How has Nadal's injuries inflated his nearest competitors' careers?

veroniquem said:

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.

Click to expand...

My point is despite all you say above, Murray is NOT a HC specialist. He has a game that translates well to grass.

That is like saying despite his Wimbledon titles, Nadal is a Clay specialist, since his resume his heavily clay loaded. That would be an insult to Nadal, who has a great game that translates very well onto grass courts, he has been outright the second best on the surface during his era, and his game translates exceptionally well onto slow HC also.

I don't see why you think that these top players are surface specialists. They have great games that can yield fantastic results on all surfaces, with Murray having less success on clay as the sole exception.

Forget about "specialists". Once again it really doesn't matter. They got their best results on hard (that's a fact especially for Murray) and proportionally to those overall results, they fared badly vs Rafa. That's the only point I'm making.

veroniquem said:

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.

Click to expand...

You completely ignore Murray has beaten Nadal at the USO and AO. Now that he won the USO, Wimbledon finalist and Olympic gold, he has built that confident/belief that he can win the big one. I just don't see how you can write him off just because of the h2h. He's not getting older, past him prime like Federer but only 26 who's been progressing since having Lendl on his side.

I'm not Murray fan but can't stand the hate he's getting.

veroniquem said:

Forget about "specialists". Once again it really doesn't matter. They got their best results on hard (that's a fact especially for Murray) and proportionally to those overall results, they fared badly vs Rafa. That's the only point I'm making.

Click to expand...

I know the point you are making, I am not calling you out for that.

Just calling Federer, Nadal, Murray and even Djokovic 'specialists' is an insult to the four of them.

TMF said:

You completely ignore Murray has beaten Nadal at the USO and AO. Now that he won the USO, Wimbledon finalist and Olympic gold, he has built that confident/belief that he can win the big one. I just don't see how you can write him off just because of the h2h. He's not getting older, past him prime like Federer but only 26 who's been progressing since having Lendl on his side.

.

Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm only saying that despite having won more titles on hard court, more masters on hard, and played more slam finals on hard, Murray doesn't have a winning head to head vs Rafa . Which means, he hasn't fared vs Rafa as well as his records could have led us to expect. And obviously it is even more true of Fed.

abmk said:

murray did beat him @ AO 2010. he was playing very well in AO 2012 and stretched djokovic to the limit fighting all the way. Why on earth wouldn't he have a decent shot vs nadal then ?

federer was playing better than nadal @ USO 2011.

nadal had to struggle like hell to get a set vs djokovic. federer was up 2 sets to love vs him and had MPs. This was with djokovic playing better in the semi ( especially serving ) - both djokovic and nadal weren't serving well at all in the final

even the matchup angle doesn't account for that big a difference in the scorelines. federer was clearly playing better than nadal was ...

federer in USO 2011 was playing pretty well , would have a pretty good chance vs nadal ...

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean anything.

Nadal would be a LOT more confident against Federer for one, and the other thing is there's no guarantee Fed would've kept up his level for the final.

Look at 09 USO, you yourself have admitted that Fed played worse in the final than the sf. In 07 USO you also admit that Fed played worse in the final than the qf...

Look at RG11, Fed was in better form than Nadal, but what happened in the final?

As for Murray beating Nadal, well that's possible, but I doubt it would've happened in 2012. Nadal owned Murray in 2011 USO, in fact he beat Murray in RG11, WIM11 and USO11, yet for some reason you think Muzza would've beat Rafa in AO12. Wishful thinking.

Tsonga beat Nadal in a WIM final? Possibly, but I doubt Tsonga would bring his A game in such a big final, especially when the grass is worn, Rafa would be the heavy favourite.

TMF said:

You completely ignore Murray has beaten Nadal at the USO and AO. Now that he won the USO, Wimbledon finalist and Olympic gold, he has built that confident/belief that he can win the big one. I just don't see how you can write him off just because of the h2h. He's not getting older, past him prime like Federer but only 26 who's been progressing since having Lendl on his side.

I'm not Murray fan but can't stand the hate he's getting.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree he's definitely getting younger...

The_Order said:

That doesn't mean anything.

Nadal would be a LOT more confident against Federer for one, and the other thing is there's no guarantee Fed would've kept up his level for the final.

