spring and summer of 2010, so his AO form was well behind him by the time of Nadal's streak. Moreover, Federer played outstandingly well between 2004 and 2007 almost uninterrupted (Djokovic too from mid-2014 to mid-2016), yet you pointed to absence of rivals. If you're going to discount great form because of absence of rivals, at least do so evenhandedly. Personally, I wouldn't dismiss any of those set of results on the grounds of absence of rivals.

reasonable post.
no one is completely objective including myself.
but,i do think Nadal had it the hardest of the 3.

basically, i feel that if these 3 played each other fully fit and healthy at their demonstrated prime/peaks for 12 matches over all 3 surfaces outdoors and then throw in 3 indoor matches on each surface; Nadal would win the majority with Federer second and Djokovic third.

hypothetical peaks would be Federer 1st, Djokovic 2nd, and Nadal 3rd.

DRII · May 4, 2017

TheAssassin said:
So Djokovic only started dominating (2011) when Federer started to decline but Federer right now (2017) is playing his best offensive tennis, both off the ground and at the net? You're quite inconsistent.

offensive tennis is only half the game, probably closer to 40% of the game because defense has become so important in the last 10 years or so.

and yes, so far this year Federer is playing his best offensive tennis off the ground and at the net, mainly due to his much improved, flatter BH this year and increased net play. i really don't see how you or anyone else would disagree. of course his defense is not as good.

Druss · May 4, 2017

Assuming Nadal will win RG this year to make it 10...then next year goes on to win No 11, would that then make his accomplishments any lesser?

NatF · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
Federer right now is playing his best offensive tennis, both off the ground and at the net.

and once they leave the game, players do tend to be quite objective regarding their own games and place in the sport.

Some tend to be overly humble imo. Hewitt's overall ground-game was strong, especially peaking in early 2005. He didn't have a stand out shot like the Fedal forehands obviously but he was very complete imo. Federer had a lot of respect for him, which is why he got up some much to play him.

He was more actively aggressive than say Murray despite not having the same ceiling in terms of mph.

clayqueen · May 4, 2017

TheFifthSet said:
a) return stats
b) more weight given to return %'s on surfaces where a premium is placed on returning ability
c) rudimentary observational skills

I'm not doing this anymore. You wronged abmk by misrepresenting his argument and failing to cop to it, instead opting to project your faults onto him. You tried deflecting, time and time and time again. There's no use trying to reason with you as you're clearly incorrigible. Maybe I am reading too much into this, but to me it speaks volumes of your integrity; you'll go to almost any length necessary to besmirch somebody on here, as long as it makes a tennis player you don't know look better. I've sincerely tried to give you the benefit of the doubt before, but in light of this thread it's utterly impossible for me to do so moving forward.

Post the stats here.

tennisaddict · May 4, 2017

zagor said:
That occasional success on HC/grass still dwarfs what 99% of the players in the history of tennis achieved on those surfaces so hard to see the logic behind classifying him a clay courter. We're talking about the guy with two Wimbledons and USOs here, not Thomas Muster.

Outside of clay his career is comparable to Andy Murray or Stan. Not the talk of legends

2HBH-DTL · May 4, 2017

Numbers and stats say he's a clay court specialist.

Sirius Black · May 4, 2017

Ban thread. Lock OP

TMF · May 4, 2017

Druss said:
Assuming Nadal will win RG this year to make it 10...then next year goes on to win No 11, would that then make his accomplishments any lesser?

Of course not, but winning any slam(preferably Wimbledon) besides RG will enhance his placement in all-time great much more. There's nothing more for him to prove on clay, but his non-clay achievements, or lack thereof, is a major factor in evaluating him in ATG.

Winning his 10th MC and Barcelona only reminds us again that he's the king of clay. How about winning his first WTF for a change, it's the biggest hole in his resume and certainly strengthen his case in ATG debate.

Surion · May 4, 2017

mika1979 said:
The big 4 dont need their peak tennis to beat the tour right now. T

Well, Novak and Andy lose against way lesser players, so...yes, they do.

TheFifthSet · May 4, 2017

clayqueen said:
Post the stats here.

I will do so immediately after you contritely admit your mistakes. Otherwise, I will not get roped into spending time compiling more data for somebody whose only concern is to make Nadal look wart-free, at the expense of the people she's interacting with.

clayqueen · May 4, 2017

TheFifthSet said:
I will do so immediately after you contritely admit your mistakes. Otherwise, I will not get roped into spending time compiling more data for somebody whose only concern is to make Nadal look wart-free, at the expense of the people she's interacting with.

