Nadal has a greater longevity than Fed

[TennisTurkey]

IMO the people who said Nadal wouldn't have a long career were only half wrong (saying this as a Nadal fan).

Nadal 1.0 under Uncle Toni that used to grind and run for everything and play defense unless he was especially confident, won his last slam at age 28 in 2014.

Nadal went winless until he became Nadal 2.0 under Moya and started playing more aggressively, shortening points and picking and choosing his moments to run like a rabbit. He started winning slams again in 2017 with this strategy, so those people who said Nadal wouldn't last with his old game style weren't completely wrong.

 

[Patriots]

IMO the people who said Nadal wouldn't have a long career were only half wrong (saying this as a Nadal fan).

Nadal 1.0 under Uncle Toni that used to grind and run for everything and play defense unless he was especially confident, won his last slam at age 28 in 2014.

Nadal went winless until he became Nadal 2.0 under Moya and started playing more aggressively, shortening points and picking and choosing his moments to run like a rabbit. He started winning slams again in 2017 with this strategy, so those people who said Nadal wouldn't last with his old game style weren't completely wrong.

Look at his 2008 Wimbledon victory, that was not just playing defense.

 

[Rosstour]

I used to think "call me when Nadal is making Slam finals vs the #1 player at 38" but it now seems like he will be not just making but winning those finals.

 

[TennisTurkey]

Look at his 2008 Wimbledon victory, that was not just playing defense.

Yes, hence the "unless he was especially confident" part of my post.

2008 FO to 2008 Wimbledon was arguably the highest level of his career. The point was that unless he was in the zone or comfortably ahead or the opponent was hitting through him, he played counter-punch tennis. His default mode was set to "Grind" and Moya had to persuade him to change that.

Nadal was even asked why he wasn't more aggressive in interviews, and said something like he can't simply be aggressive; he has to be confident and earn the right to be more aggressive (or something like that).

 

[Patriots]

Yes, hence the "unless he was especially confident" part of my post.

2008 FO to 2008 Wimbledon was arguably the highest level of his career. The point was that unless he was in the zone or comfortably ahead or the opponent was hitting through him, he played counter-punch tennis. His default mode was set to "Grind" and Moya had to persuade him to change that.

Nadal was even asked why he wasn't more aggressive in interviews, and said something like he can't simply be aggressive; he has to be confident and earn the right to be more aggressive (or something like that).

I know but pundits were predicting the demise of his career long prior to 2017, they were predicting it in the first few years f his career, especially after his first Major injury in 2009, 8 years prior to his coaching change.

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

A Gentleman's Disagreement ?

Precisely

 

[ADuck]

People of varying persusasions supposed Nadal would not last. Different reasons, presumably. No shortage of players who had their top careers cut short abruptly due to debilitating injuries including knee injuries. It wasn't clear then that hypermodern medicine would make playing well into your 30s relatively common, no matter the injuries.

Dude, you're missing the point. People here in this thread are not saying "Oh I didn't predict modern medicine", they're saying, "Well Nadal fooled me, so much for all his injuries" or something along those lines, which insinuates that his injuries were either exaggerated greatly or made up, when that is not the case. His injuries DID exist and they knocked him out of plenty slams, but people make the mistake of assuming just because his injuries are/were high in number/occurence, it meant his body was not capable of playing and sustaining a high level of tennis over many years, so he would have a shorter career. But what happened was the opposite, likely because the root cause of these injuries was not his playing style but his left foot. But they choose to not believe this, and effectively argue that because his body is lasting this long, the injuries were exaggerated, therefore would not have made a big difference to his results.

So effectively they're arguing because in the long-term they didn't end up being problematic, in the short-term they weren't either.

And when I react to this by pushing back against this narrative, you guys come swarming and cry that we musn't talk about hypotheticals. It's just gaslighting. You guys are the ones starting the argument and invoking the hypotheticals in the first place by saying they didn't affect him. If you despise hypotheticals, then don't start them.

You didn't make quite that exact argument yet, but you could, or another would do it and you would let it slide as perfectly acceptable - which is exactly why this line of reasoning is not. Ultimately this opens a bottomless pit of hypothetical credit to be granted for Nadal "if only he were perfectly healthy and fit", to the point that any argument is pointless. Of course "all you can say" about that is "it's not healthy". Feels comfy to bask in relishing Nadal's utter supremacy while not admitting you do, hmm. All you can say is deny but how can I tell? Superdal and the pesky fraudsters, episode XX.

Again, if the line of reasoning is not acceptable, then just don't start it.

But I think this is just naive of you, or a double standard, because by arguing that Federer has a higher cumulative peak/prime level etc. than Djokodal, it's implicit that you believe Federer would be a more statistically successful player than either of Djokodal given level of competition were hypothetically even for all 3. If someone were to argue this you would also let it slide as perfectly acceptable.

