Does Nadal need to win another non-French Open Grand Slam?

[McEnroeisanartist]

While Nadal has certainly proven to be more than just a claycourter by winning all four grand slams, do you think he needs another Australian Open, Wimbledon, or U.S. Open title to be considered a more complete champion.

Of the 11 players in the open era who have won 6 or more Grand Slams, he, along with Jimmy Connors, Andre Agassi, and Boris Becker are the only players to have not: 1.) won two different grand slams at least three times or 2.) won three different grand slams at least twice.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

While Nadal has certainly proven to be more than just a claycourter by winning all four grand slams, do you think he needs another Australian Open, Wimbledon, or U.S. Open title to be considered a more complete champion.

Of the 11 players in the open era who have won 6 or more Grand Slams, he, along with Jimmy Connors, Andre Agassi, and Boris Becker are the only players to have not: 1.) won two different grand slams at least three times or 2.) won three different grand slams at least twice.

4 non-clay slams titles, 5 non-clay slams finals, 1 hardcourt Olympic gold, 5 hardcourt master 1000 titles, 7 hard master 1000 finals, a lot of semi-final appearance on every surfaces in every kind of tournaments...I think it's enough for him to be considered as an all-court champion.

 

[FedererDropShot]

needs 2 more hardcourt slams.

preferably 1 AO and 1USO.

But he's already an accomplished man.

Even if he were to retire now...

 

[Sim]

As a Nadal fan, nope. I am pretty happy with what Nadal has done already, and it would not hurt his legacy at all if he fails to win another non FO slam. For me, he is the greatest CC, and winning other slams is just extra. 11 slams. What more can you ask for?

 

[DRII]

He doesn't need anything more! He is already considered a complete champion and one of the best ever. But, another couple would be nice...

Does Federer need more than one clay court slam to be considered complete? Particularly one which he should have to beat the best to win it?

Nadal won hardcourt and grass slams having to defeat the best on those surfaces...

 

[forzamilan90]

He's already one of the greatest ever. He's won several non clay majors so he's legit on an all time comparison scale.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Of course he doesn't *need* anything more. His achievements already place him amongst the best of the open era, which is clearly something to be proud of. And what if they're more skewed to clay? Nadal is not competing to be the best player ever, "just" the best he can, and his current record is very impressive as is, no need to add more non-clay slams for that.

Edit: oh dear, I agree with DRII on (at least part of) that score. Time for a sanity check, I guess...

 

[Steve0904]

He doesn't need it, but it would prove a lot of things to a lot of people if he could pick up 1 more of any of those 3. Kind of like Federer's 7th Wimbledon.

 

[TennezSport]

Doesn't need it.........

Doesn't need it but......

Let say at your job you were close to 80% successful in a certain area, you would be labelled a specialist. It's the same for Rafa at his job.

Cheers, TennezSport

 

[Fiji]

Another off clay slam would look better on his resume than another clay slam, obviously.

 

[single_handed_champion]

He doesn't need it, but it would prove a lot of things to a lot of people if he could pick up 1 more of any of those 3. Kind of like Federer's 7th Wimbledon.

Say what?? Federer's best Slam is Wimbledon. It would be like saying Rafa winning another RG would prove a lot of things to a lot of people. I mean, it would, but he is so good there it wouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[heninfan99]

No. He is already legend.

 

[Towser83]

No he doesn't NEED to win anything more, he's already an alltime great even if he doesn't play another point. At this point of course he will be considered mainly a clay court great but he was good enough to win every slam as well, so as an a grass and hardcourt player he is not that high up the list but as an overall champion he is very near the top.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Nadal is already the undisputed clay court GOAT, and one of the top 5 players all time who has won multiple slams on every surface, who owns a winning record vs everyone of his main rivals including the so called GOAT. Does he have anything to prove? No.

 

[monfed]

Yes he does have to win non-clay slams(especially Wimby),his resume is far too skewed to RG given that the tour comprises of 3 non-clay slams in which his statistics while decent isn't GOATworthy.

He needs to win more Wimbys at the very least(no GOAT contender has won only 2 slams on his second best surface compared to Ralph's shabby figure of 2,just goes to prove that he's a bit of a one-trick pony).