In future, follow the discussion before making comments. I was not the one who brought up the subject of best returner. I was responding the the post below:

abmk said:
federer is a better returner of big serves than nadal by far ( outside of clay ) and nadal has been troubled by big serving on plenty of occasions, including earlier that year vs roddick and ljubicic on slow HC.

guys like hewitt, ferrer, davydenko, nalbandian, djokovic etc. are also better at returning vs big serving ( even though they don't hold as solidly as nadal does vs the big servers )

abmk · May 4, 2017

clayqueen said:
Always add the caveat 'in my opinion' after you've made sweeping statements when the evidence is to the contrary.

that is an observation based on watching their matches...

and unlike you, I watch matches other than those involving my favorites.

the evidence isn't to the contrary, maybe if you actually bothered to look at evidence instead of fawning all over nadal, you would realise that.

TheFifthSet · May 4, 2017

clayqueen said:
In future, follow the discussion before making comments. I was not the one who brought up the subject of best returner. I was responding the the post below:

And, as usual, your habit of distorting what people are saying rears its ugly head again.

My issue is not with whether you brought up the subject, it's with you repeatedly misrepresenting people's words. In this case, you attacked abmk for something he did not argue, using specious logic and incomplete data to try to win a debate that wasn't even being contested. This is obvious to anybody that has read through the exchange. I never once complained about you bringing up the subject, but how you handled yourself once you chose to throw yourself in the mix.

I don't think it's a comprehension problem at this point; you're simply acting amorally to avoid admitting your mistake.

abmk · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
offensive tennis is only half the game, probably closer to 40% of the game because defense has become so important in the last 10 years or so.

and yes, so far this year Federer is playing his best offensive tennis off the ground and at the net, mainly due to his much improved, flatter BH this year and increased net play. i really don't see how you or anyone else would disagree. of course his defense is not as good.

federer's net play has actually decreased in 2017 compared to 14-15.
He's sticking more to the baseline because he's got used to the new racquet on his FH and has worked on his BH.
But hey, great observation skills !

2014 AO SF vs nadal : 42 points at the net out of a total of 191 points ( 22% of points at the net)
http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/25855302

2014 AO QF vs murray : 66 points at the net out of a total of 268 points ( 24.63% of points at the net)
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20...n.com:80/en_AU/scores/stats/day15/1502ms.html

2014 AO 4R vs tsonga : 41 points at the net out of a total of 172 points (23.84% of points at the net)

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20...n.com:80/en_AU/scores/stats/day13/1404ms.html

2017 AO F vs nadal : 40 points at the net out of a total of 289 points (13.84% of points at the net)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/tennis-open-stats-idUKL4N1FJ06Q

2017 AO SF vs wawrinka : 50 points at the net out of total of 278 points (18% of points at the net)

http://2017.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/1601ms.html

2017 AO 4R vs nishikori : 44 points at the net out of a total of 312 points (14% of points at the net)

http://2017.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/1402ms.html

2017 3R vs berdych : 23 points at the net out of total of 151 points ( 15.23% of points at the net)

http://2017.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/1303ms.html

The 3 matches at AO 14, points % at the net are in the 22-24 % range
For the 4 matches at AO 17, points % at the net are in the 13-18% range

Took AO as a common reference point.

clayqueen · May 4, 2017

TheFifthSet said:
And, as usual, your habit of distorting what people are saying rears its ugly head again.

My issue is not with whether you brought up the subject, it's with you repeatedly misrepresenting people's words. In this case, you attacked abmk for something he did not argue, using specious logic and incomplete data to try to win a debate that wasn't even being contested. This is obvious to anybody that has read through the exchange. I never once complained about you bringing up the subject, but how you handled yourself once you chose to throw yourself in the mix.

I don't think it's a comprehension problem at this point; you're simply acting amorally to avoid admitting your mistake.

I take this as an admission that you jumped into a conversation without looking at the trail.

abmk · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
Federer had 04-07 with no other all court ATGs to deal with.
Djokovic only started to dominate once Federer and Nadal started to decline, with Nadal coming back in intervening years (2013 mainly) to beat him at the slams more often than not. then he had the luck of Murray having an ill-advised back surgery procedure.

all 3 of these ATGs have had hi and relatively low points, good and bad luck, but its clear to me that Nadal has had it the toughest in terms of cumulative competition and having to deal with the other ATGs during their peak/prime times.

federer had pretty good competition in 04,05,07 ; only 06 was relatively weaker.
one relatively weak year for federer.
same for nadal in 10.

djoko had 14-mid 16 as relatively weaker, but 11-13 had pretty good competition

re : Murray, the one with the luck was funnily nadal, who never faced him under Lendl in 12-13.

hilarious to talk about nadal's decline in 11 ( when djokovic dominated him) and yet say federer was in prime form in 10.
djokovic absolutely dominated a prime nadal in 2011. Deal with it.

