DRII
G.O.A.T.
your point is near moot, since Nadal has beaten all 3 other top players on their best surfaces (be it grass or HC) as well as on clay!
try again...
How has Nadal's injuries inflated his nearest competitors' careers?
- Thread starter DRII
- Start date
your point is near moot, since Nadal has beaten all 3 other top players on their best surfaces (be it grass or HC) as well as on clay!
try again...
I think Nadal's biggest problem isn't his style of play but his scheduling. It's not random chance that the two biggest injury lay-offs of his career happened around Wimbledon. (I know the foot problem in 2005 caused him to miss a good four months, but I would say it was less important than missing Wimbledon where he was defending champion even if it was a longer span of time.) He plays so much on clay. So many of his points come from clay that I think he feels he needs to play that much. He's got Monte-Carlo, Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, and the French Open with about two weeks rest, then Queens and Wimbledon right after. Any knee issues he has are simply compounded by his poor scheduling. If he skipped Barcelona or one of the clay Masters, he would get more rest, play fewer matches, have more time to train, etc. I'm not saying his knee issues are all his own fault by any means, but I thought, coming back this year after missing seven months, that he might try scheduling his clay season a little differently so as not to overplay.
NatF
Bionic Poster
How is it moot? Is Nadal the favorite against Djokovic on hardcourts?
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
DRII
G.O.A.T.
No, he's not the favorite, but he's beaten Nole on hard court multiple times. your point would be more salient if Nadal had never beaten Nole/Federer/Murray on their best surfaces, but he has multiple times and much more so than said group has beaten him on clay.
so basically you are saying Nadal is better on his least favorite surfaces than said group is on their least favorite. And/Or you're saying Nadal is head and shoulders above anyone else on his favorite surface much more so than said group is on theirs...
either way, its not near the most significant of points or arguments. Nadal has won the biggest tournaments, facing the highest competition, on all the surfaces...
1. Nadal must sacrifice his body to win those 11 slams, otherwise you either have a healthy Nadal with little success. Plus, his injuries are grossly exaggerated.
2. Injury is part of the sport so there's no luck. All players play with some pain, it's a matter of one's willing to play hurt(eg Roger in 2005 Master Cup)There are players that are the unfortunate one(eg Haas), far more worse than Nadal, but tough, such as life....
NatF
Bionic Poster
That's clearly true. No one denies that Nadal is a great player on hardcourts and even more so on grass but most of his head to head advantage is built up on clay. He's a better clay courter than Djokovic but Djokovic is better on hardcourts. That's what counts when they play eachother. Nadal's 12 - 3 advantage on clay won't help him at the USO or Cinncinati.
Like I said, it's a shallow and simplistic way to look at it.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
That is very true about Fed: Nadal has beaten him 6 times on hard while Fed has beaten him on clay only twice. Even more true about Murray: Nadal beat him 6 times on hard, Murray is 0-4 vs Nadal on clay. Things are a bit closer with Novak. 5 victories for Nadal on hard. 3 for Novak on clay.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
thats poppycock!
all the players play extremely physically now. don't blame Nadal that his highest intensity level is above the others!
and of course all the players play with some pain, what do you think Nadal is doing now
and while I agree that Nadal has not been unlucky as Haas, he certainly has suffered from 'unfortunate coincidence' far more so than Federer or Nole!
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Ahhh....
I think you misread what I said. I said that basically he missed one big event in 2009, that was Wimbledon, he didn't miss months and months, and it sometimes gets blown up to be. Because he lost early at RG, and didn't play W, it looks like he took a long time off. In reality, he basically skipped W, and possibly Queens. After W, all the top players take a month or so off anyway before Canada.
I don't see how that is trolling. I just said what amount of time he had off, and that he missed one big event, not multiple slams and masters events like 2012.
Most dominant on a localized playing turf, clay. But Djokovic and Federer had the most dominant seasons.
Clarky21
Banned
It's a joke to try and act as if clay doesn't count, which is exactly what you've just said in a nutshell. I have heard this same tired argument from your kind far too often, and it is always the same crap as before. Trying to spin it as if you are shedding light on something that has never seen light before is just bs.
