Goran Ivanisevic believes Rafael Nadal’s comeback is “the best news in tennis”

Zardoz7/12

Zardoz7/12

Hall of Fame
Goran is saying what I'm thinking. - Link to article.

Novak Djokovic’s coach Goran Ivanisevic believes Rafael Nadal’s comeback is “the best news in tennis” and suggested the great Spaniard will be dangerous when he returns.

The 2001 Wimbledon champion declared no players want to see Nadal in the first round of tournaments, while predicting the 2024 season will be “very competitive and interesting.”

Nadal has not played since suffering a hip injury in his second round loss to Mackenzie McDonald at the 2023 Australian Open in January. The 22-time Grand Slam champion underwent surgery on the issue in June, having initially expected to be out for only six to eight weeks.

The 37-year-old was forced to postpone his planned comeback during the clay-court season and missed the French Open for the first time since 2004. The Spaniard revealed in a press conference announcing his withdrawal from Roland Garros that 2024 would likely be his final season on the tour.

The former world No 1 won his most recent Major title at the 2022 French Open, where he defeated Casper Ruud in straight sets to claim a record-extending 14th Roland Garros crown.

Last week, Nadal confirmed he had made significant progress in his training and that he would be returning to the sport, with his comeback tournament yet to be announced.

“Until now, I didn’t know if I would ever play tennis again and now I think so. What has changed from a few weeks ago to now is that now I know that I am going to play tennis again,” revealed the Mallorcan.

“I didn’t know it before, but now, honestly, I know it because the evolution is positive. Big steps have been taken lately. I’m not yet ready to say where. When I know, I will be the first to say it. It’s a good period of my life. It’s a step forward, without a doubt, and it means a lot.”

Goran Ivanisevic - “I think next year’s going to be very, very competitive and interesting year. If [it] is true that Rafa is coming [back], this is for me the best news in tennis. I love Rafa. Is going to be interesting, Rafa not seeded.

“He can play first round anybody. You don’t want to see Rafa first round in the hotel (smiling). It’s great for tennis. Rafa will come only if he’s 100% ready. And when Rafa is ready, I think he still has something to say in this left arm.”
 
Zardoz7/12 said:
Goran is saying what I'm thinking. - Link to article.

Novak Djokovic’s coach Goran Ivanisevic believes Rafael Nadal’s comeback is “the best news in tennis” and suggested the great Spaniard will be dangerous when he returns.

The 2001 Wimbledon champion declared no players want to see Nadal in the first round of tournaments, while predicting the 2024 season will be “very competitive and interesting.”

Nadal has not played since suffering a hip injury in his second round loss to Mackenzie McDonald at the 2023 Australian Open in January. The 22-time Grand Slam champion underwent surgery on the issue in June, having initially expected to be out for only six to eight weeks.

The 37-year-old was forced to postpone his planned comeback during the clay-court season and missed the French Open for the first time since 2004. The Spaniard revealed in a press conference announcing his withdrawal from Roland Garros that 2024 would likely be his final season on the tour.

The former world No 1 won his most recent Major title at the 2022 French Open, where he defeated Casper Ruud in straight sets to claim a record-extending 14th Roland Garros crown.

Last week, Nadal confirmed he had made significant progress in his training and that he would be returning to the sport, with his comeback tournament yet to be announced.

“Until now, I didn’t know if I would ever play tennis again and now I think so. What has changed from a few weeks ago to now is that now I know that I am going to play tennis again,” revealed the Mallorcan.

“I didn’t know it before, but now, honestly, I know it because the evolution is positive. Big steps have been taken lately. I’m not yet ready to say where. When I know, I will be the first to say it. It’s a good period of my life. It’s a step forward, without a doubt, and it means a lot.”

Goran Ivanisevic - “I think next year’s going to be very, very competitive and interesting year. If [it] is true that Rafa is coming [back], this is for me the best news in tennis. I love Rafa. Is going to be interesting, Rafa not seeded.

“He can play first round anybody. You don’t want to see Rafa first round in the hotel (smiling). It’s great for tennis. Rafa will come only if he’s 100% ready. And when Rafa is ready, I think he still has something to say in this left arm.”
Click to expand...
Will Rafa still be able to beat novak at the french open ?
 