TheFifthSet · May 4, 2017

clayqueen said:
I take this as an admission that you jumped into a conversation without looking at the trail.

What are you talking about? I never once brought up who started the conversation at any point. It was never an issue.

At no point was that one of my gripes with you. It was how you distorted his words. I specified what my issues were with your reply to him about as clearly as a human being can. But, I'll bite: how does him bringing the subject up (nothing objectionable about that) justify you warping his argument and categorically refusing to admit it?

2HBH-DTL · May 4, 2017

The OP knows it to be true

4de1db7cd61ef0ce75a602252d95ddf34a51aac6862a8f88fcf5b2ac571e08a8.jpg

DRII · May 4, 2017

tennisaddict said:
Outside of clay his career is comparable to Andy Murray or Stan. Not the talk of legends

thats like saying; outside of Russia, Putin is a pariah

TMF said:
Of course not, but winning any slam(preferably Wimbledon) besides RG will enhance his placement in all-time great much more. There's nothing more for him to prove on clay, but his non-clay achievements, or lack thereof, is a major factor in evaluating him in ATG.

Winning his 10th MC and Barcelona only reminds us again that he's the king of clay. How about winning his first WTF for a change, it's the biggest hole in his resume and certainly strengthen his case in ATG debate.

Nadal winning the Aussie Open would be better to round out his slam resume than Wimbledon, going off his haters standards.
as far as i am concerned, a slam is a slam when it comes to ATG discussions especially if the player has won all 4.

I would also rather Nadal win Miami than the WTF before he retires, if i had to choose!

and again, the truth remains that Nadal is the only ATG to win multiple slams on all surfaces. period, point, blank...

DRII · May 4, 2017

abmk said:
federer's net play has actually decreased in 2017 compared to 14-15.
He's sticking more to the baseline because he's got used to the new racquet on his FH and has worked on his BH.
But hey, great observation skills !

2014 AO SF vs nadal : 42 points at the net out of a total of 191 points ( 22% of points at the net)
http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/25855302

2014 AO QF vs murray : 66 points at the net out of a total of 268 points ( 24.63% of points at the net)
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20...n.com:80/en_AU/scores/stats/day15/1502ms.html

2014 AO 4R vs tsonga : 41 points at the net out of a total of 172 points (23.84% of points at the net)

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20...n.com:80/en_AU/scores/stats/day13/1404ms.html

2017 AO F vs nadal : 40 points at the net out of a total of 289 points (13.84% of points at the net)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/tennis-open-stats-idUKL4N1FJ06Q

2017 AO SF vs wawrinka : 50 points at the net out of total of 278 points (18% of points at the net)

http://2017.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/1601ms.html

2017 AO 4R vs nishikori : 44 points at the net out of a total of 312 points (14% of points at the net)

http://2017.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/1402ms.html

2017 3R vs berdych : 23 points at the net out of total of 151 points ( 15.23% of points at the net)

http://2017.ausopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/1303ms.html

The 3 matches at AO 14, points % at the net are in the 22-24 % range
For the 4 matches at AO 17, points % at the net are in the 13-18% range

Took AO as a common reference point.

forest for the trees much...

your taking menial stats to somehow prove a trivial point makes you look foolish.

i'm talking overall offensive tennis from Federer. this year so far has been the most offense i have seen from him!

its like you have Aspergers or something.

abmk · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
forest for the trees much...

your taking menial stats to somehow prove a trivial point makes you look foolish.

i'm talking overall offensive tennis from Federer. this year so far has been the most offense i have seen from him!

its like you have Aspergers or something.

you said :

"and yes, so far this year Federer is playing his best offensive tennis off the ground and at the net,"
"and increased net play"

you failed.

you were proven completely wrong in that.

you failed

Now deal with it ..

as far as overall offense goes, probably, its debatable b/w now and 14-15 ( he attacked the net more then), but that wasn't my point of argument.

and finally, Asperger's ? really, you are stooping that low ? frustrated much ?

DRII · May 4, 2017

abmk said:
federer had pretty good competition in 04,05,07 ; only 06 was relatively weaker.
one relatively weak year for federer.
same for nadal in 10.

djoko had 14-mid 16 as relatively weaker, but 11-13 had pretty good competition

re : Murray, the one with the luck was funnily nadal, who never faced him under Lendl in 12-13.

hilarious to talk about nadal's decline in 11 ( when djokovic dominated him) and yet say federer was in prime form in 10.
djokovic absolutely dominated a prime nadal in 2011. Deal with it.