I'll break it down for you: Clay counts just as much as any other surface. It is also easier for hard court specialists like Murray, Fed, and Djesus to dominate because more than 70% of the tour is made up of them. Nadal has done just fine when you consider how disproportionate the surfaces are on the tour, and that his least favorite surface makes up nearly every tournament out there. Nadal has also been far more dominant on his best surface than any of the other 3 have on theirs.
Last edited:
Talker
Hall of Fame
Not to mention back problems that he doesn't announce with a loud speaker.
Those may have cost him.
The mono took a lot out of him and hurt the training schedule for months on end.
It evens out. At the end it doesn't matter, only the records count.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Just like Lleyton Hewitt was slower in 2005.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Hewitt was slower after 2005. Hewitt was ranked at number 2 in the world for several months in 2005, but missed the last few months of the year due to injury. When he returned, he was slower and his timing seemed less crisp.
thats poppycock!
all the players play extremely physically now. don't blame Nadal that his highest intensity level is above the others!
and of course all the players play with some pain, what do you think Nadal is doing now
and while I agree that Nadal has not been unlucky as Haas, he certainly has suffered from 'unfortunate coincidence' far more so than Federer or Nole!
So we all agree that injuries is part of the sport then this thread is pointless. Every players has their own problem, some are even worse situation than Nadal. Who's blaming on Nadal? It's his choice to sacrifice his body for his success. The unlucky one are the one that has a freak accident(e.g. Blake broke his neck). Nadal is not unlucky.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Hewitt still had great footwork and gameplay post his first layoff in 2005. His level might have been even higher without anything happening to him.
The second half of 2005, yes, Hewitt was slower once the 2006 Australian Open started.
DeShaun
Banned
Rafa impresses but he is so off balance looking on so many of his gets that it cannot be good for his body to throw himself into semi-violently retrieving over such a wide area of court repeatedly when this clearly puts him in either lunging or off balance positions over and over but this is what he seems to have chosen for himself so I don't exactly pity him, but he impresses nonetheless for his resolve...but don't talk about "what if" (he hadn't developed injuries) because it seems to have been some kind of pact which he made from the very start to utilize his movement to the extreme, and it has paid him as handsomely as it has exacted its prefigured toll, in my view.
^^^ This.
As many have already said, almost everyone was predicting Nadal's style would lead to injury, but he and his team took a calculated risk. He's got some big prizes, but the cost may be retiring younger than some of his peers, but hopefully he will know to stop before he carries an injury that will have a considerable impact after he's retired.
Most players experience injury or ill health during their careers, and many of them will have played at least some tournaments while still recovering, giving their opponents an advantage.
As far as I'm aware, there was no underlying weakness in Nadal's knees. Just normal human knees that can only take so much. If you are going to play the "what if ..." game, you would do far better to wonder how Murray would be if he didn't have a bipartite patella. Unlike Nadal, he seems to have actually modified how he plays to stop that from becoming a much more serious problem, and is quite probably is a factor in him never quite getting the movement right on clay.
There is nothing special about Nadal's injuries compared with other players, except they are always used as an excuse for defeat.
You could extend this thinking to all players that retired when bad backs and aching joints became more trouble than it was worth. What if David Ferrer was 6"1' like Nadal? What if Nadal were right handed? What if Djokovic didn't need to wear contact lenses?
The reality is that all players have to make the most of the body and natural talents they are given. There is a certain amount of luck in how often, when and how badly you get sick and injured, but part of being a professional is managing that, and part of being on tour is accepting that you won't be able to play every tournament in peak physical health.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I guess you would know what bs is. How about you find a single quote of mine where I say clay doesn't count. Otherwise keep stum.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Amother interesting stat of Nadal on hard court is that he is 6-6 overall (6-5 if not counting the Miami walkover as a Murray win) vs Murray and 6-6 overall vs Fed. But he's 5-11 vs Djoko. Injury or not, the only one of the 3 who truly dominates Rafa on hard is Novak. It is quite conceivable that with fewer injury mishaps, Nadal would actually lead the head to head vs both Fed and Murray on hard.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Why would Nadal being injury free mean he would lead the head to head on hardcourts...Nadal has the benefit of playing most of his matches versus the other top 3 on clay or on high bouncing slow hardcourts which suite his game. If Nadal had met Federer twice at the USO or at Cincinati a couple of times the h2h on hards might look quite different.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Because if Nadal had played 2012 throughout (or 2009), it is conceiveble that he could have got a couple wins more over Fed or Murray. But even with the way it is, neither Fed nor Murray LEAD the head to head vs Rafa on hard, which is pretty funny when supposedly Rafa is such a clay mogul and Fed and Murray hard court specialists!!!
