Lot of Pressure on Nadal, IF he cannot get back into the Top 5 then he will have to beat Sampras's Record

Can Nadal beat Sampras's record ?


  • Total voters
    14

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Athletes who left the Top 5 permanently have always failed to reach another Grand Slam Final in the last 40 years.
Sampras and Ivanisevic probably the only 2 people to beat that.....Sampras is the oldest to do it at 31+ years.
IF Nadal cannot get back into the top 5 then it means he is fighting against Time to beat Sampras's record.
If there is anyone who can beat Pete's record then it must be Rafa due to his dominant clay performance.


Latest age in Top 5 vs Latest age in a Grand Slam Final in the last 40 years [Min 4 Finals Reached]

Federer - 39 years 6 months vs 37 years 10 months [-1.6 years]
Nadal - 36 years 7 months vs 35 years 11 months [-8 months]
Djokovic - 35 years 10 months vs 35 years 8 months [-2 months]
Connors - 35 years 10 months vs 31 years 9 months [-4 years]
Agassi - 35 years 6 months vs 35 years 4 months [-2 months]
Arthur Ashe - 32 years 11 months vs 31 years 11 months [-1 year]
Wawrinka - 32 years 5 months vs 32 years 2 months [-3 months]
Lendl - 31 years 10 months vs 30 years 10 months [-1 year]
Mcenroe - 31 years vs 26 years 10 months [-4 years]
.
.
Vilas - 30 years 11 months vs 29 year 10 months [-1 year]
Murray - 30 years 5 months vs 29+ [-1.5 year]
.
.
Sampras - 29 years 10 months vs 31 years 14 days [+1.2 years]
.
.
Becker - 28 years 11 months vs 28+ years [-11 months]
Rafter - 28 years 10 months vs 28.5 years [-5 months]
Edberg - 28 years 9 months vs 27 years [-1.75 years]
.
.
Thiem - 27 years 9 months vs 27 years [-9 months]
Medvedev - 27 years 1 month vs 25 years 11 months [-1.2 years]
Roddick - 27 years vs 26 years 10 months [- 2 months]
Ivanisevic - 26 years 1 months vs 29 years 9 months [+3.7 years]
Chang - 25 years 11 months vs 24.5 years [-1.5 years]
Borg - 25 years 11 months vs 25+ years [-11 months]
Safin - 25 years 9 months vs 25 years [-9 months]
Kuerten - 25 years 8 months vs 24 years 10 months [-10 months]
Wilander - 25 years 6 days vs 24+ years [-1.5 years]
.
.
.
Hewitt - 24 years 10 months vs 23 years 10 months [-1 year]
Courier - 23 years 8 months vs 22 years 11 months [-9 months]
 
Last edited:

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
Does anybody knows why toni is no longer Nadal coach?????

After all they were most successful coach player combo in history of open era, I believe

Toni was tired of travelling to tournaments. He called Carlos Moya in December 2016 and offered him a job at the Rafa Team (and at Rafa's academy as the Technical Director; Toni has been the Head of the academy since it was founded). Moya agreed on the condition that Rafa wanted to win GS tournaments again. It was a smooth transition from Toni to Moya. After Moya joined the Rafa Team, Toni continued to travel with the team for a year.
 

adil1972

Hall of Fame
Toni was tired of travelling to tournaments. He called Carlos Moya in December 2016 and offered him a job at the Rafa Team (and at Rafa's academy as the Technical Director; Toni has been the Head of the academy since it was founded). Moya agreed on the condition that Rafa wanted to win GS tournaments again. It was a smooth transition from Toni to Moya. After Moya joined the Rafa Team, Toni continued to travel with the team for a year.

Hum Thnx for the info
 

LaVie en Rose

Hall of Fame
Does anybody knows why toni is no longer Nadal coach?????