'pretty good competition', when does any established world class competitive endeavor not consist of pretty good competition?

thats not what we're talking about. we are comparing competition! and when doing so, its obvious to me that Nadal has had it hardest compared to Federer and Djokovic.

2011 was prime Nadal, but he wasn't peak like in 2010 or 2008.

as has been his pattern, Nadal has a great year followed by not as great a year or he dominates after a rest.

you said you were good at observation, practice what you preach.

abmk · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
thats like saying; outside of Russia, Putin is a pariah

Nadal winning the Aussie Open would be better to round out his slam resume than Wimbledon, going off his haters standards.
as far as i am concerned, a slam is a slam when it comes to ATG discussions especially if the player has won all 4.

I would also rather Nadal win Miami than the WTF before he retires, if i had to choose!

and again, the truth remains that Nadal is the only ATG to win multiple slams on all surfaces. period, point, blank...

lol, yeah, because miami giving 1000 points is worth more than the YEC giving 1500 points and having only top players..
only someone as delusional as you can say that. calling it an exho is another sign.

and as far as the last statement goes, Wilander.
Also its not a good comparison as there are 2 HC slams compared to 1 on clay and 1 on grass.

DRII · May 4, 2017

abmk said:
you said :

"and yes, so far this year Federer is playing his best offensive tennis off the ground and at the net,"
"and increased net play"

you failed.

you were proven completely wrong in that.

you failed

Now deal with it ..

as far as overall offense goes, probably, its debatable b/w now and 14-15 ( he attacked the net more then), but that wasn't my point of argument.

and finally, Asperger's ? really, you are stooping that low ? frustrated much ?

you don't know what i was comparing increased net play to!

stop assuming everyone would choose the same largely irrelevant, selectively picked criteria you would!

and as usual, your stats prove nothing qualitatively. this is not a purely statistical/quantitative discussion we are having! as soon as you realize that, you might be more effective in your arguments.

abmk · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
'pretty good competition', when does any established world class competitive endeavor not consist of pretty good competition?

thats not what we're talking about. we are comparing competition! and when doing so, its obvious to me that Nadal has had it hardest compared to Federer and Djokovic.

I was comparing with respect to the average level across the years when I said pretty good.

11-13 is comparable to 08-09, 04, 05,07.

DRII said:
'2011 was prime Nadal, but he wasn't peak like in 2010 or 2008.

as has been his pattern, Nadal has a great year followed by not as great a year or he dominates after a rest.

you said you were good at observation, practice what you preach.

yeah, that's not a pattern. 05, 06, 07 -- don't follow that pattern.

08 - great
09 - not that great
10 - great
11 - still pretty great
12- injury affected
13 - great year
14 - injury affected.

didn't say it was top form nadal, but very much prime nadal. it was much more of djoko's level rising and only a little of nadal's level declining ( esp. off clay )

2011 was easily nadal's 4th best year ( after 08,10,13)
just that djokovic dominated him.

DRII · May 4, 2017

abmk said:
lol, yeah, because miami giving 1000 points is worth more than the YEC giving 1500 points and having only top players..
only someone as delusional as you can say that. calling it an exho is another sign.

and as far as the last statement goes, Wilander.
Also its not a good comparison as there are 2 HC slams compared to 1 on clay and 1 on grass.

i don't give a damn what the ATP rewards a tournament or event in the case of the WTF!

as i've pointed out before, the WTF points shows how weak that event is (not how strong) if you know the history behind it.

i place the more highly coveted MS1000 events ahead of the WTF in terms of importance! if you don't thats your prerogative.

abmk · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
you don't know what i was comparing increased net play to!

stop assuming everyone would choose the same largely irrelevant, selectively picked criteria you would!

and as usual, your stats prove nothing qualitatively. this is not a purely statistical/quantitative discussion we are having! as soon as you realize that, you might be more effective in your arguments.

its common sense that when you don't mention what you are comparing to, you'd take the previous period of non-injured play. Be a man , accept it and move on.

you said he came more to the net than before. That's quantitive, not qualitative.

abmk · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
i don't give a damn what the ATP rewards a tournament or event in the case of the WTF!

as i've pointed out before, the WTF points shows how weak that event is (not how strong) if you know the history behind it.

i place the more highly coveted MS1000 events ahead of the WTF in terms of importance! if you don't thats your prerogative.

yeah, and no one gives a damn about your opinion which is only because federer/djokovic have dominated the YEC, with nadal failing to win it even once and nadal succeeding in Masters 1000 events.