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Federer and Murray are not HC specialists. They are equally proficient on grass courts. And Nadal is no one dimensional clay courter, in fact before his clay court rise in 2005, he was lethal on HC with a much more attacking game. Look at that classic with Hewitt in AO 05 as an example.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Or he could have had a couple of losses? Nadal only missed a couple of months in 09 and it mostly the grass season. Nadal beating post prime Federer shows he's a better hardcourter peak for peak? lol. I've never said Rafa is a clay mogul either. Federer isn't a hardcourt specialist by any stretch either. His best surface is arguably grass at his peak. Likewise Murray is great on grass.
All those head to head wins on hard and it's still 9 > 2 to Federer in slam titles.
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
We can throw around "what ifs" all day long but I think that, to an extent, Nadal's injuries did benefit his closest competitors. That's common sense; they had one less threat to contend with.
What makes this a joke, though (and makes others hostile towards the OP's otherwise valid point), is that he does not allow the same "asterisk" to be levied against Nadal. In supposedly every victory Nadal's ever enjoyed against Djokovic, Federer, and Murray, the latter three have always played at or close to their best level whereas in Nadal's losses to those players Nadal was injured. You can go ahead and argue that Nadal's injuries have benefitted his opponents but you have to admit the same of the others' injuries as well.
What makes this a joke, though (and makes others hostile towards the OP's otherwise valid point), is that he does not allow the same "asterisk" to be levied against Nadal. In supposedly every victory Nadal's ever enjoyed against Djokovic, Federer, and Murray, the latter three have always played at or close to their best level whereas in Nadal's losses to those players Nadal was injured. You can go ahead and argue that Nadal's injuries have benefitted his opponents but you have to admit the same of the others' injuries as well.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
And they couldn"t have?
Do you realize how poor your arguments are?
It is not enough for the Nadal fanboys and fangirls that Nadal had the advantage to play two thirds of his matches against the said players on surfaces (clay and slow HC), that suit his game more, but now you are making far fetched assumptions.
So, how did the last two meetings between Murray and Nadal on HC ended, that you presume, that Nadal would have gained advantage on HC over him?
And LOL at the HC H2H between Nadal and Federer. I suppose, that if Nadal meets a 40 years old Federer in 8 years time he would even have the advantage.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Maybe but his best results are on hard by a landslide, which is why I'm calling him a hard court specialist.
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
Which of Federer's victories over Nadal would have been overturned had Nadal not been injured?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer, so it's only natural that he's going to be scoring more and more wins. Apart from 08 to early 09 their rivalry hasn't been nearly so one sided. 8-6 to Rafa and then 6 - 4 to Rafa. So I could easily say what if Federer never got mono and never had his training interrupted? Maybe his form wouldn't have collapsed so much and Nadal wouldn't have gained such a mental edge...
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Emphatic no. Murray at Wimbledon: 1 final, 0 win. In hard court slams: 4 finals, 1 win. Murray's titles on hard court: 22. Titles on grass: 3
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Fixed it for you.
There is no proof, that in any of their matches Nadal was injured.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Murray can only participate in basically 2 tournaments a year on grass...If grass was better represented his titles would be higher.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Nope. Lets agree to disgree. Murray has multiple semis and a final at Wimbledon. Several titles at Queens. And won Olympic Gold, beating the greatest grass court player of this generation. If the grass season was more extended, it is one month, he would certainly be winning more. He's only lost to Nadal and Federer, the top two grass court players of this era at Wimbledon since his rise, and an inspired Roddick, who is arguably the third best of the era. Saying Murray is just a HC specialist is wrong, he has game for grass.