Kralingen said:
Those 5 months in 2022 were nothing short of magical.
Click to expand...
It was so epic :D

wins.jpg
 
Nadal vs Djokovic will be a non-event outside of clay just like it has been for ten years. On clay, I will look forward to it as it will be a contest where you can‘t guess the winner beforehand anymore.
 
I think everyone agrees that the tour has become quite boring in Rafa's absence, it will be great to see him back one last time.
 
weakera said:
I think everyone agrees that the tour has become quite boring in Rafa's absence, it will be great to see him back one last time.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. I love watching many players like Djokovic, Alcaraz, Sinner, Rune, Rublev, Tsitsipas, Fritz, Hurkacz, Ruud, Paul, Lehecka, Jarry, Griekspoor, Cerundolo, Musetti, Eubanks, Fils, Nakashima, Wawrinka, Monfils etc. I also enjoy it when 2-3 top players dominate the big tournaments more than if 15 different players win the top tournaments - as happens today with mostly the top 5 players winning all the big titles. There are some players I have never liked watching like Nadal, Zverev, Medvedev, de Minaur, Shelton, Norrie, Evans, Murray, Kyrgios etc. and I would not mind it one bit if any of them dropped in the rankings or retired early.

Nadal plays from 15-20 feet behind the baseline and has been a must-watch for me only on clay for the last 15 years and I miss him only in that part of the season. For me I enjoyed having him on tour only when he was the only serious rival for Federer before 2011 - after that there are many other players I enjoyed watching much better.
 
socallefty said:
I don’t agree. I love watching many players like Djokovic, Alcaraz, Sinner, Rune, Rublev, Tsitsipas, Fritz, Hurkacz, Ruud, Paul, Lehecka, Jarry, Griekspoor, Cerundolo, Musetti, Eubanks, Fils, Nakashima, Wawrinka, Monfils etc. I also enjoy it when 2-3 top players dominate the big tournaments more than if 15 different players win the top tournaments - as happens today with mostly the top 5 players winning all the big titles. There are some players I have never liked watching like Nadal, Zverev, Medvedev, de Minaur, Shelton, Norrie, Evans, Murray, Kyrgios etc. and I would not mind it one bit if any of them dropped in the rankings or retired early.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you. Sorry.
 
weakera said:
I don't believe you. Sorry.
Click to expand...
It is OK. You can’t overcome being dropped on your head as a baby.

I have been watching and playing tennis for almost fifty years - top players come and go. Today’s players play the hardest-hitting and quickest form of tennis I’ve ever seen and I am quite happy. I try to go to as many pro and Open level tournaments as possible still while playing daily.
 
Last edited:
socallefty said:
It is OK. You can’t overcome being dropped on your head as a baby.

I have been watching and playing tennis for almost fifty years - top players come and go. Today’s players play the hardest-hitting and quickest form of tennis I’ve ever seen and I am quite happy. I try to go to as many pro and Open level tournaments as possible still while playing daily.
Click to expand...


I'm glad tennis is appealing to boomers and not younger fans. That bodes well in the long-term.
 
socallefty said:
I guess you can’t get your math right either after your unfortunate childhood accident - I’m Generation X.
Click to expand...

You're out of touch. Boomer is used to make fun of or sarcastically target older people, it no longer refers to only the literal baby boomer generation.
 
I see a lot of Djokovic fans who are adamant he is the undisputed GOAT and claiming he's the "statistical" GOAT is an insult because before, apparently, it was always the stats that made someone a "GOAT". I'm willing to go with this line of thinking, however it presents a few rather obvious problems in order to maintain that there is zero ambiguity on the topic.

1. Career length has been greatly extended by advances within the last 15-20 years only.
Ignoring the rather obvious use of PEDs amongst modern players, let's just say that a player from the 70's would have never been able to play at a high level beyond 30. They didn't understand nutrition, sport science wasn't well developed, and if they got injured we lacked the techniques to ensure they could recover without significant impairment. For this reason, most players retired by around 28-30 and had peaks at a far younger age than that.

