Nadal is very unlucky with injuries and only 1 Clay Slam

[-NN-]

Nadal is a very strong player on clay. If there were 2 Clay Slams instead of 1 Clay Slam then Nadal would win more Slams.

Djokovic is best on hardcourt and there are 2 Hardcourt Slams for him to play each year, and despite this he's still behind Nadal in the Slam count despite his far more fortunate circumstances.

It's possible that if there were 2 Clay Slams and only 1 Hardcourt Slam that Nadal would have a far bigger lead over Djokovic in the Slams.


There is no reasonable way anyone can have Djokovic ahead of or equal to Nadal in the ATG standings as things currently stand in the standings of won things.

In your honest opinion, do you agree or disagree with the sentiments of the threads which appear above or below this in the listing at the time of your opening this thread?

**EDIT**

Nadal is also very unlucky with injuries.

Even with only

one Clay Slam he would have

won 25 Majors if it were

not for injuries.


I think it's very hard to refute this fact.

 

[BHud]

 

[King No1e]

Reality is that there are 2 HC Slams and one on clay. Nadal still leads the Slam count, so there's that.

 

[itrium84]

Nadal is a very strong player on clay. If there were 2 Clay Slams instead of 1 Clay Slam then Nadal would win more Slams.

Djokovic is best on hardcourt and there are 2 Hardcourt Slams for him to play each year, and despite this he's still behind Nadal in the Slam count despite his far more fortunate circumstances.

It's possible that if there were 2 Clay Slams and only 1 Hardcourt Slam that Nadal would have a far bigger lead over Djokovic in the Slams.


There is no reasonable way anyone can have Djokovic ahead of or equal to Nadal in the ATG standings as things currently stand in the standings of won things.

In your honest opinion, do you agree or disagree with the sentiments of the threads which appear above or below this in the listing at the time of your opening this thread?

**EDIT**

Nadal is also very unlucky with injuries.

Even with only

one Clay Slam he would have

won 25 Majors if it were

not for injuries.


I think it's very hard to refute this fact.

Oh, it's quite easy to refute this - Nadal would not win any more Majors without injuries. See? Easy.
Claim that is stated without proof can be refuted without proof.
But, why it's so easy to put your argument to sleep? Because it's flawed. It's a "woulda coulda shoulda" argument from imagine-land. Imagine-land is a place where people go when the actual reality is to hard for them, it's a nice place full of endless possibilities, a place where Nadal has 25 Majors.

Now, about your slam surface distribution theory - what if all slams were played on HC?

Can't you just be thankful because your favourite player is one of the best players tennis history has ever seen? Why is that not enough?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

 

[-NN-]

Oh, it's quite easy to refute this - Nadal would not win any more Majors without injuries. See? Easy.
Claim that is stated without proof can be refuted without proof.
But, why it's so easy to put your argument to sleep? Because it's flawed. It's a "woulda coulda shoulda" argument from imagine-land. Imagine-land is a place where people go when the actual reality is to hard for them, it's a nice place full of endless possibilities, a place where Nadal has 25 Majors.

Now, about your slam surface distribution theory - what if all slams were played on HC?

Can't you just be thankful because your favourite player is one of the best players tennis history has ever seen? Why is that not enough?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

It's just not enough for me that Nadal is one of the best ever. I need him to be the greatest of all the players, and if there were 2 Clay Slams he would take his rightful place on the throne of GOAT.

 

[Backspin1183]

It's just not enough for me that Nadal is one of the best ever. I need him to be the greatest of all the players, and if there were 2 Clay Slams he would take his rightful place on the throne of GOAT.

He still can if he is the true GOAT. If he can't, he just ain't the GOAT.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Given the amount of clay Masters and clay tournaments spread throughout the year (from February through July), there needs to be way more grass tournaments or even a second grass slam before a second clay slam

 

[MeatTornado]

It's just not enough for me that Nadal is one of the best ever. I need him to be the greatest of all the players, and if there were 2 Clay Slams he would take his rightful place on the throne of GOAT.

Imagine if we still had 3 grass slams.

I wonder who would be GOAT then...

 

[-NN-]

This is what they're fighting for.




***
And have you ever wondered what it would be like to simulate the life of your favourite player, guys?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

He still can if he is the true GOAT. If he can't, he just ain't the GOAT.

That was deep.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

It doesn't really matter. Clay is less important than hard court, which is the standard for the sport and has more competition (Federer, Djokovic, Murray, etc. all better on both grass and HC than clay). And you can't refute those facts.

