Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
I'm sure mandy didn't mind. Sometimes Nadal fans need constant repetition to understand, and sometimes even that doesn't work. :shock:
How many Grand slams has Nadal missed due to injuries ?
- Thread starter The Dark Knight
- Start date
I'm sure mandy didn't mind. Sometimes Nadal fans need constant repetition to understand, and sometimes even that doesn't work. :shock:
kragster
Hall of Fame
From 2000-2003 , Nadal missed a bunch of slams on account of the disease 'babyitis'. If you add those to the others, Nadal would be sitting on 23 slams at least. If you look at Rafa vs Federer matches in 2005, it was 1-1 each. But in 2004 , it was 1-0 to Rafa. It is only logical that if we extrapolate this all the way back to 2000, it would have been 5-0 Rafa.
Rafa is the only man in WORLD HISTORY to have missed so many slams that he was the favorite in. Fed should count his lucky stars.
Rafa is the only man in WORLD HISTORY to have missed so many slams that he was the favorite in. Fed should count his lucky stars.
Rock Strongo
Legend
Mats missed that accolade by a year. Unless.... MATS WILANDER AND STEFAN EDBERG IS THE SAME PLAYER:shock:
The Dark Knight
Legend
Good stat . I never thought of that .
The Dark Knight
Legend
Can you show me just one thread prior to Nadals AO victory that talks about the hard courts playing like clay?
serengetisunset
Rookie
None.
10 PRPs.
10 PRPs.
Last edited:
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
How's about hewitt pleading with AO organizers as early as 2004 begging them to speed up the courts?
Hewitt was vocal that if they wanted to see a native aussie win, they would do well to speed up the court
mellowyellow
Legend
On all 3 surfaces of clay? Also Excluding any titles on the blue clay....
The Dark Knight
Legend
Hewitt not TW.
Besides they speeded it up and still no complaints until afte Nadal won it.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Ah, don't expect the dark knight to know anything about tennis ..... like , for example, when was the first year, when the current AO surface was used ......
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
If you think they sped the courts up at any time at the AO since 2004, you should probably just leave the boards.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I have read some years ago that they were aiming at Medium to Medium-Fast speed, when they introduced the new surface.
What they achieved was a different story altogether.
Seeing Craig Tiley paying tribute to the tournament sponsors in a long speech, unfazed by the fact, that the two finalists were not able to stand on their feet tells me, that they are completely happy with the results.
Frankly, for me it was also one of the worst displays as to why the HCs should NEVER play the way they do at the AO.
EDIT: Australian Open Evens the Playing Surfaces
Last edited:
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
There a million other reasons why he should, but that one will suffice
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
The answer is all of them because he is never 100 percent healthy
The Dark Knight
Legend
find the answer on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics#Singles_performance_timeline
if you have any questions please search it on wiki pedia before posting here
if you have any questions please search it on wiki pedia before posting here
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
Why else would someone have such an unflattering pic of Nadal where he almost looks ill. Go figure.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I don't see the answer. Rebound ace was slower than the hard courts in place today .
Hewitt called it "green clay".....
But you all focus on the speed of the courts and do not account for why they were slowed down? The game is the same speed it always was.....
Back I'm the days of wood and early small graphite racquets and gut strings the surface needed to be faster. In fact Borg used a wood racquet to beat Lendl with a graphite one.
But then advances in racquet technology and polyester strings madr the game incredibly fast and was ruining the sport. Furthermore strokes changed for a continental to a semi western with laser like windshield wiper strokes.....these factors with a fast court made the game insanely fast.
In answer to this they slowed the courts and made the balls bigger.
So although today's game is much faster than the Borg McEnroe days ......it's not insanely fast as it was becoming.
With the advances made in racquet technology,strings and stroke production today there would be no rallies whatsoever if we went back to fast courts.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
They did?
Which Major was "ruined" by the said advances and why do you consider it ruined?
Please list your reasons for every Major.
Thanks!
P.S. Point at the year, after which you think a particlar Major was "ruined", so that we don't go here and there with our discussion.
Last edited:
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
What in the what??
The Dark Knight
Legend
Rebound ace was the surface before the current hard courts.
It was a rubberized surface the would melt and grip players feet causing injuries....
So they switched to hard courts using the same exact company that does the USO hard courts .
The Dark Knight
Legend
What am I writing an essay for school?
For me nothing was more boring than watching a match between Sampras and Goran.....serve -ace- serve - ace....or serve-horrible return- volley-......it was like watching paint dry.