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
Exactly. Going back over those six matches, the only one that I can remember where Nadal's fans vehemently screamed injury was the 2011 WTF RR match. But Nadal wasn't beating Federer there, injury or not.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Nonsense. Nadal made 5 Wimbledon finals and he's played as few grass events as Murray. If Murray can make hard court finals for 7+ seasons and multiple hard slam finals, there's no excuse for not doing it on grass (if it was true he was a grass court specialist, which is not the case.)
Federer would absolutely definitely not have won 3 slams in 2009. The worst tennis of his career. He lost tournament after tournament to Djoker and Murray where he hit 20+ backhand errors. Then in the summer Djoker and Murray didn't show up for the slams and Nadal was injured. There is absolutely no way Fed could have won those slams with Nadal around. Zero chance.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Lol who cares about semis? You want grass specialist stats? Fed: 8 W finals, Nadal: 5 W finals. If 1 W final makes Murray a grass specialist, then Djoko is even more of a grass specialist because he WON his 1 final. Several Queen's?? He won 2. A couple, not the same as several. Once again, you want specialists stats in 250 on grass? Take Fed, Hewitt or Roddick.
ETA: careful. I am not arguing Murray is bad on grass or won't be successful on grass in the future. What I'm arguing is that so far he's been a hard court specialist with almost all titles won and best results overall on hard.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nadal matured as a player alot earlier than Murray did. He didn't make his first hardcourt slam final until 2008, a year later is when he started making consistant semi's at Wimbledon. He went down to Nadal 2 years in a row in the semi's.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Well, he didn't win 3 slams in 2009. He got to four finals, but lost two of them.
That's because on his least favorite surfaces he doesn't show up enough or he is "injured".
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
I never called him a grass called specialist, I said he is not just a HC specialist, he is proficient on grass also. You are implying that he is a HC specialist. Tell me right now, don't you think Murray is a legitimate contender for Wimbledon this year?
Just because Federer and Nadal are better grass court players, that doesn't mean Murray doesn't have a game that translate well to grass, and doesn't give him sucess on grass. You have to be blind not to see he is very comfortable on the surface. I like Djokovic, but I give Murray a higher ranking ability wise on grass, that is my assessment.
sonicare
Hall of Fame
Nadal - davydenko Hard court H2H = 1 - 6
So if federer was lucky to avoid nadal in all those hard court majors, Nadal is even luckier to avoid Davydenko in HC majors. There is no indication that Nadal could beat davydenko on a HC. Nadal last beat davydenko on a HC in 2006 LMAO
Just saying.
So if federer was lucky to avoid nadal in all those hard court majors, Nadal is even luckier to avoid Davydenko in HC majors. There is no indication that Nadal could beat davydenko on a HC. Nadal last beat davydenko on a HC in 2006 LMAO
Just saying.
I think Murray has a shot to win Wimledon this year. He has come a long way, and this maybe his time. There's been many tough losses for him on hc slams, and he finally managed to win one last year. Why not grass too, since he proved himself last year that he was close in winning Wimbledon, and won the Olympics.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Completely agree.
After Federer, the reigning and defending Wimbledon champion, and possibly Nadal (since what happens at RG will give a big indication of what kind of Nadal shows up at W), Murray has got to be up there. He has grass court pedigree. Last year, Federer had to play sensational tennis to stop Murray's momentum before the rain. Of course after the rain, it was one way traffic, but quality was fantastic, since they brought so much variety to court, which grass court tennis can produce.
He certainly has a shot, so I don't understand why some think he is HC specialist.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
It doesn't matter at all. It was never my point to begin with. My point is: both Fed and Murray have had their best results on hard and neither is leading the head to head vs Nadal on hard (their results on grass is 100% irrelevant to that point and Murray has an even worse head to head vs Nadal on grass anyway!). Both Fed and Murray have fared strikingly poorly vs Rafa on hard, given their overall records on that surface. Djokovic is the only player who has managed to do well vs Nadal on his best surface. That's a tribute to Nadal's talent DESPITE the injuries.
Similar threads