It's not fair or reasonable to take my argument about one thing and exaggerate it to the millionth power by dreaming up a bunch of other things which are irrelevant just to see what sticks. It doesn't deserve to be touched.

Was obviously just a trigger/pretext to dump it out, I've a good concept of the attitude behind those words.

You've demonstrated that you clearly don't. You're overestimating your ability to infer what I'm thinking or "read minds", but I'm somewhat flattered because even I don't think THAT much about what other people are thinking.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Dude, you're missing the point. People here in this thread are not saying "Oh I didn't predict modern medicine", they're saying, "Well Nadal fooled me, so much for all his injuries" or something along those lines, which insinuates that his injuries were either exaggerated greatly or made up, when that is not the case. His injuries DID exist and they knocked him out of plenty slams, but people make the mistake of assuming just because his injuries are/were high in number/occurence, it meant his body was not capable of playing and sustaining a high level of tennis over many years, so he would have a shorter career. But what happened was the opposite, likely because the root cause of these injuries was not his playing style but his left foot. But they choose to not believe this, and effectively argue that because his body is lasting this long, the injuries were exaggerated, therefore would not have made a big difference to his results.

So effectively they're arguing because in the long-term they didn't end up being problematic, in the short-term they weren't either.

And when I react to this by pushing back against this narrative, you guys come swarming and cry that we musn't talk about hypotheticals. It's just gaslighting. You guys are the ones starting the argument and invoking the hypotheticals in the first place by saying they didn't affect him. If you despise hypotheticals, then don't start them.

Again, if the line of reasoning is not acceptable, then just don't start it.

But I think this is just naive of you, or a double standard, because by arguing that Federer has a higher cumulative peak/prime level etc. than Djokodal, it's implicit that you believe Federer would be a more statistically successful player than either of Djokodal given level of competition were hypothetically even for all 3. If someone were to argue this you would also let it slide as perfectly acceptable.

It's not fair or reasonable to take my argument about one thing and exaggerate it to the millionth power by dreaming up a bunch of other things which are irrelevant just to see what sticks. It doesn't deserve to be touched.

You've demonstrated that you clearly don't. You're overestimating your ability to infer what I'm thinking or "read minds", but I'm somewhat flattered because even I don't think THAT much about what other people are thinking.

Provided the chronic, deteriorative nature of the condition and that direct and indirect symptoms/problems are made worse through loading of the foot, it makes perfect sense both that his playing style should be considered a primary issue and that associated ailments might soon build to the point if irrevocability. I also think that many of the injuries wouldn't have been associated at all (and certainly weren't attributed at the time), but then I can't say for sure so it remains a postulative option, I guess.

 

[ADuck]

Provided the chronic, deteriorative nature of the condition and that direct and indirect symptoms/problems are made worse through loading of the foot, it makes perfect sense both that his playing style should be considered a primary issue and that associated ailments might soon build to the point if irrevocability. I also think that many of the injuries wouldn't have been associated at all (and certainly weren't attributed at the time), but then I can't say for sure so it remains a postulative option, I guess.

First let me point out, arguing whether or not the primary driver behind the deterioration of the bone in his foot is due to his playing style, is not the same as me arguing the primary driver behind his higher occurrence of injuries as a tennis player is because of his foot (by protecting and reducing pain by wearing orthotics to direct weight away from the middle bone in his foot). These are separate arguments.

Here's the question. Which of these options would lower the occurrence of his injuries more?
- Removing mueller weiss syndrome
- Lowering the physicality of his style of play to that of the average pro tennis player

To me it's clearly the first option.

But additionally, from what I've read and heard, there isn't clear evidence to suggest playing or not playing makes things worse for him. Other Rafa fans can correct me on this, but it seems there is evidence to believe that the pain can be managed by gradually increasing it's load over time. This method is what I believe Nadal used to come back and play 2022 AO without any pain. And the more recent problems with pain began when Nadal took a long break from tennis in 2020 during the lockdowns.

From my very limited knowledge about this condition, the problem is that one of the bones is necrosing because there is not enough blood flow through that part of the foot. That seems to suggest that the right balance of regular physical activity could help it rather than harm it.

Also I'm definitely not arguing that this would 100% remove all injuries, but it would lower their occurrence to something more typical of a pro tennis player.

 

[mtommer]

Not bad for someone , whose body many predicted will breakdown before 30.

Putting aside this topic of coversation for a moment...Fair enough to this statement. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Jonas78]

Nadal was both an early bloomer and has shown an extreme longevity, still trashing the field at FO at 36. Hats off...

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

First let me point out, arguing whether or not the primary driver behind the deterioration of the bone in his foot is due to his playing style, is not the same as me arguing the primary driver behind his higher occurrence of injuries as a tennis player is because of his foot (by protecting and reducing pain by wearing orthotics to direct weight away from the middle bone in his foot). These are separate arguments.