In Novak's case, he was not winning the "statistical GOAT race" by the time he reached the average age of retirement, despite already benefitting from he fact those players were retiring after having played their final years in poor form (see Pete Sampras and Borg who lost motivation).

Given this, it's quite clear Novak benefitted immensely from being born at the right time as well as from career inflation - as have the other big three to varying degrees. Therefore, one would need to adopt a more standardised system to compare across generations. For example, it would be more accurate to compare relative performance within a tighter period of years. Moving forward, future generations can rightly be compared to the last few as they've all had similar playing conditions.

2. Arbitrary changes in game conditions and technological improvements have a significant impact on which players thrive in certain eras.
Novak clearly had no control over the year he was born nor the decisions of the ATP and major tournaments, yet benefitted by virtue of not having been part of a crossover generation. The baseline game was already established in junior training programmes, and as a pro he never had to contend with new string and racquet technology necessitating a change in equipment or style. Furthermore, court surfaces were largely altered around 2001 and have been relatively static since.

This is in comparison to other players who, mid-careers, have had to update equipment and make major tactical and game style adjustments to remain relevant. Federer being an obvious example of the last generation to face this issue. He changed racquet head size twice in his career while also changing to poly strings in his 20's. It seems ignorant to not factor this in when deciding on who is a GOAT as big changes can take years to adapt to, yet Novak never encountered these problems. Despite this, Djokovic was not leading statistically by the time he reached the average age of retirement, nor was he leading in h2h against many of the past generation like Federer and Roddick.

If one is fair minded, it would seem obvious that he gained several years of play where no disruption occured in play style. Meanwhile, prior generations were highly susceptible to being born at the wrong time, encountering fundamental changes to the game of tennis, or technological changes that made adapting futile and thus pushing them into early retirement even if they were still healthy.

So why is Novak the undisputed statistical GOAT if he had homogenised playing conditions, no technological disruption, and was still unable to beat the records of past players? Through this lens he had numerous advantages that past generations didn't have, and even then was unable to pull ahead with only 12 grand slams by the time he reached 30-31 years of age. By contrast, Pete Sampras had 13 by the time he was 30 and had stopped training seriously for a few years prior to that. Federer had accumulated 16 slams and a career slam by the time he turned 30. Borg got to 11 slams by the age of 25 and did so skipping the Australian open entirely and in a time when the US Open wasn't as highly valued either.

3. Slower court conditions reduce the likelihood of upsets and the number of players who can meaningfully challenge the top 5-10.
On a relative basis, the slower courts of the mid-2000's onwards reward consistent play over higher risk. Players with big serves and good net game are very unlikely to be successful. Furthermore, by reducing the relative importance of having a strong serve it greatly reduces the chance of upsets. On a fast court there is a risk of being broken in a single game which is very likely to cost the set as breaking back could prove impossible. Sampras for example was known for placing immense pressure on players during his service game. Kygrios also noted this against Djokovic and Nadal when saying how playing them they often let him get into the rally and feel like he had more of a chance, whereas Federer, being more aggressive, would try to blow you off the court fast and make you feel bad.

This isn't to diminish their amazing play styles. Of course they are exceptionally talented at that style of play. However, statistically slow courts make upsets less likely than on fast courts. Breaking back isn't nearly as hard as it used to be. Clay court specialists existed pre-2000's for a reason. That play style didn't translate to the hard and grass courts of the day. Those specialists would routinely make deep runs. Conversely, it wasn't uncommon for top players to get upset in the early rounds of Wimbeldon due to a lower ranked player being "on" and getting a few good breaks.

Homogenisation not only rewarded baseliners, but it also reduce the chance they could be upset as the modern game requires a low ranked player to sustain a very high level of baseline play for far longer. That's to say, all players today are playing a similar style and their relative levels are well established. For someone like Fritz to raise his level against Djokovic over several hours is very unlikely. However, in a S&V era just having a day of great serving could've been enough to get a few lucky breaks and a win. While one might instinctively say that this means Djokovic is more skillful, I'd counter that preventing upsets on very fast courts in a serve and volley era might well be just as hard or harder. Thus making consistent in deep runs more difficult than in the modern era.

