How important is it for Nadal to defend a non-clay title?

D

drm025

Hall of Fame
How important is it for Nadal to defend a non-clay title given that Fed has only once defended a clay title (Hamburg 2004-2005). He achieved this at 2005 Hamburg with Nadal absent, beating one top-ten player (#8 Coria) who had just come off an extremely draining tournament losing the final in Rome to Nadal, and beating a qualifier (#56 Gasquet) in the final.

Keep in mind Nadal won Wimbledon in 2 straight appearances in 2008 and 2010, probably as close as you can get to defending without actually defending (some may even consider it defending). Also, he has made it to the final 3 times at non-clay tournaments he was defending losing to Djokovic 2.0 twice and Murray once.

Is this seemingly small circumstance important in comparing the 2?
 
drm025 said:
How important is it for Nadal to defend a non-clay title given that Fed has only once defended a clay title (Hamburg 2004-2005). He achieved this at 2005 Hamburg with Nadal absent, beating one top-ten player (#8 Coria) who had just come off an extremely draining tournament losing the final in Rome to Nadal, and beating a qualifier (#56 Gasquet) in the final.

Keep in mind Nadal won Wimbledon in 2 straight appearances in 2008 and 2010, probably as close as you can get to defending without actually defending (some may even consider it defending). Also, he has made it to the final 3 times at non-clay tournaments he was defending losing to Djokovic 2.0 twice and Murray once.

Is this seemingly small circumstance important in comparing the 2?
Click to expand...

Shows lack of consistency off clay - simple really, no?
 
drm025 said:
Keep in mind Nadal won Wimbledon in 2 straight appearances in 2008 and 2010, probably as close as you can get to defending without actually defending (some may even consider it defending). Also, he has made it to the final 3 times at non-clay tournaments he was defending losing to Djokovic 2.0 twice and Murray once.?
Click to expand...

Really??????
 
Well Federer has done it on clay, hard court and grass. He's also defended three of the four majors, many masters titles and the WTF.

How important is it for Nadal? Not very, but I do think it highlights that Rafa is first and foremost a threat on clay, and for more inconsistent elsewhere.
 
It's not important at all. What's important is for Rafa to get well first,
so that he can give him more chances to win more titles.

Winning at least one slam every year the past 10 years: That's Important!!!
 
Some of this is the timing of his injuries, the other half is that he's never been dominant anywhere but clay.
 
BigServer1 said:
Well Federer has done it on clay, hard court and grass. He's also defended three of the four majors, many masters titles and the WTF.

How important is it for Nadal? Not very, but I do think it highlights that Rafa is first and foremost a threat on clay, and for more inconsistent elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. It isn't important in itself at all, I would say.

However it is indicative of a facet of Rafa's game/legacy that is lacking: namely his surface versatility. Obviously, he has won lots on every surface/condition (except for indoors), but his records are still markedly skewed in favor of clay.
 
Nadal has done something on hardcourt that few have done, i.e. won Canada, Cincinnati and US Open in the same year. Not even Federer and Djokovic have done this. Nadal has also won the grass double of Queen's Club and Wimbledon, which he did in 2008. His dominance on clay says it all, and in 2010 he managed to a quadruple of Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid and the French Open.
 
This is a trivial issue — a quirk of Nadal's record. We already know that Nadal is far better on clay than on other surfaces, and his overall record reflects that surface disparity. How much a fan or pundit chooses to weigh that factor in assessing Nadal's achievements and legacy will vary. But pointing out that Nadal has not defended any nonclay title tells us nothing new about Nadal's game, and a "defense" of a title is not really an achievement that's worth considering independently of the title itself, unless we're talking about significant consecutive title streaks.
 
Mustard said:
Nadal has done something on hardcourt that few have done, i.e. won Canada, Cincinnati and US Open in the same year. Not even Federer and Djokovic have done this. Nadal has also won the grass double of Queen's Club and Wimbledon, which he did in 2008. His dominance on clay says it all, and in 2010 he managed to a quadruple of Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid and the French Open.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It should not be underplayed that Rafa has amazing achievements on all surfaces. He is a legend of the game, on all surfaces and slams. However, it also plain that his success on clay is much, much greater comparatively.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
Defending is important.

Consecutive match win streaks at a Grand Slam and tournaments are achievements that people, tennis fans, do remember.
Click to expand...

