Does Nadal's 2009 Wimbledon Not Count

[McEnroeisanartist]

Do you think Nadal's 2009 Wimbledon does not count because he did not played it.

In other words, do you think Nadal has reached five consecutive Wimbledon finals or if he wins on Sunday, do you think he has won 3 consecutive Wimbledon's?

To me, what separates Federer from Nadal in the GOAT debate is all the consecutive Grand Slam streaks that Federer has compiled.

As it stands today, Nadal has only reached 4 consecutive semifinals at a particular grand slam once in his career. Whereas, Federer has reached at least five consecutive semifinals at all four grand slams. Or Nadal has only reached 4 consecutive finals at a particular grand slam. Whereas, Federer has reached at least 4 consecutive finals at three different grand slams.

 

[Viper]

Of course it counts. Too bad, so sad, call your dad (or Uncle, whatever).

 

[ledwix]

In terms of streaks, it counts. Otherwise, a player could just keep forfeiting any match he thinks he might lose, and he could rack up an amazing winning streak.

 

[slice bh compliment]

You cannot say he's won x number of consecutive Wimbledons. You can say he's got an x match win streak at Wimbledon. You can say he's won the last x Wimbledons he has entered. You can say he's gotten to the final the past five times he has played it.

 

[Murrayfan31]

It counts. Nadal was not confident enough to play Wimbledon that year. Soderling shattered his confidence.

 

[TheOneHander]

I mean, we cannot say that Rafa has 3 consecutive titles or has reached 5 consecutive finals because he DID NOT.

Of course it counts. We can't say "what if". What happened, happened, and what didn't, didn't.