The question then is: Why do slower, homogenised conditions on which Novak won all his titles, in which only 3-5 serious challengers have existed over the last 20 years, make him the undisputed GOAT over players who contended with far more unpredictable conditions with higher risk of upset and more varied threats to deep runs? Sampras or Borg had more threats to a run and thus more people they needed to counter.
 
weakera said:
I see a lot of Djokovic fans who are adamant he is the undisputed GOAT and claiming he's the "statistical" GOAT is an insult because before, apparently, it was always the stats that made someone a "GOAT". I'm willing to go with this line of thinking, however it presents a few rather obvious problems in order to maintain that there is zero ambiguity on the topic.

1. Career length has been greatly extended by advances within the last 15-20 years only.
Ignoring the rather obvious use of PEDs amongst modern players, let's just say that a player from the 70's would have never been able to play at a high level beyond 30. They didn't understand nutrition, sport science wasn't well developed, and if they got injured we lacked the techniques to ensure they could recover without significant impairment. For this reason, most players retired by around 28-30 and had peaks at a far younger age than that.

In Novak's case, he was not winning the "statistical GOAT race" by the time he reached the average age of retirement, despite already benefitting from he fact those players were retiring after having played their final years in poor form (see Pete Sampras and Borg who lost motivation).

Given this, it's quite clear Novak benefitted immensely from being born at the right time as well as from career inflation - as have the other big three to varying degrees. Therefore, one would need to adopt a more standardised system to compare across generations. For example, it would be more accurate to compare relative performance within a tighter period of years. Moving forward, future generations can rightly be compared to the last few as they've all had similar playing conditions.

2. Arbitrary changes in game conditions and technological improvements have a significant impact on which players thrive in certain eras.
Novak clearly had no control over the year he was born nor the decisions of the ATP and major tournaments, yet benefitted by virtue of not having been part of a crossover generation. The baseline game was already established in junior training programmes, and as a pro he never had to contend with new string and racquet technology necessitating a change in equipment or style. Furthermore, court surfaces were largely altered around 2001 and have been relatively static since.

This is in comparison to other players who, mid-careers, have had to update equipment and make major tactical and game style adjustments to remain relevant. Federer being an obvious example of the last generation to face this issue. He changed racquet head size twice in his career while also changing to poly strings in his 20's. It seems ignorant to not factor this in when deciding on who is a GOAT as big changes can take years to adapt to, yet Novak never encountered these problems. Despite this, Djokovic was not leading statistically by the time he reached the average age of retirement, nor was he leading in h2h against many of the past generation like Federer and Roddick.

If one is fair minded, it would seem obvious that he gained several years of play where no disruption occured in play style. Meanwhile, prior generations were highly susceptible to being born at the wrong time, encountering fundamental changes to the game of tennis, or technological changes that made adapting futile and thus pushing them into early retirement even if they were still healthy.

So why is Novak the undisputed statistical GOAT if he had homogenised playing conditions, no technological disruption, and was still unable to beat the records of past players? Through this lens he had numerous advantages that past generations didn't have, and even then was unable to pull ahead with only 12 grand slams by the time he reached 30-31 years of age. By contrast, Pete Sampras had 13 by the time he was 30 and had stopped training seriously for a few years prior to that. Federer had accumulated 16 slams and a career slam by the time he turned 30. Borg got to 11 slams by the age of 25 and did so skipping the Australian open entirely and in a time when the US Open wasn't as highly valued either.

3. Slower court conditions reduce the likelihood of upsets and the number of players who can meaningfully challenge the top 5-10.
On a relative basis, the slower courts of the mid-2000's onwards reward consistent play over higher risk. Players with big serves and good net game are very unlikely to be successful. Furthermore, by reducing the relative importance of having a strong serve it greatly reduces the chance of upsets. On a fast court there is a risk of being broken in a single game which is very likely to cost the set as breaking back could prove impossible. Sampras for example was known for placing immense pressure on players during his service game. Kygrios also noted this against Djokovic and Nadal when saying how playing them they often let him get into the rally and feel like he had more of a chance, whereas Federer, being more aggressive, would try to blow you off the court fast and make you feel bad.