You are conflating two distinct things. Yes, it's true that Nadal will never hold the record for most U.S. Open titles in a row, or most consecutive Wimbledon match wins. Are those records of some importance to their holders? Of course. But agreeing to that rather self-evident proposition is very different from saying that a general lack of title defenses off clay is a significant demerit for Nadal. It's not. The absence of a positive is not necessarily a negative. There are lots of statistical accomplishments in tennis that can be nice little gold stars for those players who have them, while not constituting legacy blemishes for those who do not.
 
His potential GOAThood depends solely on that. It's that important.

Other than that, OP, if you want to compare him with what Fed has defended a more fair comparison is given below:

BigServer1 said:
Well Federer has done it on clay, outdoor and indoor hard court and grass. He's also defended three of the four majors, many masters titles and the WTF.

How important is it for Nadal? Not very, but I do think it highlights that Rafa is first and foremost a threat on clay, and for more inconsistent elsewhere.
Click to expand...
 
Not really that important. But Fed actually defended almost every big title he won and on 3 different surfaces as well. Surface versatility: this is what separates Federer from Nadal
 
Mustard said:
66-1 at the French Open says it all. It dwarfs even Borg's record at the event of 49-2, which is extraordinary.
Click to expand...

Yes, I complete agree. But, you have to admit, it is amazing that Nadal's longest match winning streak at one Grand Slam is 35. Federer, of course, had a 40 match winning streak at two different Grand Slams. Federer has at least 19 match winning streaks at three Grand Slams. Nadal just at the French Open.
 
ivan_the_terrible said:
Shows lack of consistency off clay - simple really, no?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. He's basically a surface specialist who was lucky enough to play during the dead court era with a physique and imperviousness to fatigue never before witnessed in tennis.

drm025 said:
Keep in mind Nadal won Wimbledon in 2 straight appearances in 2008 and 2010, probably as close as you can get to defending without actually defending (some may even consider it defending).
Click to expand...

Remember, Nads skips tournaments in order to deliberately avoid early round losses. If he was as hurt as he claimed, he would have had a R1 loss in 2009 . . . to go with his R1 loss in 2013 and R2 loss in 2012.

McEnroeisanartist said:
Yes, I complete agree. But, you have to admit, it is amazing that Nadal's longest match winning streak at one Grand Slam is 35. Federer, of course, had a 40 match winning streak at two different Grand Slams. Federer has at least 19 match winning streaks at three Grand Slams. Nadal just at the French Open.
Click to expand...

Again, he's basically a surface specialist who was lucky enough to play during the last decade.
 
drm025 said:
How important is it for Nadal to defend a non-clay title given that Fed has only once defended a clay title (Hamburg 2004-2005). He achieved this at 2005 Hamburg with Nadal absent, beating one top-ten player (#8 Coria) who had just come off an extremely draining tournament losing the final in Rome to Nadal, and beating a qualifier (#56 Gasquet) in the final.

Keep in mind Nadal won Wimbledon in 2 straight appearances in 2008 and 2010, probably as close as you can get to defending without actually defending (some may even consider it defending). Also, he has made it to the final 3 times at non-clay tournaments he was defending losing to Djokovic 2.0 twice and Murray once.

Is this seemingly small circumstance important in comparing the 2?
Click to expand...
You know, about the skipping part, had Fed skipped W in 2010 and 2011 and gone directly in 2012 he would have reached 8 straight finals there. See how ridiculous it is to use skipping in Nadal's favor? When you skip an event one year, it automatically means he didn't win 2 straight ones.
 
It is important to show consistency but at the end of the day it looks like that is not how Nadal rolls and his final slam tally is what will matter most. He does things "differently."
 
drm025 said:
How important is it for Nadal to defend a non-clay title given that Fed has only once defended a clay title (Hamburg 2004-2005). He achieved this at 2005 Hamburg with Nadal absent, beating one top-ten player (#8 Coria) who had just come off an extremely draining tournament losing the final in Rome to Nadal, and beating a qualifier (#56 Gasquet) in the final.

Keep in mind Nadal won Wimbledon in 2 straight appearances in 2008 and 2010, probably as close as you can get to defending without actually defending (some may even consider it defending). Also, he has made it to the final 3 times at non-clay tournaments he was defending losing to Djokovic 2.0 twice and Murray once.

Is this seemingly small circumstance important in comparing the 2?
Click to expand...

Not important at all, his career is already ridiculously good (second only to Federer's and maybe Pete's in open era).

However, your "arguments" are basically double standards, invented to minimize Nadal's relative inferiority (in terms of achievements) to Federer.
You mentioned that Federer's run in Hamburg 2005 is not impressive, since the players he beat were ranked much lower than him. Of course, you deliberately ignored the fact that Nadal beat in Monte Carlo (same year) the opponents of the same quality.