Look at 09 USO, you yourself have admitted that Fed played worse in the final than the sf. In 07 USO you also admit that Fed played worse in the final than the qf...

Look at RG11, Fed was in better form than Nadal, but what happened in the final?

As for Murray beating Nadal, well that's possible, but I doubt it would've happened in 2012. Nadal owned Murray in 2011 USO, in fact he beat Murray in RG11, WIM11 and USO11, yet for some reason you think Muzza would've beat Rafa in AO12. Wishful thinking.

Tsonga beat Nadal in a WIM final? Possibly, but I doubt Tsonga would bring his A game in such a big final, especially when the grass is worn, Rafa would be the heavy favourite.

Click to expand...

Goat of hypotheticals.

Injuries are part of the game.

How has Federers never quitting a match and 53 majors appearance streak deflated his nearest competitors careers?

FlashFlare11 said:

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.

Click to expand...

If you want to start your own thread with an inverse hypothetical, then do so. However, I don't think that thread would have near as much relevance! Nadal has been injured far more than the other members of the Big 4, and thus any possible impact of Nadal's injuries is far greater than that of the others...

Let's dedicate this thread to John Lennon

DRII said:

Imagine if Nadal had the health and longevity of Federer; how would Federer's, Nole's, and Murray's record have been further affected (particularly in slam and master's titles)?

Click to expand...

Imagine if Tsonga didn;t have injuries and he actually had some dedication and trained hard.

Imagine if Monfils wasn;t a clown. Imagine if Tomic wasn't a brat. Imagine if Glubis did not party all night.

Imagine if Murray actually believed in himself.

Imagine if Roger did not have a mental block against Nadal.

Imagine if Roger had a double-handed backhand when he played Nadal. Imagine if Roger had Nole's backhand when he played Nadal.

Imagine if NOLE had known several years back that he had a gluten deficiency. Where would Nadal be ????

Sentinel said:

Imagine if Tsonga didn;t have injuries and he actually had some dedication and trained hard.

Imagine if Monfils wasn;t a clown. Imagine if Tomic wasn't a brat. Imagine if Glubis did not party all night.

Imagine if Murray actually believed in himself.

Imagine if Roger did not have a mental block against Nadal.

Imagine if Roger had a double-handed backhand when he played Nadal. Imagine if Roger had Nole's backhand when he played Nadal.

Imagine if NOLE had known several years back that he had a gluten deficiency. Where would Nadal be ????

Click to expand...

silly retort!

injuries are a tangible occurence and their effect is wholly evident! not some nebulous criteria you just posted!

Sentinel said:

Imagine if Tsonga didn;t have injuries and he actually had some dedication and trained hard.

Imagine if Monfils wasn;t a clown. Imagine if Tomic wasn't a brat. Imagine if Glubis did not party all night.

Imagine if Murray actually believed in himself.

Imagine if Roger did not have a mental block against Nadal.

Imagine if Roger had a double-handed backhand when he played Nadal. Imagine if Roger had Nole's backhand when he played Nadal.

Imagine if NOLE had known several years back that he had a gluten deficiency. Where would Nadal be ????

Click to expand...

Take all your if and butts and put them in one hand.

Then crap in the other hand.

Tell me which one fills up first.

90's Clay said:

If Nadal wasn't injury prone then he would probably would have broken the slam record before Fed did

What Hurt Nadal the most is he got injured during what should have been the PEAK of his career. The way he was playing from 2008-2010, barring injury he would have won 90-95 percent of those slams.

2011 he started on a downhill turn (level wise) probably which the injuries precipitated. He was never the same after 2010

Getting hurt during the peak of your career is a major hit. Imagine if Fed suffered injury during the 2005-2007 seasons. He would be wayy off the 17 slam mark right now.

Nadal's prime should have been 2008-2012 but he was taken out by injuries twice

Click to expand...

We're talking 12 slams and he would have won 90-95 percent of them? In case you don't know, that means 11 slams, including two CYGS.
Was he injured at the Australian Open 2008, when Tsonga blasted him off court? (6-2, 6-2, 6-2 as far as I recall). I guess not. So he would have won the next 11 straight slams??? Wow. Just wow.

So a few weeks off the tour in 2009 (French Open to NA HC season) meant his peak was stunned after 2010 rather than after 2012?