Now since they have slowed down the courts we have seen some of the most exciting matches in history !!!
Nadal Federer 2007 OMG !!!
Nadal Federer 2008.....OMG !!
Federer - Roddick......OMG !!!!
Joker Nadal USO .....OMG
Federer joker USO...both finals ....OMG!!!
Some of the most exciting matches of all time ....in fact to me the most exciting matches of all time are as follows:
-Nadal Federer -2008
- Borg Mcenroe ( Borg wins )
- Nadal Federer - 2007
- Joker Nadal - USO
- the last Federer Roddick -USO
There would be more but Federer matches against guys like philopusis or Andre grandp Agassi were unbelievably boring die to a lack of competition .
Tennis_Hands
Banned
So, apart from a couple of OMGs you were not able to answer to any of the questions, that I asked you.
I noticed also, that you missed one notable OMG. The AO 2012 final. Why would that be?
And, when you speak about the quality of the Federer - Agassi matches, please, be advised, that ignorant comments are not good for your credibility. Which is shot anyway by the substantial lack of knowledge about the quality of the game between Borg - Mac rivalry and Federer - Nadal - Djokovic rivalry.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
I know right? I still think she secretly likes Djoker more than Nadal.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I'm not your beatch ....if you want me to do research for you then pay me....I'm here to have some fun not to work.
You want me to list every major from the beginning of tennis? Sorry that's a bit much ....
But the technology' did in fact ruin majors In my opinion .....as I said matches between Sampras and Goran I found pretty boring .
The Wimbledon matches during that time period were terribly boring.
The USO was not nearly as bad but still not nearly as exciting as today's matches .
The AO actually was slower and more exciting on the rebound ace. The AO is actually the only tournament that has increased the speed . But since Fed lost to Nadal on this faster surface its classified as "slow" here at TW.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Technology, like racquets from 1984 and strings over a hundred years old and having been used for the duration of the tennis tour to that point.
Riiiight.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I'm not sure I understand you ? McEnroe was the last player to ever win wi,bled on with a wood racquet .
Graphite and larger sized racquets took over and changed the sport forever....since that time tennis officials have been trying to slow the game down .......
But boy have we digressed.....back to Nadal......
So I think we have settled on the fact that he missed 7 slams and Federer missed 0.
Sheds quite a bit of light on the 17 in my opinion.
Clarky21
Banned
He doesn't look ill at all. I actually quite like that pic, which is why I decided to use it for my avatar.
Bullsh*t.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Sampras used an 85. Ivanisevic used a 90.
And it doesn't shed light on 17. All it says is Nadal is apparent incapable of finishing an entire season, and is as a result no more deserving of any majors than those he already has.
You can if, and, and but your way all you want. it doesn't matter. Nadal is second best to Federer in the 2000's. End.
The Dark Knight
Legend
85 & 90 > than 70 ( or whatever they used prior )....
Lendls graphite was about 70 ....it played like a wood racquet . In fact he lost the FO to Borg who played with a wood racquet.
Nadals game is just so physical and the season is longer than it used to be . Yeah Feds game is more fluid and he can last longer .....but that doesn't mean that he is better....not by a long shot .
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Federer is better. There is one single stat in which Nadal wins. The h2h. Federer has more weeks at number 1, more YE number 1, more titles overall, more majors overall, more major finals.
You're just making an excuse for Nadal. Djokovic was able to win WTF last year, and won 10 titles in 2011. During one of the slowest overall eras on courts in recent memory. Why didn't he fall to pieces like Nadal does EVERY SEASON?
The Dark Knight
Legend
Well we all have different ideas of what means "better".
Rankings to me is absolute B.S.....it's a joke .
Look at the Williams sisters they were ranked soooo low. Yet they came out and wiped the floor with everyone at the slams.
Pete Sampras .....same thing. Ranked really low and written off ....and he wins the USO !
Also Roddick was ranked #1 going into the FO.....I mean is that a joke or what?
Or you had # 1 like Jankovic and woznioki.....clearly Williams' were better.
Or take Boris Becker .....he beat Lendl at Wimbledon and then beat Lendl at the US open.....and guess what ....Lendl was #1.
The rankings are all about money . It forces you to play more
Tournaments so promoters make more money .
It doesn't necessarily mean you are actually the best
Fed fans tend to hang their hats on stats because that's all they have . But stats don't really mean "better ". Federer may have a better "record" in paper.....
But lets face it ......Nadal is the better player.
