A Nadal FO win gives him the open era longevity record.

[Spencer Gore]

Nadal and Federer currently share the Open Era longevity record. Both of their
slam winning careers stretch over 59 tournaments from first win to last (Nadal 2005 FO -2019 US, Federer 2003 W -2018 AO).

If Nadal wins the French he will take the Open Era longevity record, a span of 61 tournaments from first win to last.

They are still both far behind Ken Rosewall's record of a 77 slam span. Nadal would need to win the FO in 2024 to equal Rosewall.

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

Impressive ... too bad it's not on a real surface.

 

[StrongRule]

Don't worry, the organizers did everything to make sure Nadal will never win another RG. They are Djokovic fanboys.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Impressive ... too bad it's not on a real surface.

What's not a real surface?

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

What's not a real surface?

Clay.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Don't worry, the organizers did everything to make sure Nadal will never win another RG. They are Djokovic fanboys.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Don't worry, the organizers did everything to make sure Nadal will never win another RG. They are Djokovic fanboys.

Lol WHAT?? No one will stop him. As much as it saddens me there is no way he's not making #20 at RG. RG is his 100%.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Clay.

Clay has been a recognised tennis surface for over a century. Far longer than modern hard courts. It was one of the original two slam surfaces for decades. It is a key part of tennis history.

In what way is it not a "real surface".

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

In what way is it not a "real surface".

Ever seen a tennis match on clay?

 

[KINGROGER]

Don't worry, the organizers did everything to make sure Nadal will never win another RG. They are Djokovic fanboys.

There is no such thing as “RG” anymore. It’s now the Djokovic open.

 

[ForehandRF]

Don't worry, the organizers did everything to make sure Nadal will never win another RG. They are Djokovic fanboys.

Man, you are too pessimistic.Nadal is still the favorite, indoors or not.The roof was a must due to well known reasons and RG will look like a 2020s tournament, not like the one from the early 2000s.

 

[StrongRule]

Lol WHAT?? No one will stop him. As much as it saddens me there is no way he's not making #20 at RG. RG is his 100%.

It is now an indoor tournament, with fast balls, with a different type of clay, with night sessions. It should be called the Djokovic Open. Nadal has no chance in such conditions.

 

[StrongRule]

Man, you are too pessimistic.Nadal is still the favorite, indoors or not.The roof was a must due to well known reasons and RG will look like a 2020s tournament, not like the one from the early 2000s.

Indoor clay is a joke. There are barely any clay tournaments with a roof, and that's for a reason. The only reason I see to making all that changes is that they want Nadal to stop winning there. (and probably want Djokovic to win it many times)

 

[UnforcedTerror]

It is now an indoor tournament, with fast balls, with a different type of clay, with night sessions. It should be called the Djokovic Open. Nadal has no chance in such conditions.

INDOOR?? Lol. Just because there is a roof doesn't mean it's "an indoor tournament", but maybe you also believe Wimbledon, AO and US are all indoor tournaments.

As long as RG2020 is played on clay, Bull will win it. Yawn, bring Wimbledon already.

 

[StrongRule]

INDOOR?? Lol. Just because there is a roof doesn't mean it's "an indoor tournament", but maybe you also believe Wimbledon, AO and US are all indoor tournaments.

As long as RG2020 is played on clay, Bull will win it. Yawn, bring Wimbledon already.

Djokovic is the luckiest player in history, so there will be rain exactly when he needs it. Like it happened in Wimbledon 2018.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Djokovic is the luckiest player in history, so there will be rain exactly when he needs it. Like it happened in Wimbledon 2018.

Except there wasn't any rain at Wimbledon 2018.

 

[PerilousPear]

Except there wasn't any rain at Wimbledon 2018.

It rained from his eyes and down his cheeks after that SF.

 

[deaner2211]

Lol WHAT?? No one will stop him. As much as it saddens me there is no way he's not making #20 at RG. RG is his 100%.

Nothing is 100%

 

[victorcruz]

Lol WHAT?? No one will stop him. As much as it saddens me there is no way he's not making #20 at RG. RG is his 100%.

Why does it sadden you? Do you take this game that seriously? Sorry to hear that bud, hope you find something more important that doesn't sadden you.

 

[Sport]

Nothing is 100%

Except the death of the universe and, consequently, the humankind.

Opps, I forgot this is a tennis forum.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Nadal and Federer currently share the Open Era longevity record. Both of their
slam winning careers stretch over 59 tournaments from first win to last (Nadal 2005 FO -2019 US, Federer 2003 W -2018 AO).

If Nadal wins the French he will take the Open Era longevity record, a span of 61 tournaments from first win to last.