Also, your try to put an equality between Nadal's inability to defend a non clay title and Federer's ability to defend a clay title only once is a failure, because there are more than two different surfaces in tennis and Roger has defended titles on all surfaces he played (with the exception of carpet, although not many tournaments were played on carpet in his era).

Your post is more anti-Federer than pro-Nadal propaganda, but I guess you don't see a difference.
 
Martin J said:
Not important at all, his career is already ridiculously good (second only to Federer's and maybe Pete's in open era).

However, your "arguments" are basically double standards, invented to minimize Nadal's relative inferiority (in terms of achievements) to Federer.
You mentioned that Federer's run in Hamburg 2005 is not impressive, since the players he beat were ranked much lower than him. Of course, you deliberately ignored the fact that Nadal beat in Monte Carlo (same year) the opponents of the same quality.

Also, your try to put an equality between Nadal's inability to defend a non clay title and Federer's ability to defend a clay title only once is a failure, because there are more than two different surfaces in tennis and Roger has defended titles on all surfaces he played (with the exception of carpet, although not many tournaments were played on carpet in his era).

Your post is more anti-Federer than pro-Nadal propaganda, but I guess you don't see a difference.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself!
 
This thread sucks.

How is Nadal not defending on any surface other than clay be compared with Fed who has defended everywhere including once on clay ?
 
Its very clear to anyone with half a mind that Nadal is much more 1-dimensional than any other great he gets compared to.

If the modern era hadn't slowed down courts so much, he'd only be known as a clay specialist like many other Spaniards.
 
Another words, Rafa's blemishes don't tarnish his legacy but H2H against ONE player is everything.

Nothing new
 
HipRotation said:
Didn't seem that important to Connors or effect his legacy, he pretty much only defended Philadelphia
Click to expand...

Connors defended his USO title in 1983, and had streaks of 2 victories or more at several other quality tourneys on all surfaces (i.e., Philly, Memphis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, S. Africa, Queens Club, Indianapolis on green clay, North Conway on red clay, etc.).

Didn't bother to show up to defend a few tournaments he won as well (Dallas WCT in particular). Nature of the tour back in the 1970s/early 80s- just a different mentality.

But I take your point, and agree that this is ultimately a minor issue for Nadal.
 
It is no secret that if Nadal becomes the best ever, it will be mostly through a combination of his ridiculous/beyond anything ever seen in tennis anywhere dominance on clay, and his general dominance over Federer. Just being barely great enough in overall ability on other surfaces to make it, but it will mostly be due to clay and the matchup with Federer.
 
Martin J said:
Not important at all, his career is already ridiculously good (second only to Federer's and maybe Pete's in open era).

However, your "arguments" are basically double standards, invented to minimize Nadal's relative inferiority (in terms of achievements) to Federer.
You mentioned that Federer's run in Hamburg 2005 is not impressive, since the players he beat were ranked much lower than him. Of course, you deliberately ignored the fact that Nadal beat in Monte Carlo (same year) the opponents of the same quality.

Also, your try to put an equality between Nadal's inability to defend a non clay title and Federer's ability to defend a clay title only once is a failure, because there are more than two different surfaces in tennis and Roger has defended titles on all surfaces he played (with the exception of carpet, although not many tournaments were played on carpet in his era).

Your post is more anti-Federer than pro-Nadal propaganda, but I guess you don't see a difference.
Click to expand...

My point was not that Fed's titles in 2005 was undeserving just that he had favorable circumstances for his lone title defense on clay that apparently makes him completely versatile because he's defended on every surface. I say it's relevant because I said that Rafa made 3 finals at a tournament he was defending off clay and had to play 2.0 Djokovic and Murray. Just saying with the right circumstances he probably would have a title defense. The fact that he hasn't seems inconsequential for this reason.
 
mike danny said:
You know, about the skipping part, had Fed skipped W in 2010 and 2011 and gone directly in 2012 he would have reached 8 straight finals there. See how ridiculous it is to use skipping in Nadal's favor? When you skip an event one year, it automatically means he didn't win 2 straight ones.
Click to expand...

How would skipping 2 years be equivalent to skipping one? Either way his win-loss at wimbledon from 2008-2010 was 14-0. That's how it works. He did not lose. I understand you can't technically call it a title defense, though.
 
drm025 said:
How important is it for Nadal to defend a non-clay title given that Fed has only once defended a clay title (Hamburg 2004-2005). He achieved this at 2005 Hamburg with Nadal absent, beating one top-ten player (#8 Coria) who had just come off an extremely draining tournament losing the final in Rome to Nadal, and beating a qualifier (#56 Gasquet) in the final.

