RaulRamirez
Legend
Okay, yet despite all that, look at what he has accomished in totality, and with regard to consecutive years as (fill in the positive category).
Nadal has a greater longevity than Fed
- Thread starter aman92
- Start date
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Fred has the higher cumulative peak and prime, truth.
RaulRamirez
Legend
Yes, lucky that he was so damn good.
darthrafa
Hall of Fame
ADuck
Legend
So you're doing the same thing man.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
It's not the same as what-ifs (that I have freely engaged in too, sure)... and I'm not keen on bashing anyone who doesn't accept - your loss, duh - but the smug confidence of the many who do, whatever their apparent truth is, is deeply deplorable and that's what drives me to action.
InsideOut900
Legend
Hope you are trolling here.
Nadal won as many Slams as Djokovic since 2017 and the pandemic hurt Novak a lot. He already missed 2 Slams he was favourite for because of it and many weeks at #1. And it's likely he is missing USO too.
RaulRamirez
Legend
This thread is TTW in a nutshell, or should I say "in a nuthouse".
OP posts a thread complimentary to Nadal that slightly tweaks Federer. It's not outlandish in its claims, although "longevity" can be measured in different ways.
The Fedfan army can't have this, and unleashes every single talking point used in every "goat-type" discussion here.
Here's one more: The time Rafa takes between points - especially outdoors - is responsible for his freakish longevity as he enjoyed extra healing powers from the sun (or stadium lights if night matches).
Can we just, without comparison to others, admire that an athlete whose career was commonly projected to burn out anywhere from 5-10 years ago is still at the very top of the tour. (No, not his ranking, but two out of two slams in his age-36 year is pretty special. Period.)
"Yeah, but injury breaks ...mugs...poly...no other ATGs younger ...oh yeah, Djokovic, but let's call them "Djokodal" as they were working together...slower courts...mono...really winning when he had match points...unlucky on break points..too much crosscourt topspin to one-handed backhands...but oh, he can't have this distinction, as my eye test saw when they first and last played a great match ..did I mention weak era mugs?"
OP posts a thread complimentary to Nadal that slightly tweaks Federer. It's not outlandish in its claims, although "longevity" can be measured in different ways.
The Fedfan army can't have this, and unleashes every single talking point used in every "goat-type" discussion here.
Here's one more: The time Rafa takes between points - especially outdoors - is responsible for his freakish longevity as he enjoyed extra healing powers from the sun (or stadium lights if night matches).
Can we just, without comparison to others, admire that an athlete whose career was commonly projected to burn out anywhere from 5-10 years ago is still at the very top of the tour. (No, not his ranking, but two out of two slams in his age-36 year is pretty special. Period.)
"Yeah, but injury breaks ...mugs...poly...no other ATGs younger ...oh yeah, Djokovic, but let's call them "Djokodal" as they were working together...slower courts...mono...really winning when he had match points...unlucky on break points..too much crosscourt topspin to one-handed backhands...but oh, he can't have this distinction, as my eye test saw when they first and last played a great match ..did I mention weak era mugs?"
ADuck
Legend
Why not? I don't see the need to separate the "what ifs" as they are just ways of further defining or extending one's arguments and opinions. So the implications of what you're arguing are the same. I already know what your "what ifs" are based on your arguments and opinions even if you haven't outright said it.
So if I understand you right, you don't mind people having opposing opinions to you, but you are bothered if they express their opinion in an arrogant manner?
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Ha ha, well everyone's arguments are based on some core narrative/principle of evaluation so it would help to cut the chase and go straight to the foundation, which for discerning connoisseurs such as myself (who happen to be majority federites for no apparent reason, hmm) is the mystical level of play and minute observations concerning that.
Refusing to tolerate any difference in opinion would be self-defeating, although I don't treat kindly outlandish/disrespectful takes that aren't worth discussing, like the whole 'titles adjusted by difficulty'/elo-based judgment charade or equating achievements with level just when it suits you (which goes into intellectual dishonesty hence not worth considering anyway).
