LOL at people saying things like "Nadal is LUCKY to be so good on clay, otherwise he would have..."
There is no otherwise. He is so good on clay. That's the only version of him that exists, and it's not due to "luck". He built himself and his style to be that good.
As to how he didn't win more... Being sandwiched between a couple of guys with 20 majors, one of whom is actually your contemporary, screams for winning far less than... 20 majors. I believe the reason he won so "little" in 2011&2012, which should have been his absolute peak years, is that he got a bit complacent after great 2010. He probably still worked hard, but only enough to maintain his level, not improve on it. Hard to blame him. He had Fed's number. Not in the wildest dreams he imagined Novak or anyone else would improve so much in just a couple of months. Yet it happened. And before he could work it out and catch on, Mr. Djo was deep in his head.
I believe his last chance to turn that rivalry in his favor convincingly and maybe re-instill his dominance over Novak was AO 2012. Ever after, besides clay, he could only beat Novak when the Serb took it lightly or wasn't at his best. Just like Federer could sometimes beat Nadal on clay back in the day. But it meant you-know-what in the grand scheme. Beating Novak at USO 2013 commenced this psychotic series of, how many, 20 straight sets he lost to Djoko on hard?
That's so embarrassing.
In the end, Nadal won "so little" because he had a true rival among his true contemporaries, a rival who could (off the clay) turn him into what Berdych was to Nadal. A once-dangerous, now-and-forever-harmless laughing stock.
There is no otherwise. He is so good on clay. That's the only version of him that exists, and it's not due to "luck". He built himself and his style to be that good.
As to how he didn't win more... Being sandwiched between a couple of guys with 20 majors, one of whom is actually your contemporary, screams for winning far less than... 20 majors. I believe the reason he won so "little" in 2011&2012, which should have been his absolute peak years, is that he got a bit complacent after great 2010. He probably still worked hard, but only enough to maintain his level, not improve on it. Hard to blame him. He had Fed's number. Not in the wildest dreams he imagined Novak or anyone else would improve so much in just a couple of months. Yet it happened. And before he could work it out and catch on, Mr. Djo was deep in his head.
I believe his last chance to turn that rivalry in his favor convincingly and maybe re-instill his dominance over Novak was AO 2012. Ever after, besides clay, he could only beat Novak when the Serb took it lightly or wasn't at his best. Just like Federer could sometimes beat Nadal on clay back in the day. But it meant you-know-what in the grand scheme. Beating Novak at USO 2013 commenced this psychotic series of, how many, 20 straight sets he lost to Djoko on hard?
That's so embarrassing.
In the end, Nadal won "so little" because he had a true rival among his true contemporaries, a rival who could (off the clay) turn him into what Berdych was to Nadal. A once-dangerous, now-and-forever-harmless laughing stock.
