Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by The Dark Knight, Apr 28, 2013.
Does anyone know ?
He wouldn't have won them if he'd played them. Nice try.
Off the top of my head - 2004FO, 2006AO, 2009Wim, 2012US, 2013AO
Add 2003 FO as well and 2004 Wimbledon.
This is what the OP is trying to insinuate,if he really wanted to know he could've looked it up on wiki, good catch Cup.
Furthermore the OP is a known Fed hater, just so you know.
How many grand slams has Federer missed?
I think the OP said "due to injuries". It's a trick question. The answer is zero.
Depends if you consider butthurt an injury
yep, Nadal's soul was taken by Rosol. Not easy for a legend to digest losing to a guy ranked #100 in the biggest upset in the history of Wimbledon.
And you're a known Nadal hater so what's the difference?
IDK you tell me Djoko hater. :lol:
I don't start threads about my most disliked player the way you do. I'm beginning to think maybe you have a crush on Nadal or something since he seems to be all you think about. :lol:
You don't make threads,period. Besides you're too busy using your voodoo to keep Djoker at bay so where will you have the time to start threads? :lol:
PS: I see you got yourself a new avatar. Congrats, it's nice to you see in a good mood. Seeing you after the MC loss I almost wanted Ralph to win in future. :lol:
edit: double post.
I've never had one before but I liked that pic so much I decided to finally get one.
Huh? I knew he would lose that match so I was hardly devastated by his loss. You, otoh, probably still have PTSD about the 2008 Wimby final. :lol:
2008 AO, 2008 FO, 2008 W due to mono and 2009 AO due to back pain.
OP no reply, no?
None. But he missed quite a few due to suspensions over drug abuse.
Here is a Telegraph article reporting his withdraw from 2009 Wimbledon as a defending champaign. Knees injury, loss in the FO and poor results in the warm-up matches (losing to Hewitt and Wawarinka) were all cited as the reasons for the withdraw.
From the article:
The questions over Nadal's long-term fitness have hung over the champion for several years now and the popular idea that his peculiarly intense explosive and physical approach could result in him burning out in the next few years has previously always irritated him.
Back in March during one of his all-conquering periods, for instance, he had an emphatic answer to the idea that he was punishing his body so hard that it could result in his career ending prematurely.
"They were saying this three years ago, that I couldn't last," he had responded with incredulity back then. "And after four years, I'm better than I ever was. This irritates me. I'm tired of people telling me I can't go on playing like this.
OP, after you stated in another thread that you are the voice of reason, and you go on and on about the Nadal hate thread....why do you feel you need to post a thread that is designed to do the same for Nadal's nemesis?
Looks like you broke your one rule.....
Actually, NONE. Partly because of his approach towards the game and pure luck... Nole is also lucky that way. He has a very physical game but, till now, hasnt picked up a major injury. It's interesting how everyone says that Nadal had it coming but no one says that about Nole
Nole has retired 4 times at grand slams so does that count?
Wow.....all i did was ask a question .
I did look it up by the way and I couldn't find te answer even on Wiki.
Actually I still don't know the answer .....
Nadal has missed 8 grand slams? Is that right ?
Though you continually profess your eternal loathing for Djokovic, yet you are always Djokovic this, Djokovic that. Not to mention all your plethora of endless made up cute nicknames for him. hehehehe!
Haven't you guys figured out by now Clarky's real loyalties and affections? It was Mr. NA who was the one to put his finger on the right spot, after all, suddenly, it all made sense.
Let's see. RG 2004, W 2004, AO 2006, W 2009, USO 2012, AO 2013. That's 6. (In 2003, he was 16/17 and I don't think he intended to play AO at all, not sure about RG).
Murray skipped RG and W 2007 (I'm gonna assume injury)
Fed missed USO 1999 (not sure why, he played W and RG that year)
Djoko's never skipped a slam (since he started playing them in 2005)
So did Nadal miss 6 or 8 slams???
I'm gonna go for 6. Unless there is any knowledge of whether he intended to play RG 2003, I'm just assuming he was too young (16) and simply planned on starting at W 2003 when he was 17.
Did you count these ?
I counted W 2004. It's 6 including W 2004. Not sure about RG 2003 as I said.
So we are at 6,7, or 8.....
I've looked on the net for a definitive answer as well but cannot find the answer .
8 is the least likely (he was playing challengers around AO 2003) + I find it preposterous to talk of "skipping" when the guy is only 16. In that case let's count 4+ for Fed and Djoko because they were not playing slams at 16. My understanding of "miss" is: skipping slams after a player STARTS playing them. Nadal started playing slams at W 2003 when he was 17. The first one he skipped was RG 2004. I'll stick to that.
