Is Nadal the most unlikely all time great candidate?

[Laurie]

I ask this because when Nadal came through in 2005, no one thought he would become a candidate as one of the all time greats. Before I go on, note I don't say GOAT because I never get into those discussions as I simply think there can and never will be one greatest above all others.

For instance, when Nadal finally won Wimbledon in 2008 it led to a meltdown in forums around the world about the pace of grass, this discussion didn't exist in 2007 because Federer won the match instead of losing. Since that 2008 victory, Nadal has gone on to win 8 slams to date despite time out twice with long term injuries and withdrawing from slams in 2009 and 2010.

Another example is Sampras' book, he was predicting Federer would break all of his records but never thought of Nadal as someone who could do the same in upcoming years.

I think Nadal is the first true clay court specialist I have seen who has being able to conquer all four slams, in the past whether guys could achieve it or not, it was always grass and hardcourt players who were seen to have the potential to win all four slams or break records etc.

At what point prior to 2009 did any of you guys ever view Nadal as someone who could become a all time great candidate on all surfaces?

 

[dmt]

i thought of him as a serious contender after the ao 2009. Prior to that i thought he would end up with 8 majors, i didn't think he would win more than a dozen

 

[aldeayeah]

Wimbledon 2008 was the big breakthrough, beating Fed in his turf.

AO 2009 was more of a confirmation if anything.

I never thought he'd reach double digits until he actually reached them though, because he was injury prone.

I still don't think he'll reach Fed's slam # for that same reason.

 

[Crose]

I knew in 2010 after the USO that he'd be in the conversation. Djokovic kinda threw that off in 2011, but obviously things have come back to normal and Nadal's back on the GOAT track.

 

[GranollersGOAT]

Even after his wimbledon win over Federer in 2008 almost everyone still considered he wouldn't win any HC Grand Slam and I thought he would win the French Open several times and maybe another Wimbledon and that's it. He seemed to peak so early in his life I thought his career would be over in 2013.

 

[Backspin1183]

I knew the boy was special when I first saw him play against the then almost invincible Roger Federer in the 2006 Wimbledon final. I didn't think much of his serve or his game but saw how determined he was. Roger was outplaying him quite well but Rafa kept running after every ball and kept fighting even though you could tell there was no way he could win this match. I watched that match for Federer (as I like watching him play) and left convinced that Nadal would win Wimbledon some day. Been a fan since. I'm not too surprised he completed the career slam. But still I didn't think he'd win 13 slams by 27 as he's had to fight a lot for each Slam victory.

 

[Thriller]

Dubai 2006.

It was their fourth meeting and their third on hardcourts. Nadal led the H2H 2-1.

Federer came out all guns blazing, determined to put this upstart in his place and totally outclassed Nadal in the 1st set. It looked like it could be a humiliating defeat.

Somehow, Nadal turned it around. Started to be more aggressive with his backhand, going closer to the lines and even trying to take the net away from Federer when possible. It was remarkable to see a player so young and inexperienced able to adjust his strategy to turn it around.

I mean Federer was in blistering form that day. I cannot think of any player who wouldn't have wilted under that onslaught. That alone marked Nadal out as someone very special.

http://youtu.be/h3BgTGHBZzk

Wimbledon 2006 confirmed it. Again totally outclassed 6-0 in the first set playing at a standard that was a huge step up from the players he met en route to the final. Nadal made the adjustments, split two tie break sets with Federer before going down 6-3 in the last.

I was sure he would win Wimbledon one day after that performance.

Now competitive on every surface with an iron will, I had no doubt he would get into double figures in slams and therefore be talked about as an all time great.

 

[Laurie]

Dubai 2006.

It was their fourth meeting and their third on hardcourts. Nadal led the H2H 2-1.

Federer came out all guns blazing, determined to put this upstart in his place and totally outclassed Nadal in the 1st set. It looked like it could be a humiliating defeat.