After all they were most successful coach player combo in history of open era, I believe

He was great at creating physical freak kick boxer like physically never seen before in tennis,an lefty antidote to mostly righty tour from solid/average to significantly weaker backhand side.Thougt him running meters behind the base line, moon-balling heavy defensive shots to that backhand side,to open the court to muscle FHs.Guy was strategic genius.Deserves all credit for that.But Moya with base he got helped Nadal to become more aggressive player than he ever was and actually prolonged Nadal career.Remember he used to hit like 5 winners per set max.OP Nadal just fell of Top 10 for the first time in years.Lets give him some time ,to see the effect
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
OP Nadal just fell of Top 10 for the first time in years.Lets give him some time ,to see the effect

Nadal has been struggling in every tournament since winning french last year. While it took time for him to fall of the top 10 because of the points he accumulated last year end of FO, the struggle started 1 year ago. So the concerns are real and the countdown might have started already - he is running short of time if he cannot win the french open.
 

LaVie en Rose

Hall of Fame
Nadal has been struggling in every tournament since winning french last year. While it took time for him to fall of the top 10 because of the points he accumulated last year end of FO, the struggle started 1 year ago. So the concerns are real.
I guess they are.Yet RG is the time for more informed assessment of his “downfall” imo.And that only if he fails to defend his title .
 

Julius Caesar

Professional
Nadal has been struggling in every tournament since winning french last year. While it took time for him to fall of the top 10 because of the points he accumulated last year end of FO, the struggle started 1 year ago. So the concerns are real and the countdown might have started already - he is running short of time if he cannot win the french open.
BS
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
What an obscure record - I am a 100% sure no one is thinking about this useless stat. Sampras retired way too young. Rafa started younger and played longer. Facts.

Of course Rafa's longevity is bigger than Pete's but it is not like Pete retired way too young, at the time of his retirement among the guys who careers fell entirely in the open era, only Agassi had won a slam at an older age than Pete, so it is not like he retired too young. In his time 31 was today's 36-37.

This "Record" is more of a "Trivia" and this Trivia is significant for Nadal because Nadal is at the last phase of his career, so this kind of trivias become significant in predicting future since the last 12 months have been very taxing on Nadal's body, more than ever, so this trivia becomes relevant now as the french open 2023 approaches, a very crucial slam for Nadal..... he cannot afford to lose it.
 

Azure

G.O.A.T.
Of course Rafa's longevity is bigger than Pete's but it is not like Pete retired way too young, at the time of his retirement among the guys who careers fell entirely in the open era, only Agassi had won a slam at an older age than Pete, so it is not like he retired too young. In his time 31 was today's 36-37.

This "Record" is more of a "Trivia" and this Trivia is significant for Nadal because Nadal is at the last phase of his career, so this kind of trivias become significant in predicting future since the last 12 months have been very taxing on Nadal's body, more than ever, so this trivia becomes relevant now as the french open approaches, a very crucial slam for Nadal.....
No- there were people like Connors, Rosewall etc who had a greater longevity plus Sampras rarely concentrated on the entire clay season and that gave him plenty of off time. Its a mental thing. Navratilova, McEnroe all played late into their careers while playing doubles too. He didn’t retire in 1920 for the medical part to play a big role in enlongating careers. He retired in 2002.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Athletes who left the Top 5 permanently have always failed to reach another Grand Slam Final in the last 40 years.
Sampras and Ivanisevic probably the only 2 people to beat that.....Sampras is the oldest to do it at 31+ years.
IF Nadal cannot get back into the top 5 then it means he is fighting against Time to beat Sampras's record.
If there is anyone who can beat Pete's record then it must be Rafa due to his dominant clay performance.


Latest age in Top 5 vs Latest age in a Grand Slam Final in the last 40 years [Min 4 Finals Reached]

Federer - 39 years 6 months vs 37 years 10 months [-1.6 years]
Nadal - 36 years 7 months vs 35 years 11 months [-8 months]
Djokovic - 35 years 10 months vs 35 years 8 months [-2 months]
Connors - 35 years 10 months vs 31 years 9 months [-4 years]
Agassi - 35 years 6 months vs 35 years 4 months [-2 months]
Arthur Ashe - 32 years 11 months vs 31 years 11 months [-1 year]
Wawrinka - 32 years 5 months vs 32 years 2 months [-3 months]
Lendl - 31 years 10 months vs 30 years 10 months [-1 year]
Mcenroe - 31 years vs 26 years 10 months [-4 years]
.
.
Vilas - 30 years 11 months vs 29 year 10 months [-1 year]
Murray - 30 years 5 months vs 29+ [-1.5 year]
.
.
Sampras - 29 years 10 months vs 31 years 14 days [+1.2 years]
.
.
Becker - 28 years 11 months vs 28+ years [-11 months]
Rafter - 28 years 10 months vs 28.5 years [-5 months]
Edberg - 28 years 9 months vs 27 years [-1.75 years]
.
.
Thiem - 27 years 9 months vs 27 years [-9 months]
Medvedev - 27 years 1 month vs 25 years 11 months [-1.2 years]
Roddick - 27 years vs 26 years 10 months [- 2 months]
Ivanisevic - 26 years 1 months vs 29 years 9 months [+3.7 years]
Chang - 25 years 11 months vs 24.5 years [-1.5 years]
Borg - 25 years 11 months vs 25+ years [-11 months]
Safin - 25 years 9 months vs 25 years [-9 months]
Kuerten - 25 years 8 months vs 24 years 10 months [-10 months]
Wilander - 25 years 6 days vs 24+ years [-1.5 years]
.
.
.
Hewitt - 24 years 10 months vs 23 years 10 months [-1 year]
Courier - 23 years 8 months vs 22 years 11 months [-9 months]
I don't even know what this stat means.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
No- there were people like Connors, Rosewall etc who had a greater longevity plus Sampras rarely concentrated on FO and AO and that gave him plenty of off time. Its a mental thing. Navratilova, McEnroe all played late into their careers while playing doubles too. He didn’t retire in 1920 for the medical part to play a bug role in enlongating careers. He retired in 2002.

Pete won his last slam at 31 and 14 days
Connors won his last slam at 30 years 11 months (1.5 months younger than Pete)


Rosewall I agree won older , but then he is a legend from the pre open era, his record is more of a result of homogenous conditions that he and laver were accustomed to, a lot of old men in the early 70s hold longevity records, there is a person called Andres Gimono who French Open at almost 35, does it means his longevity is on par with Rafa's in Paris ?
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I don't even know what this stat means.

Stats compare the age at which a person was last seen in the top 5 rankings to the age at which a person last reached a grand slam final. This means when you are no longer in top 5 and incapable of getting into it again, you are really geriatric and your slam winning days are finished.

Example : Federer was last seen in the top 5 at the beginning of 2021 while his last grand slam final came at wimbledon 2019, of course covid did benefit Roger but technically this shows once you cannot get into top 5 again, you are toast
Current ranking is sham. Nadal also was stripped of 720 points in Wimbledon. He would be well inside top 10.

Even with 720 points he would not be in the top 5, so this means Rafa has to win the french at all cost or else he will have to get into the top 5 again by the end of the year or else it is next to impossible in 2024.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Stats compare the age at which a person was last seen in the top 5 rankings to the age at which a person last reached a grand slam final. This means when you are no longer in top 5 and incapable of getting into it again, you are really geriatric and your slam winning days are finished.

Example : Federer was last seen in the top 5 at the beginning of 2021 while his last grand slam final came at wimbledon 2019, of course covid did benefit Roger but technically this shows once you cannot get into top 5 again, you are toast


Even with 720 points he would not be in the top 5, so this means Rafa has to win the french at all cost or else he will have to get into the top 5 again by the end of the year or else it is next to impossible in 2024.
Completely false. If Delpo can make a slam final after his career being basically over in 2014, Nadal can.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Completely false. If Delpo can make a slam final after his career being basically over in 2014, Nadal can.

Del Potro was last seen in the top 5 on 11/03/2019
Del Potro reached his last slam final on 27/08/2018

Potro was 30 and even then he could never violate the last seen in top 5 trend. Nadal is approaching 37 now.

Pete is the oldest in the last 40 years to do it since the rankings became proper.
 

Picmun

Hall of Fame
What an obscure record - I am a 100% sure no one is thinking about this useless stat. Sampras retired way too young. Rafa started younger and played longer. Facts.
They are really interesting stats. FACT.

In the year 8,000 B.C., there were only 5 million people on Earth. 4,000 years later, the population had only risen by 2 million people, to 7 million people. Nowadays, Earth's population rises by 2 million roughly every 9 days.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Del Potro was last seen in the top 5 on 11/03/2019
Del Potro reached his last slam final on 27/08/2018

Potro was 30 and even then he could never violate the last seen in top 5 trend.

Pete is the oldest in the last 40 years to do it since the rankings became proper.
This is rubbish lol. So if a player wins a slam, he will gain 2000 points which MIGHT push him to top 5. So looking back from last top 5 vs last final is non sensical.
 

Picmun

Hall of Fame
Here is a stat for ya :

How many times has it been said on TTW that : Nadal is FINNISH !

I think people saying the Great Bull is done have been 100% wrong for years if not decades.

I think stats about Nadals impending demise are :

1679372621finnish-flag-gif-animation-7.gif
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
This is rubbish lol. So if a player wins a slam, he will gain 2000 points which MIGHT push him to top 5. So looking back from last top 5 vs last final is non sensical.

That way even Novak has reached his last final before he was last seen in top 5, Med too, this is not about players who are looking good.

This stat is only relevant if someone is out of top 5 and in real bad shape to ever get back in, so what are his odds to win a slam ? That type of scenario. In 2002 Pete had not won a tournament for 2 years and unfortunately even Nadal seems in very bad shape for last 12 months.

Thats why I said IF Nadal cannot get back into the top 5, then his task is almost impossible as per historic trends.

Any player in top 20 can theoretically make a slam final. And ATGs don't need any ranking.

Fine, I guess we will find out after a month.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Andy Roddick left top 5 at the end of 2007. He barely came back to top 5 AFTER making Wimbledon finals and dropped out immediately. So was he permanently out of top 5 or NOT? This looking back makes no sense.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Andy Roddick was 25 in 2007
Nadal is almost 37 now

Do you realize how old 37 is for winning a slam/for being in top 5 or are you just giving random examples in thin air to look cool?

Rafa definitely has the ability to do it, but don't give silly examples of Roddick and Del Potro just to make it sound like this thread has no base behind it. The logic has been explained in the OP and it is a very sound one !
 

Azure

G.O.A.T.
Pete won his last slam at 31 and 14 days
Connors won his last slam at 30 years 11 months (1.5 months younger than Pete)


Rosewall I agree won older , but then he is a legend from the pre open era, his record is more of a result of homogenous conditions that he and laver were accustomed to, a lot of old men in the early 70s hold longevity records, there is a person called Andres Gimono who French Open at almost 35, does it means his longevity is on par with Rafa's in Paris ?
I am talking about longevity since you mentioned it.
 

Azure

G.O.A.T.
They are really interesting stats. FACT.

In the year 8,000 B.C., there were only 5 million people on Earth. 4,000 years later, the population had only risen by 2 million people, to 7 million people. Nowadays, Earth's population rises by 2 million roughly every 9 days.
Right, I am still waiting to hear how this connects to a record that is to be broken especially since one player has far surpassed the longevity of another.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Andy Roddick was 25 in 2007
Nadal is almost 37 now

Do you realize how old 37 is for winning a slam/for being in top 5 or are you just giving random examples in thin air to look cool?

Rafa definitely has the ability to do it, but don't give silly examples of Roddick and Del Potro just to make it sound like this thread has no base behind it. The logic has been explained in the OP and it is a very sound one !
It is not a sound logic and I am trying to look cool. Everyone is.
If a player wins his semis, he gets awarded 1200 points. That definitely helps with rankings. The rankings that are already illegitimate due to Wimbledon points.
What other users said is correct. If Nadal took a year off since RG2022, he would still be top favorite at RG 2023.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Athletes who left the Top 5 permanently have always failed to reach another Grand Slam Final in the last 40 years.
Sampras and Ivanisevic probably the only 2 people to beat that.....Sampras is the oldest to do it at 31+ years.
IF Nadal cannot get back into the top 5 then it means he is fighting against Time to beat Sampras's record.
If there is anyone who can beat Pete's record then it must be Rafa due to his dominant clay performance.