This isn't to diminish their amazing play styles. Of course they are exceptionally talented at that style of play. However, statistically slow courts make upsets less likely than on fast courts. Breaking back isn't nearly as hard as it used to be. Clay court specialists existed pre-2000's for a reason. That play style didn't translate to the hard and grass courts of the day. Those specialists would routinely make deep runs. Conversely, it wasn't uncommon for top players to get upset in the early rounds of Wimbeldon due to a lower ranked player being "on" and getting a few good breaks.

Homogenisation not only rewarded baseliners, but it also reduce the chance they could be upset as the modern game requires a low ranked player to sustain a very high level of baseline play for far longer. That's to say, all players today are playing a similar style and their relative levels are well established. For someone like Fritz to raise his level against Djokovic over several hours is very unlikely. However, in a S&V era just having a day of great serving could've been enough to get a few lucky breaks and a win. While one might instinctively say that this means Djokovic is more skillful, I'd counter that preventing upsets on very fast courts in a serve and volley era might well be just as hard or harder. Thus making consistent in deep runs more difficult than in the modern era.

The question then is: Why do slower, homogenised conditions on which Novak won all his titles, in which only 3-5 serious challengers have existed over the last 20 years, make him the undisputed GOAT over players who contended with far more unpredictable conditions with higher risk of upset and more varied threats to deep runs? Sampras or Borg had more threats to a run and thus more people they needed to counter.
Click to expand...
Thus, Novak is not the GOAT when he reached 30, so he can't be the GOAT overall, no matter what he does from now on.

I can safely say, also- Novak is probably the greatest unvaccinated player, but Nadal is the greatest vaccinated and Federer is the greatest retired player. So in order for Novak to conquer all, he needs to take vaccine and to retire :).
My take is as logical as yours.
 
iopzzza said:
Thus, Novak is not the GOAT when he reached 30, so he can't be the GOAT overall, no matter what he does from now on.

I can safely say, also- Novak is probably the greatest unvaccinated player, but Nadal is the greatest vaccinated and Federer is the greatest retired player. So in order for Novak to conquer all, he needs to take vaccine and to retire :).
My take is as logical as yours.
Click to expand...

I can't take credit for that post, that is why it's italicized.
 
weakera said:
I see a lot of Djokovic fans who are adamant he is the undisputed GOAT and claiming he's the "statistical" GOAT is an insult because before, apparently, it was always the stats that made someone a "GOAT". I'm willing to go with this line of thinking, however it presents a few rather obvious problems in order to maintain that there is zero ambiguity on the topic.

1. Career length has been greatly extended by advances within the last 15-20 years only.
Ignoring the rather obvious use of PEDs amongst modern players, let's just say that a player from the 70's would have never been able to play at a high level beyond 30. They didn't understand nutrition, sport science wasn't well developed, and if they got injured we lacked the techniques to ensure they could recover without significant impairment. For this reason, most players retired by around 28-30 and had peaks at a far younger age than that.

In Novak's case, he was not winning the "statistical GOAT race" by the time he reached the average age of retirement, despite already benefitting from he fact those players were retiring after having played their final years in poor form (see Pete Sampras and Borg who lost motivation).

Given this, it's quite clear Novak benefitted immensely from being born at the right time as well as from career inflation - as have the other big three to varying degrees. Therefore, one would need to adopt a more standardised system to compare across generations. For example, it would be more accurate to compare relative performance within a tighter period of years. Moving forward, future generations can rightly be compared to the last few as they've all had similar playing conditions.

2. Arbitrary changes in game conditions and technological improvements have a significant impact on which players thrive in certain eras.
Novak clearly had no control over the year he was born nor the decisions of the ATP and major tournaments, yet benefitted by virtue of not having been part of a crossover generation. The baseline game was already established in junior training programmes, and as a pro he never had to contend with new string and racquet technology necessitating a change in equipment or style. Furthermore, court surfaces were largely altered around 2001 and have been relatively static since.