They are still both far behind Ken Rosewall's record of a 77 slam span. Nadal would need to win the FO in 2024 to equal Rosewall.

You are correct in terms of number of tournaments. However, in terms of time, Federer’s span is a little longer than Nadal’s.

I concede that Nadal is likely to hold the record come the 2020 FO.

 

[Enceladus]

Don't worry, the organizers did everything to make sure Nadal will never win another RG. They are Djokovic fanboys.

There is no such thing as “RG” anymore. It’s now the Djokovic open.

It is now an indoor tournament, with fast balls, with a different type of clay, with night sessions. It should be called the Djokovic Open. Nadal has no chance in such conditions.

 

[duaneeo]

If Nadal wins the French he will take the Open Era longevity record, a span of 61 tournaments from first win to last.

But Nadal was a mere baby from 2005 - 2007, so tournaments won during those years shouldn't count towards his longevity as an adult, no?

 

[Spencer Gore]

But Nadal was a mere baby from 2005 - 2007, so tournaments won during those years shouldn't count towards his longevity as an adult, no?

Why not? Winning as a baby is a remarkable achievement. Beating a baby, not so much.

 

[Fridge]

But Nadal was a mere baby from 2005 - 2007, so tournaments won during those years shouldn't count towards his longevity as an adult, no?

Nadal won at 18yo no? 18yo is considered adult no?

 

[duaneeo]

18yo is considered adult no?

Not to many posters here. See the post above yours.

 

[Sport]

Nadal won at 18yo no? 18yo is considered adult no?

Depends on the country. In the United States you need to be 21 to be legally considered an adult.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Not to many posters here. See the post above yours.

You haven't answered the question. You posted a bizarre suggestion. Why should Nadal's remarkable victories at a young age not count towards his longevity?

 

[r2473]

Ever seen a tennis match on clay?

That’s sort of funny

 

[Third Serve]

There is no such thing as “RG” anymore. It’s now the Djokovic open.

I really hope Nadal never plays this "tournament" again.

 

[duaneeo]

You haven't answered the question. You posted a bizarre suggestion. Why should Nadal's remarkable victories at a young age not count towards his longevity?

My post was sarcasm towards you and others who have continually referred to a 3-time consecutive RG champion/2-time consecutive Wimbledon finalist/9-time Masters champion/3-time consecutive YE#2 as a 'baby' from 2005 - 2007. On one hand, you want to belittle the strength of the time by referring to Rafa as a baby; on the other hand, you want to praise Rafa's achievements of the time.

 

[Spencer Gore]

My post was sarcasm towards you and others who have continually referred to a 3-time consecutive RG champion/2-time consecutive Wimbledon finalist/9-time Masters champion/3-time consecutive YE#2 as a 'baby' from 2005 - 2007. On one hand, you want to belittle the strength of the time by referring to Rafa as a baby; on the other hand, you want to praise Rafa's achievements of the time.

He was a baby -in modern tennis terms. But the era was definitely weak. I doubt very much that he would have won so much at such a young age in a stronger era.

 

[Backspin1183]

Impressive ... too bad it's not on a real surface.

Too bad Pete Sampras never won anything noteworthy.

 

[The_Order]

My post was sarcasm towards you and others who have continually referred to a 3-time consecutive RG champion/2-time consecutive Wimbledon finalist/9-time Masters champion/3-time consecutive YE#2 as a 'baby' from 2005 - 2007. On one hand, you want to belittle the strength of the time by referring to Rafa as a baby; on the other hand, you want to praise Rafa's achievements of the time.

Yeah so different to Fed fans whinging about how weak the era is and how he's old but at the same time praise his achievements during that same period.

 

[EdSWright]

Nadal and Federer currently share the Open Era longevity record. Both of their
slam winning careers stretch over 59 tournaments from first win to last (Nadal 2005 FO -2019 US, Federer 2003 W -2018 AO).

If Nadal wins the French he will take the Open Era longevity record, a span of 61 tournaments from first win to last.

They are still both far behind Ken Rosewall's record of a 77 slam span. Nadal would need to win the FO in 2024 to equal Rosewall.

The what record?

 

[duaneeo]

Yeah so different to Fed fans whinging about how weak the era is and how he's old but at the same time praise his achievements during that same period.

Rafa clay court game was the (physical) best in mens tennis in 2005. The same can't be said about Federer's post-prime hard court game. And, regardless of how weak this era, Federer will always be 6 years younger than the player who's most benefitting.

That said, I do think Federer still has the best grass court game, and have been very critical of his losses to Djokovic, and failure to protect his Wimbledon domain as Rafa has done at RG.