Keep in mind Nadal won Wimbledon in 2 straight appearances in 2008 and 2010, probably as close as you can get to defending without actually defending (some may even consider it defending). Also, he has made it to the final 3 times at non-clay tournaments he was defending losing to Djokovic 2.0 twice and Murray once.

Is this seemingly small circumstance important in comparing the 2?
Click to expand...
Seriously, are you thick? Federer won Wimbledon 2009, so he was the defending champion in 2010.
 
Chanwan said:
His potential GOAThood depends solely on that. It's that important.

Other than that, OP, if you want to compare him with what Fed has defended a more fair comparison is given below:
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised to hear that from you. So even winning multiple titles at several tournaments off of clay isn't enough? He has to win it back-to-back years? That seems silly. Him winning Doha next year would be that significant?

Only makes sense to me if he hadn't won a non-clay title more than once. He's won Wimbledon twice (3 other finals), US Open twice (1 other final), Canada 3 times, and IW 3 times. How does this not show consistency off of clay?
 
helloworld said:
Seriously, are you thick? Federer won Wimbledon 2009, so he was the defending champion in 2010.
Click to expand...

That's why I said it's close to defending, but not actually defending. From 2008-2010 his record at Wimbledon was 14-0. He won 2 titles without losing, but there was one year in between. You have to agree that is "close" to actually defending.
 
drm025 said:
My point was not that Fed's titles in 2005 was undeserving just that he had favorable circumstances for his lone title defense on clay that apparently makes him completely versatile because he's defended on every surface. I say it's relevant because I said that Rafa made 3 finals at a tournament he was defending off clay and had to play 2.0 Djokovic and Murray. Just saying with the right circumstances he probably would have a title defense. The fact that he hasn't seems inconsequential for this reason.
Click to expand...

You could also say that Federer had to play Nadal, clay goat, that's why he couldn't defend more clay titles (double standards, again). Anyway, that wasn't my point, the fact that Federer has defended titles basically everywhere, even if you exclude his Hamburg defense, speaks for itself.
Nadal, on the other hand, couldn't defend a single non clay title, so compared to Federer, he fells short in this one, no matter how you slice it.

And, as I said, I don't think it's relevant at all. If he wins 18 Majors, I will put him above Federer. If he wins 17, they will be equal in my book.
 
Martin J said:
You could also say that Federer had to play Nadal, clay goat, that's why he couldn't defend more clay titles (double standards, again). Anyway, that wasn't my point, the fact that Federer has defended titles basically everywhere, even if you exclude his Hamburg defense, speaks for itself.
Nadal, on the other hand, couldn't defend a single non clay title, so compared to Federer, he fells short in this one, no matter how you slice it.

And, as I said, I don't think it's relevant at all. If he wins 18 Majors, I will put him above Federer. If he wins 17, they will be equal in my book.
Click to expand...

Well we agree then, cause my only point was that it wasn't that significant.
 
Martin J said:
You could also say that Federer had to play Nadal, clay goat, that's why he couldn't defend more clay titles (double standards, again). Anyway, that wasn't my point, the fact that Federer has defended titles basically everywhere, even if you exclude his Hamburg defense, speaks for itself.
Nadal, on the other hand, couldn't defend a single non clay title, so compared to Federer, he fells short in this one, no matter how you slice it.

And, as I said, I don't think it's relevant at all. If he wins 18 Majors, I will put him above Federer. If he wins 17, they will be equal in my book.
Click to expand...

And it's not a double standard, it would be if I was criticizing Fed for defending only one clay title, which I'm not. Nadal is the one being criticized. What I pointed out shows that Nadal had harder circumstances to defend, I don't see the issue with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
How important is defending a tournament
Replies
23
Views
2K
jelle v
jelle v
sbengte
Nadal will defend a HC title in 2014
Replies
16
Views
2K
sbengte
sbengte
N
  • Poll Poll
Is Nadal going to defend a non-clay before he retires?
2
Replies
67
Views
4K
Boom-Boom
Boom-Boom
O
is it really that important to defend points?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Russeljones
Russeljones
TMF
Is 2018 USO the last chance for Nadal to defend non-clay before he retires ?
Replies
30
Views
2K
vanioMan
vanioMan
Back
Top