Somehow, Nadal turned it around. Started to be more aggressive with his backhand, going closer to the lines and even trying to take the net away from Federer when possible. It was remarkable to see a player so young and inexperienced able to adjust his strategy to turn it around.

I mean Federer was in blistering form that day. I cannot think of any player who wouldn't have wilted under that onslaught. That alone marked Nadal out as someone very special.

http://youtu.be/h3BgTGHBZzk

Wimbledon 2006 confirmed it. Again totally outclassed 6-0 in the first set playing at a standard that was a huge step up from the players he met en route to the final. Nadal made the adjustments, split two tie break sets with Federer before going down 6-3 in the last.

I was sure he would win Wimbledon one day after that performance.

Now competitive on every surface with an iron will, I had no doubt he would get into double figures in slams and therefore be talked about as an all time great.

That's interesting, if I remember correctly, Nadal actually served for the 2nd set in the 06 Wimbledon final but was broken back. In the first set, the pace of the grass seemed too quick for him but he sure adjusted well and as you said just runs and fights.

But even when Nadal finally delivered Wimbledon in 2008, at that point I never thought he would be a contender for all four slams and eventually win them, and be in line to break the grand slam record; he stuggled at both the Australian and US open in the mid 2000s, especially when his opponents hit the backhand down the line against him.

 

[happyloman]

2008 wim

I remember the talk earlier that spring about how Nadal was really concentrating on wim.

and when he backed it up with the title I knew he had arrived

 

[winstonplum]

Nadal is one of the great tennis prodigies in the history of the game. When you beat a former grandslam winner (Pat Cash) when you're 14 and then beat former #1 and RG champ (Carlos Moya) when you're sixteen (Nadal also beat the defending RG champ a month earlier), I don't think anyone could possibly doubt your upside.

Nadal won the first time he ever played RG. I don't think too many people thought that he would settle on being a lifetime dirt specialist. He also beat newly minted #1 and two-time slam winner Roger Federer when Nadal was 17. I think of anyone in the last 50 years, those in the know probably figured that Nadal was on a one-way rocket to the top of the game and was going to stay there for a long time.

 

[mistik]

No the greatness was always there from day one. The main reason some couldnt see it was some old fart commies were so busy promoting Fed and downgraded Nadal. They try to sell Nadal as another typical Spanish player or someone like Courier who can be only good one or 2 years at most on slower surfaces.I never buy that logic.

 

[90's Clay]

Probably.

I must say I never expected Nadal to do much outside of clay. I definitely never expected him to win 3 hardcourt slams (and counting) for god sakes

 

[Mainad]

Probably.

I must say I never expected Nadal to do much outside of clay. I definitely never expected him to win 3 hardcourt slams (and counting) for god sakes

As far back as 2006, Nadal was making Wimbledon finals so this idea that he could only perform on clay is a strange one. Sure, the vast majority of his titles came on clay but that doesn't mean he wasn't able to adapt to other surfaces.
The fact that he now has multiple Slam titles on grass and hardcourt as well as on clay only confirms what we already knew.

 

[90's Clay]

As far back as 2006, Nadal was making Wimbledon finals so this idea that he could only perform on clay is a strange one. Sure, the vast majority of his titles came on clay but that doesn't mean he wasn't able to adapt to other surfaces.
The fact that he now has multiple Slam titles on grass and hardcourt as well as on clay only confirms what we already knew.

Well back in 2006, I didn't even think Nadal would be a great wimbledon candidate winner either. He had a pretty easy draw to even get to the finals that year. I thought 2006 may have been just one of those "fluke things"

But one thing Ive learned with Nadal, never ever count the guy out. Hes made a career out of proving people wrong

 

[Mustard]

He had a pretty easy draw to even get to the finals that year

Agassi and Baghdatis weren't exactly "easy". Agassi was even favoured going into his R32 match with Nadal. Baghdatis had reached the 2006 Australian Open final.