I don't know how many he has missed ....I'm not counting or not counting any....
It may in fact be 6? I just don't know the answer for sure and from
What you say .....even you are not sure.
But here's what I think we do know....
It was most probably 6 but by no means more than 8.....is that a fair statement?
I never thought of this but is there a stat for winning percentages?
Who has the higher win loss percentage Nadal or Fed.
In other words Of the slams they were in how many has Federer won and how many has Nadal won ?
A more accurrate question you should ask is what was their winning percentage in slams at the same age, that will let you know how they did year for year.
When Nadal gets to 31, then you can ask what were their winning percentages when both hit this landmark in their careers.
In terms of winning % in slams, Borg is #1 with 89.8, Nadal is #2 with 87.7, Fed is #3 with 86.9 (#4 is Laver and #5 is Sampras.)
In terms of records though, my feeling is that the deal is sealed for Fed. Not only are Nadal/Djoko unlikely to ever reach 17 slam titles but at this point, they're even unlikely to score 2 consecutive seasons of winning 3 slams and 3 seasons total (Fed's 2004, 2006, 2007). Nadal/Djoko have 1 each. And they're also extremely unlikely to ever have 3 seasons of making 4 slam finals (Fed's 2006, 2007 and 2009) as they don't even have one as it is.
So the most probable is that Fed will keep the slam record in general. I don't see that up for discussion at the moment.
He was going to play 2003 RG as his first slam....but got injured doing something stupid. Then got injured at 2004 FO for doing something stupid again.
Funny after that he has such a good record. If it were not for those injuries....Rafa would have had 2 more losses in RG cabinet. He was quite good back then but he lost to top Clay Courters...not the beast he came in 2005.
1.↑ Nadal missed the 2003 French Open due to a right elbow injury.
2.↑ 2.0 2.1 Nadal missed the French Open and Wimbledon in 2004 due to a fracture in his left ankle.
3.↑ Nadal missed the 2006 Australian Open due to a foot injury.
4.↑ Nadal missed the 2009 Wimbledon due to tendinitis in the knee.
Wow!! You are awesome !!!
That's a really amazing stat!!!
I wonder why it's never been done before .
The player to me with the most amazing stats is Laver actually.
He won not only one calendar grand slam but two and in the twighlight of his career.
It would be like Federer now winning calendar grand slams for two years in a row.
It's amazing also that Nadal has missed at least more than half of the slams that he has won.
OK, then that makes 7 total. Thanks for the info.
I was talking only open era. Laver has only 1 calendar slam in open era (Don Budge also had a calendar slam pre-open era, in 1938) Laver was awesome but the conditions are very different now. In 1969, 3 of the 4 slams Laver won were on grass.
Well three of the four slams today are on slow grass or slow hard courts.
There are countless threads here on how all the surfaces have become the same.
Can't argue both ways to fit ones purpose . Either they are all different or they are not .
But all I said it was an amazing stat no reason to belittle it.
Another amazing stat is of course Nadals ......to have 11 slams
And to miss 6 to 8 of them is truly amazing . Same as Borg who missed just about every AO or Connors who missed a lot of FO's.
Federers 17 is also amazing because he has never missed a slam . The man never gets injured . Astounding stats all around .
Ok so we have an answer? Nadal missed 7 slams?
Are we all agreed ?
Those were of little significance as they were mostly when he wasnt good enough to win slams. How many injuries has he had during the last 3-4 years?
The injuries that hurt are the ones when you have a legit chance of winning the big tournaments. (eg Nadal's 09 and 12 injuries. Those that occured in 03 and 04 dont count regarding Rafa)
He would have won at least 2 of the slams he withdrew from, maybe more.
OMG you have a Nadal avatar! I thought you hated him.
You thought wrong.
1 thing that Rafa has over Fed on top of the overall winning % in slams is the fact that he has more than 1 slam title on all 3 surfaces.
Gooooooooosh, wow , yeah gripping story. Particularly when you consider the fact that there are TWO HC majors (out of which one plays pretty much like clay). :shock:
That's a lot easier to do when there are 2 slams on HC and only one on grass and clay. He's only won the USO and AO once each. Whereas Federer has multiple wins in 3 slams; W-7, USO-5, AO-4.
just noticed your post. sorry for saying pretty much the same thing.
Not to take away from Nadal's tremendous achievement in winning multiple slams on each surface (something only one other person has been able to do - Mats Wilander), but I find it astonishing that Federer is tied for the Open Era record at three of the four slams. Simply incredible.
Separate names with a comma.