I don't mind most opinions so long as they leave appropriate room for doubt hence an actual possibly fruitful exchange where various viewpoints would be contemplated and minds could be changed bit by bit. Confidence leaves no room, you have to either accept it or oppose it. It's obviously intertwined with arrogance since asserting the veracity of your view implies the falsity of any other.
ADuck
Legend
So what's your deal with my original post?
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
You've spent years bemoaning poor Rafa's sore foot and how much it prevented him from winning - don't care how non-explicit it was, the sentiment has been obvious - and now that Rafito has secured the bean record despite all of that, you allow for Nadal 'having superior genetics'... nevertheless immediately mentioning his foot. Looks like a sweet case of having your cake and eating it too - Nadal proven to be better than Federer even in longevity but still, if only not for the unfortunate congenital foot condition he'd have done even better. So sad, why is life so harsh to poor RAFA, not like anyone else has to suffer, no?
It's good to see that Nadal fans recognize the value of streaks/consecutive records..
Congrats to Nadal on winning his 22nd Major and 14th RG! Amazing accomplishment!
holy tennis
Semi-Pro
If not for the foot, Nadal’s H2H against Federer would’ve likely been 38-2 or something alike. I’d even say 39-1 because I can’t imagine Federer winning anywhere except WB 2006. Way way pre prime Nadal gave Federer one of the worst beatings of his prime in 2004 and defeated him in Dubai of all places, which heavily suits Federer.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
At this point I would have to say yes. Federer's last capable tennis was 2019. Or maybe we could say the 2020 Australian Open was the last. Federer began winning/being a real contender only 2 years earlier than Nadal (2003 to 2005) and Nadal has already been that 2.5/3 years later and counting. Both had the odd year (Federer 2013, Nadal 2015, etc.) they were mainly irrelevant due to coming back from injury or whatever in that stretch too, so that evens out.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Nadal first top level performance was at the AO in 2005
I mean technically it was a 4th round result which would be a no, but subjectively I agree.
ADuck
Legend
To correct you, I've spent years retaliating the point of view, perpetrated mostly by your ilk, that either Rafa's injuries don't exist, or of they did, they didn't impact his career and grand slam winning chances significantly compared to his main rivals, or if not that, they are just primarily a result of his playing style, therefore not worth mentioning.
Whether Rafa ends up winning the slam race or not was immaterial to the above points. It would only be perceived as having cake and eating it too, to a person who would be incapable of believing that he could achieve these things despite those shortcomings.
Also just because Rafa's injuries haven't been as severe as others, doesn't mean they don't exist or are not worth mentioning in their own right. Just another strawman.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Luck of the draw. You could argue it was the DC final in 2004 as well.
Certainly looks like at the minimum Nadal who next week (June 12, 2022) will have a record 873 consecutive weeks ranked top ten will reach 920 consecutive weeks by next year. It is also his overall weeks top ten, since he has never dropped below it once reaching top ten.
( Federer has 788 consecutive weeks top 10, overall has 968 weeks ranked top 10 )
Nadal:Most consecutive years (19) winning at least 1 ATP title and most years winning an ATP tournament ( again 19 years)
( Federer 15 consecutive years winning at least one tournament and 18 years overall winning an ATP tournament.
This is a neat one, longest span between beating a # 1 ranked player in the world for Nadal:
April 2004 Vs Federer. 6-3 6-3
May 2022. Vs. Djokovic 6-2, 4-6, 6-2, 7-6
Longest span between beating #1 ranked player at a Grand Slam
May 2005 Vs Federer 6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3
May 2022. Vs. Djokovic 6-2, 4-6, 6-2, 7-6
Nadal has the records for most years between YE ranked 1 , 2008 & 2019
Federer has the longest span between ranked # 1 on a given week, Feb 2004 & June, 2018
( Federer has 788 consecutive weeks top 10, overall has 968 weeks ranked top 10 )
Nadal:Most consecutive years (19) winning at least 1 ATP title and most years winning an ATP tournament ( again 19 years)
( Federer 15 consecutive years winning at least one tournament and 18 years overall winning an ATP tournament.