 

[tennisaddict]

Agassi and Baghdatis weren't exactly "easy". Agassi was even favoured going into his R32 match with Nadal. Baghdatis had reached the 2006 Australian Open final.

Agasssi, even 2003-05, and Bhagdatis are mickey mouse opponents for Federer, yet 2006 Agassi and the same Bhagdatis are tricky for Nadal.

 

[Mustard]

Agasssi, even 2003-05, and Bhagdatis are mickey mouse opponents for Federer, yet 2006 Agassi and the same Bhagdatis are tricky for Nadal.

Excuse me?

 

[Moose Malloy]

Agassi was even favoured going into his R32 match with Nadal.

I doubt that, Wimbledon was only Andre's 5th tournament in 2006. he was really struggling with his back.

 

[Mustard]

I doubt that, Wimbledon was only Andre's 5th tournament in 2006. he was really struggling with his back.

Agassi was the pre-match favourite because Nadal wasn't seen as a good grass-court player at all at the time. He had nearly lost to Kendrick in the previous round. Beating Agassi in straight sets was Nadal's first excellent performance on grass.

 

[90's Clay]

Agassi and Baghdatis weren't exactly "easy". Agassi was even favoured going into his R32 match with Nadal. Baghdatis had reached the 2006 Australian Open final.

Agassi was just a few months from retirement and older than dirt by then with a plastic back

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Agassi was the pre-match favourite because Nadal wasn't seen as a good grass-court player at all at the time. He had nearly lost to Kendrick in the previous round. Beating Agassi in straight sets was Nadal's first excellent performance on grass.

Although I agree Nadal had yet to establish his grass-court greatness, Nadal was favoured to win that match, from a gambling point of view.

 

[NatF]

I don't think anyone expects these great players to win quite as much as they do and have done.

 

[Mustard]

Agassi was just a few months from retirement and older than dirt by then with a plastic back

What had Nadal done on grass before facing Agassi at 2006 Wimbledon? Nadal was only 7-4 on grass in his career going into the match, and had survived by the skin of his teeth against Kendrick in the previous round. Agassi had been more impressive in beating Seppi.

 

[Mustard]

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=84874

See the poll results.

 

[octogon]

I don't think he was unlikely at all if you look at his progession. He was a teenage prodigy. He was able to beat Roger Federer on hardcourts when he was only 17. It should have been obvious to anyone that he had the potential to transfer his game to all surfaces.

I'm not sure why people didn't want to give Nadal credit for his talent and potential early on. A number of factors might have been involved. Because clay was his preferred surface, people wrongly assumed that he'd be like all those other European and South American clay court specialists who lacked the talent or ambition to do well on other surfaces.

Anither reason was the extreme Federer worship going on at the time. To make Federer look even more god-like, many commentators had to paint Nadal as some brutish, untalented slugger who won mainly through muscles and aggression. The early diagnosis of Nadal by many was one of the most spectacularly misjudged in tennis history. His all-time great potential was always evident. Many simply chose not to see it.

 

[90's Clay]

Did People even see Agassi's form at the time? Hell did people see Agassi's form through MOST of the 2003-2006 time period outside the USO?

The days of Andre being an all surface threat essentially ended probably in 1999 or 2000 or so

Hell I can't even remember what Agassi did on grass after 1999 or 2000


USO 2005 was basically his last hurrah.

 

[robert.s]

He's a warrior and he has an iron will, but Nadal sure makes tennis look painful. He doesn't show that effortlessness that other legends portray when they play, but he compensates this by always giving 100% on the court.

 

[Mustard]

Tennis is hard to play, though. It isn't easy. Nadal's play reflects this reality.

 

[TMF]

Agassi was just a few months from retirement and older than dirt by then with a plastic back

But 2006 Agassi was nothing anyway while the other players were playing excellent tennis.

 

[robert.s]

Tennis is hard to play, though. It isn't easy. Nadal's play reflects this reality.

It is hard, but some made/make it look easy. This is where pure talent comes into the ecuation.

