Moya: For Rafael Nadal, ATP Finals loss was tougher to accept than Australian Open loss

NADALalot said:
I was the opposite. I knew Nadal would benefit from losers like Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev winning the ATP Finals.
The more they win it, the more meaningless the event becomes.
Whereas if Nadal won it, people would keep saying how "Nadal only won it once, while Djokovic and Federer won it 5 times each".
It doesn't matter how many times Djokovic/Federer won the ATP Finals, because losers keep winning it every year.
Click to expand...

It disrespects the game to call these guys "losers" and "scrubs".

Since the inception of the tournament, 38 of 51 competitions were won by a player who had already won a Slam. In another six instances the winner became a Slam champion - Smith, Nastase, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi. Were these six players "losers"
and "scrubs"? Were they "losers" and "scrubs" when they won the YEC? If so, you better inform history about this.

I think the 2017 tournament was odd and a bit weak. For that matter the 2017 USO was the same or worse. Dimitrov was the weakest YEC winner ever. But:

Zv beat Federer and Djokovic back-to-back at 2018 WTF.
Tsi beat Federer and Thiem.
Mdv beat Djoker, Nadal and Thiem.

As for poor Thiem - a "loser" and "scrub" also? - in last two years at the tournament he beat Djokovic twice, Federer and Nadal.

Mdv will be a Slam champ in the coming year, assuming a "normal" year under COVID cloud.

Tsi could be also in 2021, but certainly w/in next two years.

Zv will be, although it seems his life took a tumble after his triumph at London in 2018 and he has to get back on the straight and narrow.


Some YEC champions:

Connors - 3 year-end World No. 1, one YEC
Borg - 3 No. 1; two YEC
McEnroe - 3 No. 1; three YEC (1 runner-up)
Lendl - 3 No. 1 (+ 1 split decision) - five YEC (3 runner-up)
Becker - one split decision; 3 YEC (5 runner-up)
Edberg - 2 No. 1 (1 true); 1 YEC (1 runner-up)
Sampras - 6 No. 1; five YEC
Agassi - 1 No. 1; one YEC (two runner-ups)
Kuerten - 1 No.1; one YEC
Hewitt - 2 No. 1; two YEC (1 runner-up)
Federer - 5 No. 1; six YEC (4 runner-ups)
Djokovic - 6 No. 1; five YEC (two runner-ups)
Murray - 1 No. 1; one YEC

Others who had won a Slam: Orantes, Stich

Other finalists with a Slam or more: Ashe, Wilander, Courier, Chang, Kafelnikov, Moya, Ferrero.

Notwithstanding the last few years, the correlation between Slam winners and YEC titlists is high, and between year-end No. 1 and YEC champ.

Maybe that is why it upsets Nadal so much - because the big Slam winners and world No. 1's win this title. Because it is BIG. Because it is important.
 
Drob said:
It disrespects the game to call these guys "losers" and "scrubs".

Since the inception of the tournament, 38 of 51 competitions were won by a player who had already won a Slam. In another six instances the winner became a Slam champion - Smith, Nastase, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi. Were these six players "losers"
and "scrubs"? Were they "losers" and "scrubs" when they won the YEC? If so, you better inform history about this.

I think the 2017 tournament was odd and a bit weak. For that matter the 2017 USO was the same or worse. Dimitrov was the weakest YEC winner ever. But:

Zv beat Federer and Djokovic back-to-back at 2018 WTF.
Tsi beat Federer and Thiem.
Mdv beat Djoker, Nadal and Thiem.

As for poor Thiem - a "loser" and "scrub" also? - in last two years at the tournament he beat Djokovic twice, Federer and Nadal.

Mdv will be a Slam champ in the coming year, assuming a "normal" year under COVID cloud.

Tsi could be also in 2021, but certainly w/in next two years.

Zv will be, although it seems his life took a tumble after his triumph at London in 2018 and he has to get back on the straight and narrow.


Some YEC champions:

Connors - 3 year-end World No. 1, one YEC
Borg - 3 No. 1; two YEC
McEnroe - 3 No. 1; three YEC (1 runner-up)
Lendl - 3 No. 1 (+ 1 split decision) - five YEC (3 runner-up)
Becker - one split decision; 3 YEC (5 runner-up)
Edberg - 2 No. 1 (1 true); 1 YEC (1 runner-up)
Sampras - 6 No. 1; five YEC
Agassi - 1 No. 1; one YEC (two runner-ups)
Kuerten - 1 No.1; one YEC
Hewitt - 2 No. 1; two YEC (1 runner-up)
Federer - 5 No. 1; six YEC (4 runner-ups)
Djokovic - 6 No. 1; five YEC (two runner-ups)
Murray - 1 No. 1; one YEC

Others who had won a Slam: Orantes, Stich

Other finalists with a Slam or more: Ashe, Wilander, Courier, Chang, Kafelnikov, Moya, Ferrero.