This is a neat one, longest span between beating a # 1 ranked player in the world for Nadal:
April 2004 Vs Federer. 6-3 6-3
May 2022. Vs. Djokovic 6-2, 4-6, 6-2, 7-6
Longest span between beating #1 ranked player at a Grand Slam
May 2005 Vs Federer 6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3
May 2022. Vs. Djokovic 6-2, 4-6, 6-2, 7-6
Nadal has the records for most years between YE ranked 1 , 2008 & 2019
Federer has the longest span between ranked # 1 on a given week, Feb 2004 & June, 2018
Last edited:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
I've been record fighting the idea that Nadal has at any point invented an injury out of thin air. That their impact has been greatly exaggerated is another concept, apparently evidenced by all these recent records unless you subscribe to the belief that a Nadal with "normal accidence of injury" would be even more superior, which is not something that should be acceptable in a civilised debate for a variety of reasons you should have no trouble recalling given your experience with all sorts of arguments around here, not least that it is a figment of imagination; Nadal's injuries result from him being Nadal, if he had a different body he would be a different player. Why should racquet skills and mental strength be attributed to the person, but injury occurrence only to the body? Does one even have more control over the former than the latter? You can't just evade injuries but neither can you just increase your aptitude, at the same time you do have a degree of control regarding how much you're able to maximise your talent / minimise your injuries. It would seem that "mental failures" are generally attributed to the person while "physical" ones to the body, but is that fair?
You can mention them obviously but it sure reads like a likely apologia given the presence you have established.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Banned user is so banned. Go back to your cave.
holy tennis
Semi-Pro
22
Now start crying and talking about how Federer vs roddick at Walmart parking 2003 was the highest level ever reached.
Agreed upon all objective tennis observers. Whahaha.
ADuck
Legend
Okay, do you want to point out an incidence where they were greatly exaggerated? We could argue from there? You throwing it out there that someone somewhere is exaggerating something doesn't mean anything to me. Also remember, your original greivances were to my post, so the opinions of other people are irrelevant in this case.
But, if you consider my point of view, that Rafa's injuries affected his grand slam winning chances significantly compared to his rivals, to be greatly exaggerated then you're just another poaster here no different from the rest. Yes it goes without saying if he had a "normal occurrence of injuries" aka no left foot condition which treating led to other injuries, then he likely would have won more slams. I'm sorry that using some common sense and probability to infer an outcome is so offensive. I'm not shouting this day in and day out on the forum by the way, and when/if I do it's not unprovoked. I don't have any problems unapologetically pointing this out when people argue his injuries are fake or exaggerated. For example, in this very thread you have people saying that his achievements means his injuries were exaggerated, when actually most of the people doing the exaggerating were Federer fans who were saying he would retire by 25. Epic gaslighting move from them.
Also as said previously, that he was able to lead the slam count despite these set backs does not make the injuries less severe or career-impacting. Trying to argue that what Rafa is doing now, means what happened throughout his career especially 10-12 years ago when he was forced to skip or retire from multiple slams smack bang in the middle of his peak doesn't mean anything is ridiculous. We may have missed some of Rafa's best tennis but we wouldn't know it.
I can appreciate the philosophical point. Tis essentially "if if if doesn't exist." I will add though that his left foot condition is far more removed from what I consider "Rafael Nadal" than his mental strength and tennis abilities. It's easier to imagine a reality where a simple tweak in his genetic code removes the possibility of it occurring as opposed to the other things. But I still consider this overarching point to be outside the scope of what we're arguing, because as I said earlier, these arguments mostly come from me in response to people arguing:
holy tennis
Semi-Pro
Spending so much time trying to prove something to a mug… cringe.
sliceroni
Hall of Fame
Federer was a late bloomer and also played before the courts became homogenized. In fact he didn’t start winning until they became homogenized, not saying he wouldn’t dominate if they didn’t. I hope Nadal matches or surpasses him with 3 more years but we’ll see at the end of this year if that happens. Regarding Fed’s knee issue, imo I still think it was due to a botched job during one of his surgeries. You can be a billionaire and still have a crappy ortho surgeon or have the best ortho surgeon that just made a mistake. That’s life.
Last edited:
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Hmm, is this ultra gaslighting by reversing the cause and effect as if those who bought it were themselves the source? Sly move, I know you're a smart guy. Indeed, why would anyone see a guy who gets constantly injured all the time and get the feeling he won't last into his 30s, must be evil gaslighting at play. The advances of modern medicine were obviously underestimated at the time. Yet another of the myriad talents of The Nadal, being born at just the right time so he gets to stack up the best possible goat case for himself. If he were born earlier, less advanced medicine and tech (less crazy topspin, for one) and more fast courts could severely dent his success. If he were born later, he would've missed prime Federer altogether so no H2H argument could be found then. If he were born even later, he would've faced only this mug era of lulz gens so how his ability compares to prior greats would've forever remained debatable. But of course everything goes the right way for him as usual.
Indeed, even injuries boost Nadal's stature perhaps more than their absence even, since his fans get to claim endless hypothetical titles in earnest if only Superdal were fit. I imagine, for instance, that Nadal would've gotten quite a bit more hypothetical credit - and Djokovic a lot less - had the AO 2011 injury been something serious enough to put him out for much of the year instead of him making all those finals only to lose to Joe. But that was just a one-off, for otherwise Nadal has done exceptionally well with regards to being sufficiently healthy exactly when he stands a good chance to win, yet not healthy or fit enough when he does not. 'Not fit enough' is important too, as we know; observing that Nadal lacked some fitness at AO 19/21 is factual and therefore valid, and it does even make sense to say he hadn't yet sufficiently recovered from the 2018 injury at 19 AO or that he was adversely affected by the pandemug regime in 2020, but I trust you know deep in your heart that such observations are fundamentally morally correct and acceptable only when The Nadal is involved, no? The old adage about Nadal being the moral winner of every event since the dawn of time is true after all.
I mean, obviously recurring injuries provide an endless supply of possible hypotheticals that essentially discredit any other player. If other players performed better than Nadal at a specific venue or in specific conditions, rest assured it might very well have been squarely due to poor Rafa being injured or otherwise not fully fit for reasons, because who's to say a hypothetical perfectly healthy Superdal wouldn't have dominated the entire tour at any time and space with his altogether superior game? Who's to say hypothetical Nadal doesn't have the best game on any kind of court? Who's to say he doesn't have the prowess to produce the best serve (technique-wise), return, forehand, backhand, slice, dropshot, volley, lob and what-have-you of all time bar none and was robbed of the ultimate supremacy by physical issues he had no control over that prevented him from being able to showcase the fullest extent of his unrivalled talent? Not like there's any objective argument to stop anyone from doing just that (and you from cheering them on even if you would smartly refrain from being that assertive personally), is there? (you already remark we may have missed Nadal's best tennis i.e. injuries may have prevented him from achieving his full potential peak which therefore remains hypothetically arguable) so all that's left are flimsy appeals to decency.
But of course, injuries are largely if not completely out of Nadal's control while ability and focus are fully controlled by the player therefore any struggles on the latter front represent a personal failure to a much bigger degree than the former which barely reflects on the player/person at all, if not positively by virtue of having them suffer, which is very moral and empathy-inducing. Naturally, this is just another area of Nadal supremacy: not only is he a fundamentally better, more skilled player possibly in every single respect if one hypothetises perfect health, but also the superior human by virtue of being the clutchest, humblest, fairest and everything else...