I could call Basel as much more prestigious/more important than Monte Carlo, would not make it true in terms of tennis context.

We are talking about a tennis context here, not Rafael Nadal/DRII context !

I do know the history/importance of the YEC. All the top players have wanted to win it badly, more so than any Masters 1000. It was the 4th biggest event in the 70s and early 80s ( over the AO) . It has been the 5th biggest by far since then.

In fact, IIRC, Wilander and Nadal are the only ATGs (>=6 slams) who have failed to win it in the Open Era.

Phoenix1983 · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
and again, the truth remains that Nadal is the only ATG to win multiple slams on all surfaces. period, point, blank...

Ever heard of Mats Wilander? Or are you claiming he's not an ATG?

KINGROGER · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
Federer had 04-07 with no other all court ATGs to deal with.
Djokovic only started to dominate once Federer and Nadal started to decline, with Nadal coming back in intervening years (2013 mainly) to beat him at the slams more often than not. then he had the luck of Murray having an ill-advised back surgery procedure.

all 3 of these ATGs have had hi and relatively low points, good and bad luck, but its clear to me that Nadal has had it the toughest in terms of cumulative competition and having to deal with the other ATGs during their peak/prime times.

Nadal prime slam losses:

Murray x2
Ferrer x2
Tsonga
Gonzalez
Blake
Post injuries Hewitt
Youzny
Rosol
Darcis
Brown
Kyrgios

What's so tough about all these guys? Your argument only works if Nadal was good enough to consistently reach Federer and Djokovic during his prime years - he wasn't. Not on the same level as the other two were with their constant SF/F appearances.

Wander · May 4, 2017

What Federer has been doing is playing super aggressive baseline tennis. He doesn't really bother coming to the net as much cause he can just half-volley anything standing on the line and taking time away from opponents.

zagor said:
That occasional success on HC/grass still dwarfs what 99% of the players in the history of tennis achieved on those surfaces so hard to see the logic behind classifying him a clay courter. We're talking about the guy with two Wimbledons and USOs here, not Thomas Muster.

Well, I think the thing here is that he is not "just" a claycourter, but the greatest clay courter of all time, and as it happens, that still translates pretty well to being a great tennis player on other surfaces too. Just not as great as the actual best hard court and grass players in history.

DRII · May 4, 2017

Phoenix1983 said:
Ever heard of Mats Wilander? Or are you claiming he's not an ATG?

IDK if Wilander is an ATG, because he didn't win Wimbledon IMO (he's also in the single digits in slams won). of course he's a great player, and also a very varied one considering his stats, but not to win Wimbledon (probably the most prestigious of the slams considering its longevity at the same location and having the same surface type) is pretty significant.

he's very close to an ATG, but he technically did not win all the grand slams.

DRII · May 4, 2017

abmk said:
its common sense that when you don't mention what you are comparing to, you'd take the previous period of non-injured play. Be a man , accept it and move on.

you said he came more to the net than before. That's quantitive, not qualitative.

keep digging yourself deeper due to your assumptions.

kind of like 'common sense', there really is no such thing, its just a facile concept usually used to codify power or tradition.

abmk · May 4, 2017

DRII said:
keep digging yourself deeper due to your assumptions.

kind of like 'common sense', there really is no such thing, its just a facile concept usually used to codify power or tradition.

There there. Don't try to cover up your lack of common sense by saying there is no such thing. That's bad, even for you.
Move past the denial.

DRII · May 4, 2017

abmk said:
yeah, and no one gives a damn about your opinion which is only because federer/djokovic have dominated the YEC, with nadal failing to win it even once and nadal succeeding in Masters 1000 events.

I could call Basel as much more prestigious/more important than Monte Carlo, would not make it true in terms of tennis context.

We are talking about a tennis context here, not Rafael Nadal/DRII context !

I do know the history/importance of the YEC. All the top players have wanted to win it badly, more so than any Masters 1000. It was the 4th biggest event in the 70s and early 80s ( over the AO) . It has been the 5th biggest by far since then.

In fact, IIRC, Wilander and Nadal are the only ATGs (>=6 slams) who have failed to win it in the Open Era.

again, you can do what you want.

the WTF is triple E, an elite, 'exhibtionary', event. my opinion and theres nothing you can do about it!

i would take any of the higher coveted MS1000's or most certainly the Singles Olympic Gold over the WTF in a heartbeat.

as a Nadal fan, i would rather he win Miami than the WTF, its not even close!

Nadal has no real rivals in tennis record books

Legend

Bionic Poster

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

2HBH-DTL

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

2HBH-DTL

Guest

Sirius Black

Guest

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Legend

2HBH-DTL

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads