This MIGHT sound stupid but is it possible...Nadal MIGHT be a transitional champion?

Mike Sams · Dec 22, 2011

Between the fading great Sampras and the arrival of Federer, Lleyton Hewitt was having his day. When Federer came to prime, Hewitt's time was over. Hewitt was generally regarded as the transitional champ, basically picking up his titles until the next great player came along.

When Federer became older and suffered mono in early 2008, he began losing to many different players whom he seldom lost to before (Fish, Blake, Roddick, Stepanek, Karlovic, etc). It took Nadal several years to finally move ahead of what seemed like a declining and shaky Federer.

Now a few years later, Djokovic has entered his prime and is taking titles off of Nadal.

If 2012 is anything close to 2011, is it quite possible that Nadal was merely a transitional champ even despite his 10 Slam wins (6 on clay)? Did Nadal have to wait for Federer to decline in order to begin getting Slams on other surfaces and now struggles to win anything off clay as Djokovic seems to be taking them all?

Was Nadal only able to get Slams on the other surfaces between the time of the fading of Federer and the arrival of prime Djokovic?

If Djokovic continues to win Slams, does that not make Nadal a transitional champion who took his non-clay titles because of a few years drought where there wasn't another great player to challenge him? Maybe 2012 will tell us the whole story.

Just something to think about...

celoft · Dec 22, 2011

If Djokovic dominates like Sampras and Federer and wins 14-16 slams, then yup. Nadal was the transitional champ between two GOATs(Fed and Nole).

AM95 · Dec 22, 2011

^this.

10transitions

tacou · Dec 22, 2011

Nadal is already regarded as one of the greatest to play the sport so no

Towser83 · Dec 22, 2011

It's too early to call it a Djokovic era. Also if you're saying he might be a transitional DOMINATOR as in all surfaces, then maybe, we'll see. But he stil ruled RG from 2005 til now and counting so he's unlike a Hewitt who couldn't rule anywhere with a prime Sampras or Federer around. Nadal can't really be compared with him because he was always the guy to beat at RG.

niff · Dec 22, 2011

This counts as a Nadal/Djokovic thread, ahem.

svijk · Dec 22, 2011

will have to wait until Djokovic wins at least 11 slams, lets bring back this thread then.......or if Nadal wins another slam, we can file this under 'stupid threads'

Mike Sams · Dec 22, 2011

niff said:
This counts as a Nadal/Djokovic thread, ahem.

sorry

niff · Dec 22, 2011

Mike Sams said:
sorry

Well since it's christmas... <3

DjokovicForTheWin · Dec 22, 2011

Even I would say no to this. Nadal has won 10 slams. More than most other fully fledged champs from the past. So no.

DeShaun · Dec 22, 2011

I am put off by Nadal's game but transitional champs don't win double digit slams

Towser83 · Dec 22, 2011

DjokovicForTheWin said:
Even I would say no to this. Nadal has won 10 slams. More than most other fully fledged champs from the past. So no.

Exactly. And DFTW just said that. Wow... haha.

Mike Sams · Dec 22, 2011

DeShaun said:
I am put off by Nadal's game but transitional champs don't win double digit slams

More than half of his Slams on 1 surface. And the other 2 Slams against a fading legend (Federer in his decline at Wimby 2008 and AO 2009). And the other 2 against junk competition (Wimby 2010) and a baby Djokovic who was about to enter his prime (USO 2010).

CMM · Dec 22, 2011

This thread is funny but I still prefer the one from MTF called

"Will Nadal go down as the ultimate example of a 10 slam wonder?"

zagor · Dec 22, 2011

Mike Sams said:
Between the fading great Sampras and the arrival of Federer, Lleyton Hewitt was having his day. When Federer came to prime, Hewitt's time was over. Hewitt was generally regarded as the transitional champ, basically picking up his titles until the next great player came along.

When Federer became older and suffered mono in early 2008, he began losing to many different players whom he seldom lost to before (Fish, Blake, Roddick, Stepanek, Karlovic, etc). It took Nadal several years to finally move ahead of what seemed like a declining and shaky Federer.

Now a few years later, Djokovic has entered his prime and is taking titles off of Nadal.

If 2012 is anything close to 2011, is it quite possible that Nadal was merely a transitional champ even despite his 10 Slam wins (6 on clay)? Did Nadal have to wait for Federer to decline in order to begin getting Slams on other surfaces and now struggles to win anything off clay as Djokovic seems to be taking them all?

Was Nadal only able to get Slams on the other surfaces between the time of the fading of Federer and the arrival of prime Djokovic?

If Djokovic continues to win Slams, does that not make Nadal a transitional champion who took his non-clay titles because of a few years drought where there wasn't another great player to challenge him? Maybe 2012 will tell us the whole story.

Just something to think about...

What the heck!?! That's my line

DeShaun · Dec 22, 2011

Mike Sams said:
More than half of his Slams on 1 surface. And the other 2 Slams against a fading legend (Federer in his decline at Wimby 2008 and AO 2009). And the other 2 against junk competition (Wimby 2010) and a baby Djokovic who was about to enter his prime (USO 2010).

Double digits is a lot of slams bro, plus his consistency with master shields. It's not like he simply got lucky a few times. . .he's been banging hard for these titles for a long time; and I guess that don't regard him as some transitional champ, that's all. Cheers

mattennis · Dec 22, 2011

Even if Nadal doesn't win any additional GS, he is in the top-10 of the Open Era (achievementwise). You cannot compare him to Hewitt or Kuerten.

And who cares that 6 out of 10 were on clay?

7 out of 14 of Sampras's were on grass.
9 out of 16 of Federer's were on hardcourts.
6 out of 11 of Borg's were on clay.
6 out of 8 of Agassi's were on hardcourts.
5 out of 8 of Lendl's were on hardcourts.
4 out of 6 of Edberg's were on grass.
7 out of 7 of Newcombe's were on grass.

sureshs · Dec 22, 2011

Nadal thrived in the weak era of Federer.

FlashFlare11 · Dec 22, 2011

10 slams is a lot to be called a "transitional champion." Even if he hit his prime with a prime Federer, he would still most likely have 6-7 slams. I don't know what would have happened if Djokovic peaked earlier, but Nadal is still one of the greats. We can still argue about where exactly among the greats Nadal has earned his place, but we can be sure he is there.

10 is just too great a number to be called a transitional champion. Sorry, but I have to disagree with you, Mike.

j00dypoo · Dec 22, 2011

transitional champs win a few majors... nadal has won 10. And he's still ranked #2.

namelessone · Dec 22, 2011

Transitional champs win 2-3 slams(or less) in between eras of greater champions that dominate.

Nadal won 10 SLAMS and had two year end nr.1 finishes(and if he managed his 2009 better it could have been three).

Djokovic would have to dominate like Federer and win another 7 slams at least in the next 2-3 years to make Nadal a transitional champ.

If Nadal with his 10 slams would sit between a guy with 16 and another 12-13 slams(or more), then maybe he would be a transitional champ.

DjokovicForTheWin · Dec 22, 2011

Defining transitional champs as winning 2-3 slams is just as stupid as calling Nadal a transitional champ.

ledwix · Dec 22, 2011

Nadal won majors from 2005-2011 and counting. Every player has a prime, since that's just life for you. Since he won 10 majors, it would be wrong to compare him to Hewitt, who won just 2 majors.

Djokovic would be very lucky to reach 10 slams. He already had to get very lucky to win the US Open this year, having been down double-match point and receiving two first serves.

namelessone · Dec 22, 2011

DjokovicForTheWin said:
Defining transitional champs as winning 2-3 slams is just as stupid as calling Nadal a transitional champ.

Read further on, I said winning 2-3 slams in between periods of guys that dominate the game.

Biscuitmcgriddleson · Dec 22, 2011

sureshs said:
Nadal thrived in the weak era of Federer.

yea thrived so well to never defend a non clay title. Face it SUREHS, yo boy is a bustaaaaaaa

dh003i · Dec 22, 2011

Ridiculous argument.

Subventricular Zone · Dec 22, 2011

OP: It doesn't just sound stupid. It IS stupid.

How many Open Era greats other than Nadal have won double digits in majors? Right, a grand total of 3. Are you saying that Connors, Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl, etc. were chumps?

McEnroe beat Borg in 3 straight slams before Bjorn retired...is 7-slammer McEnroe considered better than Borg with 11 major wins? No.

Like it or not, Nadal, even if he retires right now, is an all-time great, top 5 in the Open Era, top 10 or so of all time. He is also one if not the greatest clay courter of all time. A 10 slam winner will never be considered a transitional champion except in mind of the delusional.

Whatever he has accomplished, he has accomplished already. Let Djokovic accumulate his own titles first before proclaiming him as the next big double digit slam winner. And whatever Djokovic accomplishes in the end, it in no way diminishes what Nadal has already done.

And comparing 2-slam wonder Hewitt with Nadal is certainly laughable if not outright outrageous.

Terre Battu · Dec 22, 2011

I think Hingis is a true transitional champ not Nadal.

passive_aggressive · Dec 22, 2011

CMM said:
This thread is funny but I still prefer the one from MTF called

"Will Nadal go down as the ultimate example of a 10 slam wonder?"

Nadal is the ultimate example of a 10-time one-slam-wonder.

Clarky21 · Dec 22, 2011

What a dumb thread. If anyone is a transitional champion it's Cvac.

Deleted member 77403 · Dec 22, 2011

I think there are many past multi slam winning greats that would love to have the resume of this 'Transitional Champion'. Career Slam, record tie for most FOs, record for most MS, two years world number one, Olympic singles gold, four Davis Cup wins. I guess if he is a Transitional Champion, then he would likely be the GOAT of Transitional Champions. LOL!

In all seriousness, Nadal is an all-time great even if he calls it a day today. He has contested 14 slam finals, including six on clay, five on grass and three on hardcourt.

Fredrik · Dec 22, 2011

I am sure some of you realize how bloody hard it must be to stay at the very top of tennis for such a long time.

Never mind who the player is and whether you´re a fan or not. The consistency, day in day out for years on end, displayed by the top players since 2003 is something we have not seen in previous eras.

Nadal has been in the top two since ´05. Fed´s domination was a display in skill and consistency that may go unrivaled in our lifetime.

In the past, most of the great players had their ups and downs and surprise exit from slams and big tournaments. These days, not so much. Fed lost to Canas in 2007 (or 8 ?) and it was news for weeks.

Tennis is an incredibly hard sport to dominate consistently. The mental demands to deliver the goods week in week out are extremely draining.

Use your heads, people, anyone who is able to stay at the top of tennis for more than 5 years can not in any way be called transitional.

Xizel · Dec 22, 2011

Djokovic won't even get 10 Slams.

MichaelNadal · Dec 22, 2011

DjokovicForTheWin said:
Even I would say no to this. Nadal has won 10 slams. More than most other fully fledged champs from the past. So no.

Seriously, this is a ridiculous thread. And Nadal was beating Federer even at slams long before he was "shaky and declining". A guy wins 10 slams over 6 years and is a transitional champion, unbelievable.

paulorenzo · Dec 22, 2011

10 majors in one helluva transition.

Sentinel · Dec 22, 2011

DjokovicForTheWin said:
Even I would say no to this. Nadal has won 10 slams. More than most other fully fledged champs from the past. So no.

Yes, but for a 10 slam winner to be spanked repeatedly by someone with only one slam (at the beginning of the year) on all surfaces (including his favorite one) while very much in his peak prime, with an age difference of only ONE year ...

... now that's food for thought. Maybe Nadal was not as great as we thought. Maybe we were wrong to put him the list of legends or greats.

For once sureshs is correct, Nadal won his slams when his competition was 5 years older. Now when someone of his age stands up to him, he withers and runs for cover.

2012 will tell us more.

sbengte · Dec 22, 2011

Sentinel said:
For once sureshs is correct, Nadal won his slams when his competition was 5 years older. Now when someone of his age stands up to him, he withers and runs for cover.

And moreover his 10 slams do not include the Real Slam, so sadly I have to agree with you and sureshs.

Polaris · Dec 22, 2011

Nope, I disagree. Nadal is not a transitional champion, but a champion who split the reins of power with Federer. "10 Slams" and "transitional champion" just do not go hand in hand.

One more thing: You're thinking about this way too much

.

helloworld · Dec 23, 2011

Djokovic wasted many of his prime years losing to Federer and Nadal. He still has 2-3 prime years left at most, but that's not enough to compare him to Federer or Sampras. I like Djokovic, but part of his legacy has been ruined by Nadal and Federer for many years.

Blinkism · Dec 23, 2011

I think this begs the question "Was Federer just a transitional champion between Hewitt and Nadal?"

Sentinel · Dec 23, 2011

helloworld said:
Djokovic wasted many of his prime years losing to Federer and Nadal. He still has 2-3 prime years left at most, but that's not enough to compare him to Federer or Sampras. I like Djokovic, but part of his legacy has been ruined by Nadal and Federer for many years.

Maybe it was ruined by gluten. Perhaps Zagor can throw some light on this. Then maybe Nadal wouldn't have even been a champion, let alone a transitional one.

Russeljones · Dec 23, 2011

10 grand slam titles *facepalm*

OP's posts are ridiculous as usual.

Bendex · Dec 23, 2011

If by "Champion" you mean #1 ranking, then yes, his time at #1 was very short. But clearly Nadal's level of play has gone down, he obviously has many niggling problems stopping him from training/playing like he used to. If he somehow pulls himself together, he will wipe the floor with Novak once again.

And they are all just filling space waiting for Tomic to peak, anyway.

helloworld · Dec 23, 2011

Bendex said:
If by "Champion" you mean #1 ranking, then yes, his time at #1 was very short. But clearly Nadal's level of play has gone down, he obviously has many niggling problems stopping him from training/playing like he used to. If he somehow pulls himself together, he will wipe the floor with Novak once again.

And they are all just filling space waiting for Tomic to peak, anyway.

Tomic has 2 more years to prove if he will be the one to dominate the next generation. If he doesn't make a major breakthrough in 2 years, he'll be the next Donald Young.

PSNELKE · Dec 23, 2011

This indeed sounds stupid, especially coming from a hater.

tusharlovesrafa · Dec 23, 2011

...[/QUOTE]

Between the fading great Laver and the arrival of Federer, PETE was having his day. When Federer came to prime, Pete's time was over. Pete was generally regarded as the transitional champ, basically picking up his titles until the next great player came along.

When Laver became older,he began losing to many different players whom he seldom lost to before . It took Pete several years to finally move ahead of what seemed like a declining and shaky Laver.

Now a few years later, Fedrer has entered his prime and is taking titles off of Pete.

Is it quite possible that Pete was merely a transitional champ even despite his 14 Slam wins (7 on Grass,no clay titles,dud!)? Did Pete have to wait for Laver to decline in order to begin getting Slams on other surfaces and now struggles to win anything off Grass and hard as Federer seems to be taking them all?

Was Pete only able to get Slams on the other surfaces between the time of the fading of Laver and the arrival of prime Freddy?

Does that not make Pete a transitional champion who took his titles because of a few years drought where there wasn't another great player to challenge him?

Just something to think about...

Wilander Fan · Dec 23, 2011

If Nadal gets shut down in slams going forward I would definitely say his legacy as an all time great would be in question. He would be an all time clay great but since the overwhelming number of GS titles he owns are clay people would be more dismissive of his belonging to the top echelon.

celoft · Dec 23, 2011

Wilander Fan said:
If Nadal gets shut down in slams going forward I would definitely say his legacy as an all time great would be in question. He would be an all time clay great but since the overwhelming number of GS titles he owns are clay people would be more dismissive of his belonging to the top echelon.

I concur.

Something more balanced like Borg's 6 slams on clay and 5 slams outside of clay is better.

mattennis · Dec 23, 2011

Pete waiting for Laver to decline?

Please, go back to your psychiatric hospital.

Why are there so many trolls/mentally disabled people around GPPD?

Dilettante · Dec 23, 2011

Y'all are transitional posters between Aykham Mammadov and me.

And about Nadal winning double digits... one of those two digits is zero and the other is one, so those are crappy digits and you must be kidding if you consider him an all time top 10.

This MIGHT sound stupid but is it possible...Nadal MIGHT be a transitional champion?

G.O.A.T.

celoft

Guest

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Legend

Banned

Hall of Fame

Legend

Professional

Legend

Rookie

Rookie

Banned

Banned

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Rookie

Professional

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Professional

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

celoft

Guest

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Similar threads