Latest age in Top 5 vs Latest age in a Grand Slam Final in the last 40 years [Min 4 Finals Reached]

Federer - 39 years 6 months vs 37 years 10 months [-1.6 years]
Nadal - 36 years 7 months vs 35 years 11 months [-8 months]
Djokovic - 35 years 10 months vs 35 years 8 months [-2 months]
Connors - 35 years 10 months vs 31 years 9 months [-4 years]
Agassi - 35 years 6 months vs 35 years 4 months [-2 months]
Arthur Ashe - 32 years 11 months vs 31 years 11 months [-1 year]
Wawrinka - 32 years 5 months vs 32 years 2 months [-3 months]
Lendl - 31 years 10 months vs 30 years 10 months [-1 year]
Mcenroe - 31 years vs 26 years 10 months [-4 years]
.
.
Vilas - 30 years 11 months vs 29 year 10 months [-1 year]
Murray - 30 years 5 months vs 29+ [-1.5 year]
.
.
Sampras - 29 years 10 months vs 31 years 14 days [+1.2 years]
.
.
Becker - 28 years 11 months vs 28+ years [-11 months]
Rafter - 28 years 10 months vs 28.5 years [-5 months]
Edberg - 28 years 9 months vs 27 years [-1.75 years]
.
.
Thiem - 27 years 9 months vs 27 years [-9 months]
Medvedev - 27 years 1 month vs 25 years 11 months [-1.2 years]
Roddick - 27 years vs 26 years 10 months [- 2 months]
Ivanisevic - 26 years 1 months vs 29 years 9 months [+3.7 years]
Chang - 25 years 11 months vs 24.5 years [-1.5 years]
Borg - 25 years 11 months vs 25+ years [-11 months]
Safin - 25 years 9 months vs 25 years [-9 months]
Kuerten - 25 years 8 months vs 24 years 10 months [-10 months]
Wilander - 25 years 6 days vs 24+ years [-1.5 years]
.
.
.
Hewitt - 24 years 10 months vs 23 years 10 months [-1 year]
Courier - 23 years 8 months vs 22 years 11 months [-9 months]
You yourself used Roddick in OP. So don't try to run away from original analysis now. Do add Roddick Del Potro and few others who became top 5 AFTER making the final.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Right, I am still waiting to hear how this connects to a record that is to be broken especially since one player has far surpassed the longevity of another.

You are looking at this post from from a Sampras vs Nadal angle ( we are not discussing running forehands, so relax :p )

The logic of the post is not about longevity of their career. This "record/trivia" about Pete shows that he was in a Finnish state at 30 and yet he won a slam at 31 which is unlikely as normally there is no coming back. So wouldnt you agree than Rafa now is at a similar stage to Pete, but at 37? so he will have to break this trivia or be back in the top 5, that is what this is about. If Rafa is not finnish and he has another 5 years ahead then good for him, but trends don't suggest that way, that is why I said the pressure is tremendous on him to win a slam.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
If Nadal is healthy and wins Rome and doesn't win any single event, he would still be odds on favorite to make RG final. He would not be top 5 especially in this sham ranking.
 

Azure

G.O.A.T.
You are looking at this post from from a Sampras vs Nadal angle ( we are not discussing running forehands, so relax :p )

The logic of the post is not about longevity of their career. This "record/trivia" about Pete shows that he was in a Finnish state at 30 and yet he won a slam at 31 which is unlikely as normally there is no coming back. So wouldnt you agree than Rafa now is at a similar stage to Pete, but at 37? so he will have to break this trivia or be back in the top 5, that is what this is about. If Rafa is not finnish and he has another 5 years ahead then good for him, but trends don't suggest that way, that is why I said the pressure is tremendous on him to win a slam.
No - its the constant comparison where there is none that is irritating. Whether you like it or not, Nadal has surpassed Sampras in many crucial records including longevity. I know Rafa is close to the end of his career but that is natural. The guy is 37.