Here's the question. Which of these options would lower the occurrence of his injuries more?
- Removing mueller weiss syndrome
- Lowering the physicality of his style of play to that of the average pro tennis player

To me it's clearly the first option.

But additionally, from what I've read and heard, there isn't clear evidence to suggest playing or not playing makes things worse for him. Other Rafa fans can correct me on this, but it seems there is evidence to believe that the pain can be managed by gradually increasing it's load over time. This method is what I believe Nadal used to come back and play 2022 AO without any pain. And the more recent problems with pain began when Nadal took a long break from tennis in 2020 during the lockdowns.

From my very limited knowledge about this condition, the problem is that one of the bones is necrosing because there is not enough blood flow through that part of the foot. That seems to suggest that the right balance of regular physical activity could help it rather than harm it.

Also I'm definitely not arguing that this would 100% remove all injuries, but it would lower their occurrence to something more typical of a pro tennis player.

To me it's less clear. I've seen speculation as to the genesis of his injuries like his knee tendonitis, but those have plagued both knees and a host of other problems seem detached from the issue at first glance. As I say though, referred pain is always on the table. I recall that the MWS was documented in the mid 00s but I very seldom saw it noted since until more recently, other than the odd surmising. Considering the injuries we've seen that can develop sans ancillary chronic conditions to me it seems unclear that they are related to the extent that your two options have an obvious choice. It may indeed be the case that Option 1 yields the greatest benefit due to removing one main problem while the others would have persisted with Option 2 anyway due to susceptibility to them, like DelPo with wrist issues, others with their hips, Nishikori with his everything etc. When you train near the limit, the margins are small for things to go pop; 'tis the nature of seeking the optimal output. I myself have fallen over the proverbial line many times, much to my chagrin.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Dude, you're missing the point. People here in this thread are not saying "Oh I didn't predict modern medicine", they're saying, "Well Nadal fooled me, so much for all his injuries" or something along those lines, which insinuates that his injuries were either exaggerated greatly or made up, when that is not the case. His injuries DID exist and they knocked him out of plenty slams, but people make the mistake of assuming just because his injuries are/were high in number/occurence, it meant his body was not capable of playing and sustaining a high level of tennis over many years, so he would have a shorter career. But what happened was the opposite, likely because the root cause of these injuries was not his playing style but his left foot. But they choose to not believe this, and effectively argue that because his body is lasting this long, the injuries were exaggerated, therefore would not have made a big difference to his results.

So effectively they're arguing because in the long-term they didn't end up being problematic, in the short-term they weren't either.

And when I react to this by pushing back against this narrative, you guys come swarming and cry that we musn't talk about hypotheticals. It's just gaslighting. You guys are the ones starting the argument and invoking the hypotheticals in the first place by saying they didn't affect him. If you despise hypotheticals, then don't start them.

The injury bouts were real, I never disputed this. In retrospect though they were exaggerated given the very fact Nadal is still playing and winning and setting longevity records completely against prior expectations. Some periods throughout his career have been affected but there he is, almost healthier than Federer at this age. You still want to have your cake and eat it too with this "Nadal won the most but would have won even more if not for injuries" argument, seeking to give him credit above the level he did actually display.

Again, if the line of reasoning is not acceptable, then just don't start it.

But I think this is just naive of you, or a double standard, because by arguing that Federer has a higher cumulative peak/prime level etc. than Djokodal, it's implicit that you believe Federer would be a more statistically successful player than either of Djokodal given level of competition were hypothetically even for all 3. If someone were to argue this you would also let it slide as perfectly acceptable.

Actual tennis that happened is something that can be observed, analysed and debated. Hypothetical game is rather asserted, sure you can do it but in this case I want my hypothetical Federer timess and ageless and always playing at peak as well and you still lose, lolol. It's still based on an observable peak that happened, if hypothetically extended. Postulating Nadal hypothetically peaking higher than he did in reality if he were perfectly healthy is pure imagination, theoretically possible of course but completely inarguable in terms of factual basis since now you don't just transfer an existing peak into a different time/match, you also improve it above and beyond.

It's not fair or reasonable to take my argument about one thing and exaggerate it to the millionth power by dreaming up a bunch of other things which are irrelevant just to see what sticks. It doesn't deserve to be touched.

You've demonstrated that you clearly don't. You're overestimating your ability to infer what I'm thinking or "read minds", but I'm somewhat flattered because even I don't think THAT much about what other people are thinking.

What exactly is unreasonable about probing the ground that way, heh. I like doing that to open up how people think. Obviously impossible to discern how well I read you but why not, maybe we can at some point to the bottom of why I find you annoying and what it really tells us about me, you, or anything.