This is in comparison to other players who, mid-careers, have had to update equipment and make major tactical and game style adjustments to remain relevant. Federer being an obvious example of the last generation to face this issue. He changed racquet head size twice in his career while also changing to poly strings in his 20's. It seems ignorant to not factor this in when deciding on who is a GOAT as big changes can take years to adapt to, yet Novak never encountered these problems. Despite this, Djokovic was not leading statistically by the time he reached the average age of retirement, nor was he leading in h2h against many of the past generation like Federer and Roddick.

If one is fair minded, it would seem obvious that he gained several years of play where no disruption occured in play style. Meanwhile, prior generations were highly susceptible to being born at the wrong time, encountering fundamental changes to the game of tennis, or technological changes that made adapting futile and thus pushing them into early retirement even if they were still healthy.

So why is Novak the undisputed statistical GOAT if he had homogenised playing conditions, no technological disruption, and was still unable to beat the records of past players? Through this lens he had numerous advantages that past generations didn't have, and even then was unable to pull ahead with only 12 grand slams by the time he reached 30-31 years of age. By contrast, Pete Sampras had 13 by the time he was 30 and had stopped training seriously for a few years prior to that. Federer had accumulated 16 slams and a career slam by the time he turned 30. Borg got to 11 slams by the age of 25 and did so skipping the Australian open entirely and in a time when the US Open wasn't as highly valued either.

3. Slower court conditions reduce the likelihood of upsets and the number of players who can meaningfully challenge the top 5-10.
On a relative basis, the slower courts of the mid-2000's onwards reward consistent play over higher risk. Players with big serves and good net game are very unlikely to be successful. Furthermore, by reducing the relative importance of having a strong serve it greatly reduces the chance of upsets. On a fast court there is a risk of being broken in a single game which is very likely to cost the set as breaking back could prove impossible. Sampras for example was known for placing immense pressure on players during his service game. Kygrios also noted this against Djokovic and Nadal when saying how playing them they often let him get into the rally and feel like he had more of a chance, whereas Federer, being more aggressive, would try to blow you off the court fast and make you feel bad.

This isn't to diminish their amazing play styles. Of course they are exceptionally talented at that style of play. However, statistically slow courts make upsets less likely than on fast courts. Breaking back isn't nearly as hard as it used to be. Clay court specialists existed pre-2000's for a reason. That play style didn't translate to the hard and grass courts of the day. Those specialists would routinely make deep runs. Conversely, it wasn't uncommon for top players to get upset in the early rounds of Wimbeldon due to a lower ranked player being "on" and getting a few good breaks.

Homogenisation not only rewarded baseliners, but it also reduce the chance they could be upset as the modern game requires a low ranked player to sustain a very high level of baseline play for far longer. That's to say, all players today are playing a similar style and their relative levels are well established. For someone like Fritz to raise his level against Djokovic over several hours is very unlikely. However, in a S&V era just having a day of great serving could've been enough to get a few lucky breaks and a win. While one might instinctively say that this means Djokovic is more skillful, I'd counter that preventing upsets on very fast courts in a serve and volley era might well be just as hard or harder. Thus making consistent in deep runs more difficult than in the modern era.

The question then is: Why do slower, homogenised conditions on which Novak won all his titles, in which only 3-5 serious challengers have existed over the last 20 years, make him the undisputed GOAT over players who contended with far more unpredictable conditions with higher risk of upset and more varied threats to deep runs? Sampras or Borg had more threats toY a run and thus more people they needed to counter.
Click to expand...
You go on and on about the unfairness of slow courts, but who was the player who benefited the most on slow courts? I would say Nadal, not Djokovic. As for the playing conditions, they are the same for everyone and have been so for 20 years or more, so there is no excuse for players not to have adjusted their game to be able to play well on them. Your post is mostly an excuse to trash Novak's achievements and defend Roger and Rafa's inability to achieve as much as Novak Djokovic has, which is very unfair.
 
thrust said:
You go on and on about the unfairness of slow courts, but who was the player who benefited the most on slow courts? I would say Nadal, not Djokovic. As for the playing conditions, they are the same for everyone and have been so for 20 years or more, so there is no excuse for players not to have adjusted their game to be able to play well on them. Your post is mostly an excuse to trash Novak's achievements and defend Roger and Rafa's inability to achieve as much as Novak Djokovic has, which is very unfair.
Click to expand...