Btw, McEnroe dropped out of top 5 at 30 and came back to top 5 when he was 31. I don't know why you are singling out one player and McEnroe did it in a stronger period.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
No - its the constant comparison where there is none that is irritating. Whether you like it or not, Nadal has surpassed Sampras in many crucial records including longevity. I know Rafa is close to the end of his career but that is natural. The guy is 37.

Btw, McEnroe dropped out of top 5 at 30 and came back to top 5 when he was 31. I don't know why you are singling out one player and McEnroe did it in a stronger period.

Rafa has surpassed Pete in many crucial records, no denying but whether you like it or not, Pete still has more wimbledons, more us opens, more indoor titles, more Tour Final wins, more weeks at 1, more year end 1, same number of AOs and was the ruler of his era, not second or third to anyone. So I donno why a mere suggestion of Rafa has to break this record of Pete thing in the topic could be so annoying to you unless deep down you still know that Pete is quite relevant.... well you should know that, because he is quite relevant. This post is not to make any comparisons with Pete/Rafa on longevity, it is you who dragged longevity into it, it is merely a trivia related post. It should not bother you if you are so secure of Rafa's status in Tennis today.
 
Last edited:

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Rafa has surpassed Pete in many crucial records, no denying but whether you like it or not, Pete still has more wimbledons, more us opens, more indoor titles, more Tour Final wins, more weeks at 1, more year end 1, same number of AOs and was the ruler of his era, not second or third to anyone. So I donno why a mere suggestion of Rafa has to break this record of Pete thing in the topic could be so annoying to you unless deep down you still know that Pete is quite relevant.... well you should know that, because he is quite relevant. This post is not to make any comparisons with Pete/Rafa, it is merely a trivia related post. It should not bother you if you are so secure of Rafa's status in Tennis today.
Okay humor me for a moment. Someone says earth is flat. Any rational man will get irritated. Then the guy says why are you annoyed if you knew earth is not flat.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Okay humor me for a moment. Someone says earth is flat. Any rational man will get irritated. Then the guy says why are you annoyed if you knew earth is not flat.

Naa, you and the other poster are bringing irrelevant things like longevity here when the post is not about that.

It is about historic trends that have been noted in the last years of every athlete, only 2 athletes (Pete and Goran) have defied these trends and possibly a third one will have to happen now, that is what this is about. If you cannot understand this basic thing then I cannot help you and yes, now I am getting a bit irritated at how people are unable to understand something so basic.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
One last time. Is the post about Nadal's chances to win POST RG2023 grand slam semis if he wins RG2023?

You have used making final winning slam exchangeably. It's really confusing.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
One last time. Is the post about Nadal's chances to win POST RG2023 grand slam semis if he wins RG2023?

You have used making final winning slam exchangeably. It's really confusing.

If Rafa wins RG23 then this post is moot because he will enter back in top 5 as well. But this post highlights that in case Nadal lose badly at RG (lets say in the 1st week) and then fails to reach top 5 by end of the year, means his struggle continues, then by next year when he will be 38 (too old) his chances of winning RG again by getting fit will be almost 0. Something like that.

Thats why I said Roddick was 25, of course he could get back in top 5 and also put himself in position to win slams, but 37-38 is too old. At this point if you are injure for 12 months then there is almost no coming back from it and the oldest man to comeback from that was Sampras at 31 and even 31 was not that too old.

That is point. This post is not about longevity or Sampras vs Nadal etc etc..... it is about the older you get, your chances get dimmer of returning to the top...

People are saying if Rafa takes break for 2 years and still can win RG ? Easier said that done, he is 37, not 27. 37 is a very advanced age in Tennis even for him. We've seen how much he is struggling with injuries in last 12 months, have we seen him this bad in the past ? I doubt that. So RG 23 is a must win for him.
 