I am envisioning a reality where Nadal is massively considered supreme in every respect, hypothetical/moral argumentation included, and no one else is thus seen as deserving but a smidgen of the greatness, respect, admiration and any other positive emotion or thought that he commands on court and off court in his supreme glory. This one isn't an impossible hypothetical; it's something that's gearing to happen in this very timeline, your "ilk" are the harbingers of it and you appear to be happily enjoying that. I don't believe you have any love for any other tennis player like you have for Nadal, in spades. If this becomes the norm, not being a Nadal fan would be the mark of lowly creatures averting their minds from the moral truth of it all. Something the faux elitist fedophiles were supposed to be, and perhaps many were, but now they have fallen while you're here forever. Enter the fallen citadel, help yourself to the spoils of victory, have your way with the locals... the world is your oyster, no? Indeed.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Strange, right?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
19. Nadal was 19 in late 2005 when the foot problem first surfaced as a threat to his tennis career. Only now is it getting as bad as they feared back then.
Bud
Bionic Poster
Save the novel for a bookstore
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Where is that mentioned in the thread title? (Answer: nowhere). Nadal does not have greater longevity than Federer.
Period.
Arguing that he does and adding puerile enhancements to the word "longevity" to suit your agenda is ridiculous.
So Feli Lopez has better longevity than Fed?
aman92
Legend
Do I have to put everything in the thread title. Do you understand the concept of the OP? Trying to argue your flimsy argument through pure semantics.....by your flimsy logic Fed, not playing for nearly 2 years and still officially not being retired is somehow adding to his 'longevity'.
Last edited:
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
Pretty epic post
Indeed it's hard to reconcile an almost unprecedented myriad of physical/athletic problems (to the extent that most people/media outlets/fans would show aforementioned concerns almost exclusively towards Humblito) with unprecedented physical/athletic success. It's rather an obnoxious 'pick both' situation. Usually when injuries etc. are lamented ad nauseum, it begins to grate and is somewhat lampooned by all parties (e.g. 'Glassikori') but when the wins keep coming, bizarrely it's given the benefit of the doubt ad infinitum (though not particularly bizarre, since it obviously tells a more heartwarming story (at one's discretion and to one's taste, of course)).
SeeItHitIt
Professional
Funny title. One word answer: Juicer.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
False, false and false.
Don't mislead readers, Mike, if you don't make many believe in fake news.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
lol
Quoted for truth, mainly the bolded, which is already occurring.
Last edited:
victorcruz
Hall of Fame
So much hostility in this thread lol. You love to see it.
Except, I don't.
Except, I don't.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Oh? Any stats on this?
Matches that Nadal has retired from in a major, I can think of three altogether, the Australian Open quarter final matches in 2010 and 2018 against Murray and Cilic respectively. and his US Open semi final against Del Potro in 2018. Nadal withdrew from the 2016 French Open during the tournament with a wrist injury, giving a walkover to Granollers. I can think of more matches in majors off the top of my head where Nadal was hampered with injury and carried on playing until the end. I can think of Djokovic retiring in more matches at the majors. Djokovic retired in matches against Coria at the 2005 French Open, against Nadal at the 2006 French Open, against Nadal at 2007 Wimbledon, against Roddick at the 2009 Australian Open, against Berdych at 2017 Wimbledon, and against Wawrinka at the 2019 US Open, so your statement about match retirements in majors was false Mike.
As for majors that Nadal has missed, they are all below.
2003 French Open (elbow injury)
2004 French Open (ankle stress fracture)
2004 Wimbledon (ankle stress fracture)
2006 Australian Open (foot injury)
2009 Wimbledon (knee tendinitis)
2012 US Open (knee injury)
2013 Australian Open (stomach bug)
2014 US Open (wrist injury)
2016 Wimbledon (wrist injury)
2020 US Open (decided not to travel to New York during the Covid-19 pandemic when the 2020 French Open was soon after)
2021 Wimbledon (foot injury)
2021 US Open (foot injury)
Last edited:
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal beat Federer at Wimbledon on his 'asleep' foot, said Uncle Toni in a recent interview.
vernonbc
Legend
Doesn't matter that Fed hasn't played for nearly 2 years, the ranking system is so screwed it allowed him to carry old points so that he is still to this day ranked #50 and seven months ago was still ranked in the Top 10. That's why it's so laughable when the Djokovic fans carry on so much about him being #1 for so many weeks when it's so obvious the rankings are completely distorted.