That's just resultswise, gamewise Ralph is too one-dimensional/limited to be considered a tier-1 great. In the thread for the most talented player of all time,he got just 4 votes,how the hell can such a talentless peasant be tier-1?

Years down the road,Ralph will be mostly rated as a great claycourter that got lucky in an era of slow surfaces.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I can't believe the amount of ****ness in this thread. Disgusting.

 

[monfed]

Nadal is already the undisputed clay court GOAT, and one of the top 5 players all time who has won multiple slams on every surface, who owns a winning record vs everyone of his main rivals including the so called GOAT. Does he have anything to prove? No.

No he's not the undisputed clay GOAT, many view Borg to be an equal if not a greater claycourter than Ralph. I can see that you don't quite appreciate the resume of Ralph being scrutinised,Professor, but one can't help it.

 

[cluckcluck]

He's a great champion, though I think the icing on his cake would be another USO. He got 1 after a fluke 2010 USO final against a mediocre Djokovic.

 

[cluckcluck]

Nadal is already the undisputed clay court GOAT, and one of the top 5 players all time who has won multiple slams on every surface, who owns a winning record vs everyone of his main rivals including the so called GOAT. Does he have anything to prove? No.

Undisputed is a bit of an overstatement considering such a weak clay court field.

 

[Clarky21]

Undisputed is a bit of an overstatement considering such a weak clay court field.

Same thing could be said about the even weaker grass court field that Fed racked up his Wimby slams in. His biggest rival there for years was a dirtballer afterall.

 

[Clarky21]

He's a great champion, though I think the icing on his cake would be another USO. He got 1 after a fluke 2010 USO final against a mediocre Djokovic.

At least Nadal had to beat the best hardcourt player in the world, and a proven slam champion to get his career slam. Who did Fed have to beat? Slam final virgin and world renowned pigeon Soderling. I'd say Nadal earned his USO far more than Fed earned his RG.

 

[nikdom]

Right now he needs to get over the Rosol loss and come face reality like a man.

 

[cluckcluck]

At least Nadal had to beat the best hardcourt player in the world, and a proven slam champion to get his career slam. Who did Fed have to beat? Slam final virgin and world renowned pigeon Soderling. I'd say Nadal earned his USO far more than Fed earned his RG.

And that same pigeon worked Rafa at his slam.

 

[Clarky21]

And that same pigeon worked Rafa at his slam.

And beat Fed the next year as well and then lost to Nadal in the final.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

And beat Fed the next year as well and then lost to Nadal in the final.

Which proves he isn't a "pigeon". Thanks for playing.

 

[Towser83]

At least Nadal had to beat the best hardcourt player in the world, and a proven slam champion to get his career slam. Who did Fed have to beat? Slam final virgin and world renowned pigeon Soderling. I'd say Nadal earned his USO far more than Fed earned his RG.

Not gonna say one player worked more for his slam, and I understand you are responding to someone having a go at Nadal but Djokovic was not the best hardcourt player in the world in 2010. Fed was AO champion, Delpo was USO champion, Murray had 2 HC masters and Djokovic only had Dubai..

Nadal beat a top player, a better allround player than Soderling, but let'snot pretend Djokovic was the best HC player because his results on HC in 2010 were pretty woeful for a top player

 

[Crisstti]

At least Nadal had to beat the best hardcourt player in the world, and a proven slam champion to get his career slam. Who did Fed have to beat? Slam final virgin and world renowned pigeon Soderling. I'd say Nadal earned his USO far more than Fed earned his RG.

That's completely obvious. Which makes it really quite hilarious when haters try to discredit Nadal's USO.

Which proves he isn't a "pigeon". Thanks for playing.

He's still a WAY easier opponent.

 

[Clarky21]

That's completely obvious. Which makes it really quite hilarious when haters try to discredit Nadal's USO.



He's still a WAY easier opponent.

I know. The sad and pathetic people around here will do anything and go to any lengths to discredit anything Nadal wins.