 

[nadal era]

No the greatness was always there from day one. The main reason some couldnt see it was some old fart commies were so busy promoting Fed and downgraded Nadal. They try to sell Nadal as another typical Spanish player or someone like Courier who can be only good one or 2 years at most on slower surfaces.I never buy that logic.

Quoted for truth!

 

[nadal era]

I don't think he was unlikely at all if you look at his progession. He was a teenage prodigy. He was able to beat Roger Federer on hardcourts when he was only 17. It should have been obvious to anyone that he had the potential to transfer his game to all surfaces.

I'm not sure why people didn't want to give Nadal credit for his talent and potential early on. A number of factors might have been involved. Because clay was his preferred surface, people wrongly assumed that he'd be like all those other European and South American clay court specialists who lacked the talent or ambition to do well on other surfaces.

Anither reason was the extreme Federer worship going on at the time. To make Federer look even more god-like, many commentators had to paint Nadal as some brutish, untalented slugger who won mainly through muscles and aggression. The early diagnosis of Nadal by many was one of the most spectacularly misjudged in tennis history. His all-time great potential was always evident. Many simply chose not to see it.

Quoted for truth!

 

[Tenez101]

How is he unlikely? Dude was a child/teenage tennis prodigy, beat Federer IN HIS PRIME at age 17 in their first meeting, super-talented (just behind Federer imo), unbreakable nerves under pressure, amazing athleticism. Also he is virtually unbeatable on clay even playing his B game.

 

[Laurie]

I like some of the replies but I am a bit concerned some of these are "hindsight" replies even if not intentionally.

Yes its true Nadal beat Federer in 2004 and probably should have beat him in Miami in 2005 (would have it it was the wussy 3 set format we now have at ATP level).

But really I was specifically asking what you guys thought pre 2009 before he won the Australian. Up until that point he struggled mightily on hardcourts against aggressive players or players who could stretch him down the line, James Blake and Youzhny at the US Open, Murray played a blinder against him in 2008 semi there as well. Then there was the Tsonga and Fernando Gonzalez hammerings in Australia in 2007 and 2008. At that stage I never thought he would become a great hardcourt player. Of course we saw back in 2005 he was going to be a special player, but I didn't think on all surfaces at that point.

 

[winstonplum]

I like some of the replies but I am a bit concerned some of these are "hindsight" replies even if not intentionally.

Yes its true Nadal beat Federer in 2004 and probably should have beat him in Miami in 2005 (would have it it was the wussy 3 set format we now have at ATP level).

But really I was specifically asking what you guys thought pre 2009 before he won the Australian. Up until that point he struggled mightily on hardcourts against aggressive players or players who could stretch him down the line, James Blake and Youzhny at the US Open, Murray played a blinder against him in 2008 semi there as well. Then there was the Tsonga and Fernando Gonzalez hammerings in Australia in 2007 and 2008. At that stage I never thought he would become a great hardcourt player. Of course we saw back in 2005 he was going to be a special player, but I didn't think on all surfaces at that point.

Perhaps ignorance was bliss for me back then. I was just getting back into tennis in 2008-2009, but I remember thinking that there was no way in hell Nadal was going to lose to Federer at the 2009 AO. I don't know why, but I was just absolutely convinced that if the same guy showed up who had gutted out that Verdasco victory, he was not going to be denied.

 

[ultradr]

I think Nadal is the first true clay court specialist I have seen who has being able to conquer all four slams, in the past whether guys could achieve it or not, it was always grass and hardcourt players who were seen to have the potential to win all four slams or break records etc.

Is Nadal really a 1st?

Isn't there possibility that Federer was 1st great clay courter who could win on
all surfaces because all surfaces are being played similarly from baseliner ?

How many do you think Federer would end up winning French if Nadal was not
in this era ?

Just before his 1st Wimbledon, Federer had master's titles on all surfaces,
just like Nadal who have even more.

What is it that people think Nadal is so different from Federer ?
In terms of whole tennis history, both of them are baseliners.