ADuck
Legend
The people who were saying he would burn out by 25 were mostly not his fans, so again, who were the ones exaggerating? The long-term effects of his injuries were exaggerated by them, whilst the short-term ones were always under-exaggerated. This is likely because you always had it in your mind that his playing style is mainly what led to his injuries, but that was never the whole story. Throughout his career Nadal and his team have been in a constant process of finding the optimal way of shaping his sole so that it would not lead to injuries in other parts of his body, which has obviously been a lot of trial and error on their part. If that were not the case, and it was just that his playing style alone was resulting in these injuries, Nadal would have retired a lot sooner and attributing a mere 5 years advancement in "modern medicine" as being responsible for him playing 11 years past his expiration date so far is just lolworthy. It's easy to see how you guys made this mistake because you started with the wrong assumptions. But sure, go blame Nadal for your mistake.
Bemoaning that other players have suffered aswell and more, therefore we shouldn't bother arguing that Nadal's injuries affected his career, in case we discredit other players, even when it's entirely relevant to argue, is gaslighting. I can understand you being upset about this if people are saying this day in and day out on the forum without any sort of instigation from an opposing party, but that simply isn't the case. I already acknowledge other players have had far worse luck with injuries than Nadal, but that doesn't mean we should be unable to talk about Nadal's injuries in their own right. Seems like you lack the ability to look at things from the other persons view.
False dichotomy mixed with strawman, very disgusting lol.
First, when did I make the argument that Nadal would have completely dominated the tour without his injuries? If you want more evidence that you guys are masters of exaggeration, look no further than here lol.
Second, you are acting as though the only options are:
1. Nadal's injuries didn't affect him that much, they just stopped him from winning a couple matches here and there.
2. Nadal's injuries stopped him from completely dominating the tour.
When we both know there is a lot of room for more options between these two things.
Black and white thinking so you don't have to deal with the murky grey.
Lol. No real argument to be found here, so I can't give a real response. All i can say is that's a lot of effort put into this man.. it's really not healthy.
Taking my reasonable point of view about something and exaggerating it to the millionth power.
It's funny to think you were holding in all these feelings just from this post:
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
People of varying persusasions supposed Nadal would not last. Different reasons, presumably. No shortage of players who had their top careers cut short abruptly due to debilitating injuries including knee injuries. It wasn't clear then that hypermodern medicine would make playing well into your 30s relatively common, no matter the injuries.
You didn't make quite that exact argument yet, but you could, or another would do it and you would let it slide as perfectly acceptable - which is exactly why this line of reasoning is not. Ultimately this opens a bottomless pit of hypothetical credit to be granted for Nadal "if only he were perfectly healthy and fit", to the point that any argument is pointless. Of course "all you can say" about that is "it's not healthy". Feels comfy to bask in relishing Nadal's utter supremacy while not admitting you do, hmm. All you can say is deny but how can I tell? Superdal and the pesky fraudsters, episode XX.
Was obviously just a trigger/pretext to dump it out, I've a good concept of the attitude behind those words.
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
It seems camp Nadal really has pulled the wool, though one will of course be more susceptable to such mirages when hankering for success beyond success. I really do wish the juxtapositon between output and return wasn't quite as comical as it has been of late; it would temper a lot of the more wild extrapolations and gaslighting regarding the reanimated corpse; some would persist but in remorse rather than through ill-concealed sh1t-eating grins. A more tolerable situation for sure.
intrepidish
Hall of Fame
It's rather amusing to see the usual coterie of fans of a player who was once described by his admirers in terms reserved for religious experiences and next to whom all others were deemed bit players now waxing poetic about the evils of a world in which one or possibly two of his rivals might be regarded just as highly by others.
Rafa4LifeEver
G.O.A.T.
RaulRamirez
Legend
A Gentleman's Disagreement ?Now I disagree with my own statement, people.
Similar threads
- Poll