Prisoner of Birth is just reaching really far here. Fed's h2h with Soderling is 14-2(certified pigeon). Sod has 2 slam finals to his name, one masters title, and no slams. Cvac's h2h with Nadal is. 14-19. He has won multiple masters titles, 5 slams, and is world number one. He was also a proven slam champion when Nadal beat him at the USO. He is also a horrible match-up for Nadal and dominates him on hardcourts. Someone who isn't biased and full of Nadal hate would look at those stats and say Nadal had it a whole lot tougher when it came to winning his career slam. Fed, otoh, not so much.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

That's completely obvious. Which makes it really quite hilarious when haters try to discredit Nadal's USO.



He's still a WAY easier opponent.

He sure wasn't easy for Nadal

 

[kragster]

He's a great champion, though I think the icing on his cake would be another USO. He got 1 after a fluke 2010 USO final against a mediocre Djokovic.

All great players have some luck along the way that helps them. There is no objective way to say a draw is easy (because either you have to beat a top player , or you have to beat an onfire player who took out the top player). I'm pretty sure you can find a way to put an asterisk around every slam ever won by a player!

There is no such thing as a fluke slam win, not even Thomas Johanssen.

 

[monfed]

All great players have some luck along the way that helps them. There is no objective way to say a draw is easy (because either you have to beat a top player , or you have to beat an onfire player who took out the top player). I'm pretty sure you can find a way to put an asterisk around every slam ever won by a player!

There is no such thing as a fluke slam win, not even Thomas Johanssen.

LOL Ralph played nobodies except the final and even in the final Djokovic wasn't the HC beast he is today,so no Ralph fluked it,easiest slam draw in history.

OTOH, Fed had lost RG 05,06,07,08 to one player named Nadal. Fed was clearly the second best CC player of his era and deserved the luck he got in 09. If you wanna play the "Fed didn't have to beat Ralph to win his RG" ,then we should disqualify all the past RG champions because they didnt' play Ralph either.

 

[Crisstti]

He sure wasn't easy for Nadal

Let's be realistic.

LOL Ralph played nobodies except the final and even in the final Djokovic wasn't the HC beast he is today,so no Ralph fluked it,easiest slam draw in history.

OTOH, Fed had lost RG 05,06,07,08 to one player named Nadal. Fed was clearly the second best CC player of his era and deserved the luck he got in 09. If you wanna play the "Fed didn't have to beat Ralph to win his RG" ,then we should disqualify all the past RG champions because they didnt' play Ralph either.

The final is the most important match, where you should meet the toughest opponent. Nadal did, and Fed didn't. Simple as that.

I don't care how many finals Fed had. Look at Borg and the USO.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

I don't care how many finals Fed had. Look at Borg and the USO.

Eh? Federer won RG. Borg didn't win the USO. Weird comparison.

 

[Towser83]

Let's be realistic.



The final is the most important match, where you should meet the toughest opponent. Nadal did, and Fed didn't. Simple as that.

I don't care how many finals Fed had. Look at Borg and the USO.

how do you define the toughest opponent? The guy who got to the final, in one respect is the toughest. If you mean the player who has the potential as being the toughest then it's debateable whether that was Djokovic or not.

 

[Crisstti]

Eh? Federer won RG. Borg didn't win the USO. Weird comparison.

Not weird at all. Simply pointing out that reaching several finals doesn't equal winning any.

how do you define the toughest opponent? The guy who got to the final, in one respect is the toughest. If you mean the player who has the potential as being the toughest then it's debateable whether that was Djokovic or not.

Let me put it this way: Djokovic is a WAY tougher opponent than Soderling. On any surface. I don't even see how that's up for debate.

 

[jokinla]

NSK chimes in with his theory of Nads winning many more slams other than the FO in 3,2,1......

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Not weird at all. Simply pointing out that reaching several finals doesn't equal winning any.

But Federer did win the FO. Borg did NOT win the USO.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

the nadal doesn't need to win anything. it's already more than enough... time to focus on poker.

 

[Clarky21]

Not weird at all. Simply pointing out that reaching several finals doesn't equal winning any.



Let me put it this way: Djokovic is a WAY tougher opponent than Soderling. On any surface. I don't even see how that's up for debate.