1. Let's not forget, he was actually playing two warm up matches prior to Wimbledon and decided not to play only after the (tough) draw came out. He was effectively only out for one tournament and was almost gonna play it. The rest of his injuries that season were all fairly minor and something all players struggle with from time to time.

2. The only evidence of Nadal playing worse in 2011 than in 2010 is Djokovic. No Djokovic, Nadal wins as much (possible more) than in 2010. He certainly made a lot of finals (10).

3. Nadal felt he was playing better than ever in 2012 and stats support than he indeed had his greatest clay season in terms of dominance.

4. Clearly, he's nowhere done yet. This seven month injury break (including a three month training block on the court from November onwards) has imo served to rejuvenate him and may allow him to remain longer at the top. Obviously, we can never really tell the effect, but he does seem pretty close to his normal standards (six finals, 4 wins - best start of a season ever for him).

Rod Laver's success is inflated because Nadal wasn't born yet.

DRII said:

silly retort!

injuries are a tangible occurence and their effect is wholly evident! not some nebulous criteria you just posted!

Click to expand...

No it's not. We can never know whether Nadal had won tournament X had he participated/not been bothered by some injury issue.
All we can say is, he would have had a better chance.

Chanwan said:

2. The only evidence of Nadal playing worse in 2011 than in 2010 is Djokovic. No Djokovic, Nadal wins as much (possible more) than in 2010. He certainly made a lot of finals (10).

3. Nadal felt he was playing better than ever in 2012 and stats support than he indeed had his greatest clay season in terms of dominance.

).

Click to expand...

I've been trying to drive that point through for ages. Rafa's finals per season:
2004: 2
2005: 12
2006: 6
2007: 9
2008: 10
2009: 8
2010: 9
2011: 10
2012: 5 (but he only played half the season)
2013: 6 (and we have hardly started clay season...)

So, his 3 peak years in terms of finals are 2005, 2008 and 2011. In 2011, Rafa was fresh from winning 3 consecutive slams and he was playing at his highest level. The only thing that happened that year is that he hit a wall in the person of Djokovic (he and everyone else for that matter). Rafa made 3 consecutive slam finals in 2011, exactly like 2010. Without Djoko he would have repeated his 2010 perf. I'm tired of dealing with clowns claiming that 2006 was Rafa's peak when it was the absolute low point of his career by any standard.
I should add that 2010 and 2011 are the only seasons when Rafa made 3 slam finals.

veroniquem said:

I've been trying to drive that point through for ages. Rafa's finals per season:
2004: 2
2005: 12
2006: 6
2007: 9
2008: 10
2009: 8
2010: 9
2011: 10
2012: 5 (but he only played half the season)
2013: 6 (and we have hardly started clay season...)

So, his 3 peak years in terms of finals are 2005, 2008 and 2011. In 2011, Rafa was fresh from winning 3 consecutive slams and he was playing at his highest level. The only thing that happened that year is that he hit a wall in the person of Djokovic (he and everyone else for that matter). Rafa made 3 consecutive slam finals in 2011, exactly like 2010. Without Djoko he would have repeated his 2010 perf. I'm tired of dealing with clowns claiming that 2006 was Rafa's peak when it was the absolute low point of his career by any standard.
I should add that 2010 and 2011 are the only seasons when Rafa made 3 slam finals.

Click to expand...

Exactly, I should modify a bit though. He might have won three slams, we cannot know, but he would have been in a good position to do so.

The only slam that he missed that he would have been a favorite for is Wimbledon 09.

DRII said:

silly retort!

injuries are a tangible occurence and their effect is wholly evident! not some nebulous criteria you just posted!

Click to expand...

It's still impossible to come to any useful conclusions about how someone would have done if not injured.

Sentinel said:

Imagine if Tsonga didn;t have injuries and he actually had some dedication and trained hard.

Imagine if Monfils wasn;t a clown. Imagine if Tomic wasn't a brat. Imagine if Glubis did not party all night.

Imagine if Murray actually believed in himself.

Imagine if Roger did not have a mental block against Nadal.

Imagine if Roger had a double-handed backhand when he played Nadal. Imagine if Roger had Nole's backhand when he played Nadal.

Imagine if NOLE had known several years back that he had a gluten deficiency. Where would Nadal be ????

Click to expand...

Beat me to it, that too in the inimitable Senti-style