Not my words so I don't need to reply
 
esvc said:
Not really, Nole 2023 is more epic and emotional because Nole was absent at AO 22 and USO 22 and in 2023 Nole won 3 Slams and YEC and Year End #1 while Nadal is now ranked #663.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Nole GOAT.
But still, Rafa's 2022 RG was pretty epic.
 
I hope Nadal comes back at the best he can be given the injuries and how physical his playing style is. Who knows, maybe he's had time to work on a few things which could help him out finishing points earlier? Surely that's the way to go for longevity even if you lose a few more right matches because of it. I am enjoying the Djokovic vs Alcaraz turn the tour has taken, but I just hope Alcaraz will turn it up from Australia to make it more interesting and keep the H2H tight. I really hope we get Djokovic vs Alcaraz, Djokovic vs Nadal, and Alcaraz Vs Nadal a plenty next year especially on clay.
 
Can't wait to see him back if he's fit enough to actually compete. Since he left there's been a definite void IMO, just as after Federer retired.
While I agree with @socallefty that there are lots of exciting players now I really enjoy watching, I guess we disagree when it comes to Nadal and what he brings to the game.
I don't think the tour is boring without him, but certainly a little less exciting.

Also, kudos to the participants in this thread. We made it a full 24 posts before someone used the G word in one of it's forms.
That must be some sort of a record in a thread containing both Nadal and Djokovic..
 
weakera said:
Given this, it's quite clear Novak benefitted immensely from being born at the right time as well as from career inflation - as have the other big three to varying degrees.
Click to expand...
Literally what I've been saying for years. The only era where the perfect conditions converged to allow someone to be immensely successful as a young player and immensely successful as an older player. Prior generations didn't have this combo and I doubt future generations will benefit from it to the same extent. But it only seems to be diagnosed as a problem now that Djokovic is beating every record.
 
I wonder if Nadal starts with AO or some clay tournament in S. America. AO just seems too much for a come-back for him.
 
Nadal last time was having a bad showing in United Cup and AO. What he needs is some exos to first get into playing form. If he can't perform good, I will say wait for clay season. No need to worry about HC.

If Nadal is even semi healthy, he becomes a contender.

Nadal's clay elo rating right now is about 2450, same as Nole's overall Elo rating. No one is close to him in the clay elo today. I would be last guy to doubt him on clay. Let's see.
 
thrust said:
You go on and on about the unfairness of slow courts, but who was the player who benefited the most on slow courts? I would say Nadal, not Djokovic. As for the playing conditions, they are the same for everyone and have been so for 20 years or more, so there is no excuse for players not to have adjusted their game to be able to play well on them. Your post is mostly an excuse to trash Novak's achievements and defend Roger and Rafa's inability to achieve as much as Novak Djokovic has, which is very unfair.
Click to expand...
Novak wallovic is a super consistent human wall thus its only logical slow court helps him by making it easy to retrieve every single ball
 
Aestheticsaboveallelse said:
Novak wallovic is a super consistent human wall thus its only logical slow court helps him by making it easy to retrieve every single ball
Click to expand...
He still struggled with peak wawrinka though. As well prime Fedal and Murray at times. To beat Djokovic you have to stay with him in the long rallies and then have the magical shots that the game changer. Stan had it with the BH DTL shot. As well as clutch serving, returning and could go hours and be mentally tough on the big points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Gorilla
  • Poll Poll
Goran Ivanisevic
Replies
36
Views
3K
HAWKEYE
H
clayqueen
Goran Ivanisevic rates Rafael Nadal as Wimbledon favourite,
Replies
27
Views
2K
roysid
roysid
P
“Novak is a genius" Exclusive interview with Goran Ivanisevic
Replies
38
Views
2K
TripleATeam
TripleATeam
Marty Cintron
Goran Ivanisevic about Malek Jaziri
Replies
9
Views
2K
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Lew II
“He Is Already The Best Tennis Player In History”- Goran Ivanisevic On Novak Djokovic
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
8K
maupp
maupp
Back
Top