It's not but ****s/Nadal haters/*********s will try anyway.

 

[Crisstti]

But Federer did win the FO. Borg did NOT win the USO.

I know... but had he had one easy final, he would probably have won it.

 

[zagor]

While Nadal has certainly proven to be more than just a claycourter by winning all four grand slams, do you think he needs another Australian Open, Wimbledon, or U.S. Open title to be considered a more complete champion.

Of the 11 players in the open era who have won 6 or more Grand Slams, he, along with Jimmy Connors, Andre Agassi, and Boris Becker are the only players to have not: 1.) won two different grand slams at least three times or 2.) won three different grand slams at least twice.

Nah, don't think so personally.

He reached 2 finals at AO and USO, 5 finals at Wimbledon and has a career slam.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

I know... but had he had one easy final, he would probably have won it.

He did have enough easy finals. One on his best surface, Clay. He contested in 3 USO tournaments played on Clay, and still couldn't manage it. It's a ridiculous comparison on so many levels.

 

[Crisstti]

Whom did he play in that easy final?.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Whom did he play in that easy final?.

Clay-mug Jimmy Connors on, you guessed it, Borg's best surface Clay!

 

[Steve0904]

Say what?? Federer's best Slam is Wimbledon. It would be like saying Rafa winning another RG would prove a lot of things to a lot of people. I mean, it would, but he is so good there it wouldn't surprise anyone.

You clearly didn't understand me, or just chose to be obtuse. Yes, Wimbledon is Federer's best slam, but he proved that he wasn't "done" so to speak because he won it at an age that a lot of people don't win slams at. Truthfully if Nadal can win RG at 30-31 it would be just as impressive (probably even more so) as him winning any of the other 3 at the age he is now IMO.

 

[Towser83]

Not weird at all. Simply pointing out that reaching several finals doesn't equal winning any.



Let me put it this way: Djokovic is a WAY tougher opponent than Soderling. On any surface. I don't even see how that's up for debate.

Generally yes, though Soderling has had some standout performances and Djokovic some stinkers. Though I wouldn't say that of either performance in question. Just saying I don't understand the criterion for Djokovic being the toughEST opponent. Tougher, most of the time of course.

Not that I consider one title more deserved than the other, they both worked hard for what they won career wise.

 

[TMF]

At least Nadal had to beat the best hardcourt player in the world, and a proven slam champion to get his career slam. Who did Fed have to beat? Slam final virgin and world renowned pigeon Soderling. I'd say Nadal earned his USO far more than Fed earned his RG.

That's completely obvious. Which makes it really quite hilarious when haters try to discredit Nadal's USO.

Soderling in 2009 FO was far better than Nole in 2010 USO. Not to mention Haas and Del Potro was playing well above their standard against Roger.

 

[merlinpinpin]

The final is the most important match, where you should meet the toughest opponent. Nadal did, and Fed didn't. Simple as that.

Funny "logic" here. Söderling spanked Nadal at RG 2009, so Söderling wasn't the toughest opponent?

Nooooooooooo, it would have been Nadal, as he had won RG 4 times previously. Of course. Silly me.

So how come Djokovic was "the toughest opponent Nadal could have played" at USO 2010? Djokovic, who had *one* win over a top 10 *in the entire year*, and that after saving two match points (the first one on sheer luck, according to him). How was that a tougher opponent than someone who had won the event *5* times? (ie more than Nadal had won RG's in 2009) :roll:

 

[abmk]

The final is the most important match, where you should meet the toughest opponent. Nadal did, and Fed didn't. Simple as that.

I don't care how many finals Fed had. Look at Borg and the USO.

yeah and that was federer @ the USO, not djoker who had mugged up almost the whole year ; only got past fed because federer played a bad match ....

besides del potro in the RG 2009 SF played MUCH better than djoker did in the 2010 USO finals ... its a no-contest frankly ...

 

[abmk]

Let me put it this way: Djokovic is a WAY tougher opponent than Soderling. On any surface. I don't even see how that's up for debate.

umm,no , soderling for most part in RG 2009/2010 has played better than djoker did @ any RG ... djoker's best @ RG was in 2011, but it was federer who took him out then .....