Notwithstanding the last few years, the correlation between Slam winners and YEC titlists is high, and between year-end No. 1 and YEC champ.

Maybe that is why it upsets Nadal so much - because the big Slam winners and world No. 1's win this title. Because it is BIG. Because it is important.
Click to expand...
You created an imaginary story that doesn't match the article.
 
octobrina10 said:
You created an imaginary story that doesn't match the article.
Click to expand...

Wasn't trying to match the article. What would be the purpose of that? I was trying to address the misguided notion that ATP Finals is not a big deal. It is a Big Deal. I was trying to say that calling Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev "losers" is extremely
disrepectful to the game.

The article speaks for itself. I neither matched it nor contradicted it.
 
Crazy Finn said:
Yeah, it's the only missing piece to the collection.

Frankly, winning a second AO really puts him at a rare level by winning every slam twice.

Not sure which is "better" as a fan.
Click to expand...

Gotta say if I had to choose one or the other, without hesitation I would much prefer he win a second Australian Open rather than WTF, even if he never gets a WTF.

That's not to say the WTF is not a huge title, but as you mention a double career grand slam is something very special.
 
NADALalot said:
I was the opposite. I knew Nadal would benefit from losers like Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev winning the ATP Finals.
The more they win it, the more meaningless the event becomes.
Whereas if Nadal won it, people would keep saying how "Nadal only won it once, while Djokovic and Federer won it 5 times each".
It doesn't matter how many times Djokovic/Federer won the ATP Finals, because losers keep winning it every year.
Click to expand...
Let’s say, over the next 5 years, Querrey, RBA, Raonic, Isner, and Coric win Wimbledon. During this same 5 year period, Djokovic wins ATP finals twice, and the remaining three are won by Thiem, Nadal, and Zverev. Does this mean that winning the ATP finals is a more meaningful accomplishment than winning Wimbledon?
 
NADALalot said:
I was the opposite. I knew Nadal would benefit from losers like Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev winning the ATP Finals.
The more they win it, the more meaningless the event becomes.
Whereas if Nadal won it, people would keep saying how "Nadal only won it once, while Djokovic and Federer won it 5 times each".
It doesn't matter how many times Djokovic/Federer won the ATP Finals, because losers keep winning it every year.
Click to expand...
Talking of getting more meaningless
 
Some posters have taken the position that for Nadal, not winning the ATP Finals would be better than him winning it just once. That argument never made any sense to me, and probably would make no sense to Rafa or anyone on his team.

On the other hand, let's not pretend as if any player has a perfect resume.Not winning the ATP Finals is not disqualifying of mythical GOAThood to most reasonable voices. Sampras, to most, was considered GOAT without even making a final at RG. (Until Roger, Rafa and Novak each surpassed him.)

So, I'm sure the loss really stung Rafa. He came there to win the tourney, and if he holds serve once more, he wins in straights and has more fuel left in the final (revenge) match v Thiem. By letting Med come back, he also lost 400...possibly 900...points.

As a fan, and if a choice, I'd rather see Rafa win at AO than WTF (another shlem and the DCGS) but both/either would be nice.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Some posters have taken the position that for Nadal, not winning the ATP Finals would be better than him winning it just once. That argument never made any sense to me, and probably would make no sense to Rafa or anyone on his team.
Click to expand...

welcome to a mythical tennis forum, where losing in R1 is better than losing in SF or F
welcome to a mythical tennis forum, where if one player didn't defeat a Big 3 member in the final of a tournament, it is a Mickey Mouse tournament by definition
 
blablavla said:
welcome to a mythical tennis forum, where losing in R1 is better than losing in SF or F
welcome to a mythical tennis forum, where if one player didn't defeat a Big 3 member in the final of a tournament, it is a Mickey Mouse tournament by definition
Click to expand...
Oh, I've been welcomed here steadily for more than two years by all sorts of ludicrous assertions by fans and detractors of all players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PeoplesChamp
Toni Nadal reflects on "painful" ATP Finals loss
2 3
Replies
124
Views
5K
octobrina10
octobrina10
clayqueen
Reports: Rafael Nadal and Roberto Baustista Agut to lead Spain at ATP Cup 2021
Replies
15
Views
939
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
clayqueen
  • Locked
Rafael Nadal out for up to eight weeks after tearing hip muscle in 2023 Australian Open
Replies
16
Views
655
GabeT
GabeT
Mustard
Spanish players record in Australian Open singles finals
Replies
1
Views
393
smoledman
smoledman
P
Carlos Moya: Rafael Nadal hasn't been doing well at all for a while
Replies
29
Views
1K
Raul_SJ
Raul_SJ
Back
Top