StrongRule

Talk Tennis Guru
Rafa has surpassed Pete in many crucial records, no denying but whether you like it or not, Pete still has more wimbledons, more us opens, more indoor titles, more Tour Final wins, more weeks at 1, more year end 1, same number of AOs and was the ruler of his era, not second or third to anyone. So I donno why a mere suggestion of Rafa has to break this record of Pete thing in the topic could be so annoying to you unless deep down you still know that Pete is quite relevant.... well you should know that, because he is quite relevant. This post is not to make any comparisons with Pete/Rafa on longevity, it is you who dragged longevity into it, it is merely a trivia related post. It should not bother you if you are so secure of Rafa's status in Tennis today.
Ruler of his era who has never even reached a final in RG. Right.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
If Rafa wins RG23 then this post is moot because he will enter back in top 5 as well. But this post highlights that in case Nadal lose badly at RG (lets say in the 1st week) and then fails to reach top 5 by end of the year, means his struggle continues, then by next year when he will be 38 (too old) his chances of winning RG again by getting fit will be almost 0. Something like that.

Thats why I said Roddick was 25, of course he could get back in top 5 and also put himself in position to win slams, but 37-38 is too old. At this point if you are injure for 12 months then there is almost no coming back from it and the oldest man to comeback from that was Sampras at 31 and even 31 was not that too old.

That is point. This post is not about longevity or Sampras vs Nadal etc etc..... it is about the older you get, your chances get dimmer of returning to the top...

People are saying if Rafa takes break for 2 years and still can win RG ? Easier said that done, he is 37, not 27. 37 is a very advanced age in Tennis even for him. We've seen how much he is struggling with injuries in last 12 months, have we seen him this bad in the past ? I doubt that. So RG 23 is a must win for him.
I think he will retire soon. But I don't agree with your analysis at all. You have yourself put players like Roddick who had soft declines and every historic player that had soft declines. Nadal will not have soft decline and in that terms he will be like Sampras. So your actual comparison is directly between Nadal and Sampras but Nadal won at 36 age when he was far away from his physical prime. Djokovic even at 35 is still near his prime. So Nadal comparison to Sampras at 31 is unfair. Nadal already has superior career to Sampras and he didn't have to go through soft decline as well as he won 8 slams past age 30.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I think he will retire soon. But I don't agree with your analysis at all. You have yourself put players like Roddick who had soft declines and every historic player that had soft declines. Nadal will not have soft decline and in that terms he will be like Sampras. So your actual comparison is directly between Nadal and Sampras but Nadal won at 36 age when he was far away from his physical prime. Djokovic even at 35 is still near his prime. So Nadal comparison to Sampras at 31 is unfair. Nadal already has superior career to Sampras and he didn't have to go through soft decline as well as he won 8 slams past age 30.

I listed the oldest people in top 5 from top to bottom in the last 40 years of stable ATP Ranking, then I filtered out people who have made like 4 slam finals and just noted a trend from top to bottom. It is not Sampras vs Nadal, we should not have to compare them in this thread, I donno why people are comparing.

As far as winning slams post 30, this is a 21st century trend man. Back in 2002 Pete was among the oldest winners and if the Big 3 were part of the 80s and 90s era then they too would be done and dusted by early 30s, at least won't win slams. A lot of the slams won in 30s is due to very bad competition from youngsters now. I am not a fan of Career Inflation Era talks but we are kidding ourselves if we think Big 3 slam counts are not a bit inflated due to the Instagram influencers that they beat in their 30s.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Nadal doesn't need career inflation. Only player he is dominated by is Djokovic that too off clay.

Nada's non clay slams won after 2016

- USO 17 vs Kevin Anderson
- USO 19 vs Medvedev (a davydenko level player)
- AO 22 vs Medvedev (again)

Novak's slams after 2017

- Tsitsipas AO23
- Kyrgios W22
- Berretini - W21
- Medvedev - AO21

You think these slams are not inflated compared to 20 years back?