Last edited:
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Good thing nobody cares what you think
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
I think it's cute that rather than make a sound argument, you report my post for saying that your logic was comical. Next time, make a decent argument. Not this drivel.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I didn't report your post. I don't even know what you posted.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Rofl...now rankings are a joke because rafa only managed 100 weeks at number, and not even consecutive, lmao.
I see you showed your face in this thread after being pounded into submission in the other.
Face itt, in no universe is nadal superior to fed , except on clay
The Dark Knight
Legend
The only statistic that matter to me is the slam finals situation which is 6-2 and it's barely that .....the two pathetic Federer wins only came as Nadal was developing and only on grass.
The truth is on slams Nadal has beaten Federer in slam finals on every surface ....grass, hard , clay ......
Federer was only able to beat Nadal on grass when he was still known to the world as a clay court specialist.
In my book it's really 6-0.
To say Federer is the goat when he has been so utterly dominated in slam finals.....no wait that's not strong enough....let me restate that ...
To say Federer is the greatest of all time when he has the worst slam final record against a rival in the history of tennis defies all
Logic.
How the hell can he be such a whipping boy and then be called the greatest of all time .....it's doesn't make sense......
The only thing that makes sense is that Federers victories .....many of them were not the highest quality victories.
Seriously can you even remember any great Federer slam
Finals ? Sure there were a couple but by and large they were a joke .....
I mean seriously .....bagdatis is the best you got ? 500 year old Agassi? Shall I go on ?
So on paper Feds the greatest....but 6-2 in slam finals??? That's the greatest of all time ???? Impossible .
It's quality vs quantity .....
I've said it before and I'll say it again .....
Although there is more of Mirka I would rather have Brooklyn Decker . In this case quality over quantity .....
Nadals victories mainly came against Federer while Feder beat a lot of lower players .....so in this case 11> 17 on the quality scale.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
I didn't realize the field consisted of fed and rafa.
Say, how did rafa do agaisnt the field in the AO, USO non clay masters, and WB from 05 til present
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
As long as you are happy now, then this discussion is closed. Live and let live. You prefer the 11 slams. The majority of the world prefers 17 slams. Everyone is happy.
But even you have to admit that using your logic that Djokovic's 6 slams have even better quality than Nadal's 11. There is no doubt about it, Djokovic victories came against Federer, Prime Nadal and Prime Murray....so in this case 6 > 11 on the quality scale.
The Dark Knight
Legend
First of all I am more than happy to be in the elite group of intellectuals rather than the majority of the sheep in the world .
Secondly although Federer may be considered by the masses as the best player ever that is not so among the pros......I don't think any of them think that Federer is better than Nadal.....not one
They all think he has a better record but none if the pros ex or current think Federer is better ......not even Djokovic himself .
Now as far as Joker .....well I'm torn on that . It's a close call ......but Joker has the same problem as Federer......until either of them actually go through Nadal at the FO neither can make the claim as the greatest.
Now if Joker had won the FO last year I would have to say he was the best player of all time hands down . Regardless of Feds trumped up 17 slams.
And Joker may be the best and if he wins the FO this summer And beats Nadal he may be the best player of all time
He is very very close and 6 is almost as good as Nadals 11. He is just missing Roland Garros.
Last edited:
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
If you were a true intellectual you would entertain the possibility that you were wrong.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
My favorite part of his rant was the about fed's " trumped up" 17 slams.
Never mind that fed played the same field rafa could t seem to get past (off clay)
The Dark Knight
Legend
Well they some were trumped up don't you think?
Can you give me a memorable moment from the incredible Federer vs Philopusis match? Boy that was a real nail biter.....
Or how about that incredible match against Agassi on a wheel chair....can you remember any of it?
Better yet the amazing Baghdatis match now that was really special.
Federer ....roddick...... The last one was good but once again Nadal skipped that Wimbledon and then won the next year.....doesn't that tell you something? That without Nadal all Fed had was roddick......that's why 4 of his wimbys were against roddick.....rinse and repeat again !
How about that stunning Hewitt match.....what do you reme,bee from that one?
Now I can't say that all of his slams were sub par.....but even you have to admit that some of them were not exactly as high quality completion as Nadal had to face......
Nadal had to face Federer at least 9 times in slams. But Federer had quite a few slams without Nadal.....7 slams Nadal missed due to injury.....and then there were the slams Nadal was not even around for not to mention the ones where he was still a clay court specialist.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Too bad nadal facing that same lackluster field wasn't good enough to get past those old broke down and untalented mugs to face fed more often in slam finals off of clay.
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Similar threads