Pete faced Hewit, Safin, Roger and others in his next gen (10 years younger) while Djokodal are facing these bad players, infact even Roger sneaked in with a wimbledon 17 and AO18, 2 very bad slams won in old age against very bad competition. The inflation is not entirely false, at least from Sampras's perspective it is quite real. Also Nadal doesn't have a clay challenger in this era among youngster, imagine how low competition is there on that surface. He is adding slams after slams after slams by bullying hard courters like Novak/Thiem/fankids like Ruud even in his 30s. You think all this is not inflation ?
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Nada's non clay slams won after 2016

- USO 17 vs Kevin Anderson
- USO 19 vs Medvedev (a davydenko level player)
- AO 22 vs Medvedev (again)

Novak's slams after 2017

- Tsitsipas AO23
- Kyrgios W22
- Berretini - W21
- Medvedev - AO21

You think these slams are not inflated compared to 20 years back?

Pete faced Hewit, Safin, Roger and others in his next gen (10 years younger) while Djokodal are facing these bad players, infact even Roger sneaked in with a wimbledon 17 and AO18, 2 very bad slams won in old age against very bad competition. The inflation is not entirely false, at least from Sampras's perspective it is quite real. Also Nadal doesn't have a clay challenger in this era among youngster, imagine how low competition is there on that surface. He is adding slams after slams after slams by bullying hard courters like Novak/Thiem/fankids like Ruud even in his 30s. You think all this is not inflation ?
I won't be making fun of Danill. He is very tough opposition to anyone. He has made 4 slam finals and beaten Novak Djokovic in one. If Nadal can beat second best player on hc in recent times then he doesn't need career inflation.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Nada's non clay slams won after 2016

- USO 17 vs Kevin Anderson
- USO 19 vs Medvedev (a davydenko level player)
- AO 22 vs Medvedev (again)

Novak's slams after 2017

- Tsitsipas AO23
- Kyrgios W22
- Berretini - W21
- Medvedev - AO21

You think these slams are not inflated compared to 20 years back?

Pete faced Hewit, Safin, Roger and others in his next gen (10 years younger) while Djokodal are facing these bad players, infact even Roger sneaked in with a wimbledon 17 and AO18, 2 very bad slams won in old age against very bad competition. The inflation is not entirely false, at least from Sampras's perspective it is quite real. Also Nadal doesn't have a clay challenger in this era among youngster, imagine how low competition is there on that surface. He is adding slams after slams after slams by bullying hard courters like Novak/Thiem/fankids like Ruud even in his 30s. You think all this is not inflation ?
Not inflation. There is never a player with Nadal's strength and speed. He is physically gifted. How much of that is natural is another debate. But him bulldozing any challenger in Roland Garros is testament to his superior skills on clay.
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
I won't be making fun of Danill. He is very tough opposition to anyone. He has made 4 slam finals and beaten Novak Djokovic in one. If Nadal can beat second best player on hc in recent times then he doesn't need career inflation.
Not inflation. There is never a player with Nadal's strength and speed. He is physically gifted. How much of that is natural is another debate. But him bulldozing any challenger in Roland Garros is testament to his superior skills on clay.

Daniil is a hardworker and a good player, in his generation he is the top hard courter, but then look at the Grass and the Clay fields, it is very thin. Anyway, I myself dont subscribe to career infation theories, but Daniil, Sascha and Stefanos should have been good on Grass given their heights. Also Clay should have rising players who should be able to outmuscle Nadal, the gifted physically logics stand good until early 30s, not beyond. The likes of Casper Ruud are truly useless....
 

Azure

G.O.A.T.
Rafa has surpassed Pete in many crucial records, no denying but whether you like it or not, Pete still has more wimbledons, more us opens, more indoor titles, more Tour Final wins, more weeks at 1, more year end 1, same number of AOs and was the ruler of his era, not second or third to anyone. So I donno why a mere suggestion of Rafa has to break this record of Pete thing in the topic could be so annoying to you unless deep down you still know that Pete is quite relevant.... well you should know that, because he is quite relevant. This post is not to make any comparisons with Pete/Rafa on longevity, it is you who dragged longevity into it, it is merely a trivia related post. It should not bother you if you are so secure of Rafa's status in Tennis today.
Of course Pete is a legend. Who denies that? I don't see why this cross era comparison needs to be made. Its impossible to compare this way. Yes its a trivia and you've eliminated people like Mac who have done it so I don't even know if its a unique one in any way.
 
Top