It would be awkward to have a clay specialist (more or less) as the sport's GOAT mascot considering:

1) Wimbledon and grass are the most prestigious (or at least moreso than the French and clay) and
2) Hard court is the standard for the sport with the most competition

It would make no sense and is why so few people have ever been on the Nadal GOAT bandwagon.

 

[Steve0904]

Imagine if we still had 3 grass slams.

I wonder who would be GOAT then...

Funny to think that there actually was a significant amount of time when 3 slams were on grass. Contrast this to the fact that apart from a few years where the USO was played on clay, there has never been a significant stretch of time where there were 2 majors on clay.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Funny to think that there actually was a significant amount of time when 3 slams were on grass. Contrast this to the fact that apart from a few years where the USO was played on clay, there has never been a significant stretch of time where there were 2 majors on clay.

Feder was watching too much tennis as a youngster.

 

[JMR]

I think it's very hard to refute this fact.

On the contrary, it's easy to refute. The fact that there is only one slam played clay does not in any way, shape or form mean that Nadal has been "unlucky."

There has been only one slam played on clay for almost the entirety of the Grand Slam era in tennis (i.e., since early in the 20th century when all the tournaments became open internationally).
For a three-year period in the 1970s, there was one slam played on red clay and one slam played on ersatz clay (Har-Tru).
There was only one slam played on clay when Nadal was born.
There was only one slam played on clay when Nadal started learning to play tennis.
There was only one slam played on clay when Nadal turned pro.

In short, Grand Slam tennis has been defined by having only one slam on clay. Nadal always knew that. Uncle Toni always knew that. Nadal's playing style, tactics, and training emphases were all chosen with full awareness of the fact that only one slam is played on clay. Nadal focused on honing his clay court skills to the partial detriment of his skills on the other surfaces despite the fact that one slam is played on clay, and three slams are played off clay. In no part of this process did luck have any role whatsoever.

 

[Rago]

Nadal is ahead as it stands (and that's all that matters for now?) but LOL @ being "unlucky" with injuries when they magically heal when he steps onto court on his most dominant surface.

Remind me, how many FO's has he missed since 2005?

 

[WhiskeyEE]

On the contrary, it's easy to refute. The fact that there is only one slam played clay does not in any way, shape or form mean that Nadal has been "unlucky."

There has been only one slam played on clay for almost the entirety of the Grand Slam era in tennis (i.e., since early in the 20th century when all the tournaments became open internationally).
For a three-year period in the 1970s, there was one slam played on red clay and one slam played on ersatz clay (Har-Tru).
There was only one slam played on clay when Nadal was born.
There was only one slam played on clay when Nadal started learning to play tennis.
There was only one slam played on clay when Nadal turned pro.

In short, Grand Slam tennis has been defined by having only one slam on clay. Nadal always knew that. Uncle Toni always knew that. Nadal's playing style, tactics, and training emphases were all chosen with full awareness of the fact that only one slam is played on clay. Nadal focused on honing his clay court skills to the partial detriment of his skills on the other surfaces despite the fact that one slam is played on clay, and three slams are played off clay. In no part of this process did luck have any role whatsoever.

I would argue that Nadal has had a ton of luck anyway. Polyester strings probably helped him more than his rivals. Surface slowing and even the fact that Wimbledon slows down/gets bouncier in the 2nd week when he has to face good players.

Imagine if RG got faster/lower bouncing in the 2nd week for Federer/Djokovic when they had to play Nadal there.

 

[ForehandRF]

Well, Nadal should have focused on the hardcourts instead of clay.It's not like he didn't knew the surface distribution in the slams from the beginning of his pro career.Hard courts are neutral, so the slam distribution is as it should be.Djokovic for example is not advantaged, it's just he knew on which surface he should focus the most, so he adapted his game better for the prevalent surface on the tour.So Nadal is not unlucky at all.It's like saying Federer is unlucky because there is just one slam on grass.

 

[Goof]

In any sport or game, you should map out your path/strategy based on the rules of the game as they are. The composition of the Slams hasn't changed since Fedjokdal started playing, so I, even as a Nadal fan, have no patience for arguments like OP's. I firmly believe that whoever ends up with the most Major titles is who deserves to be called the GOAT. Right now, that's Federer but could just as well be Nadal or Djokovic once all is said and done. There's no doubt that Djokovic has the most momentum right now though.

 

[-NN-]

Oh, it's quite easy to refute this - Nadal would not win any more Majors without injuries. See? Easy.
Claim that is stated without proof can be refuted without proof.
But, why it's so easy to put your argument to sleep? Because it's flawed. It's a "woulda coulda shoulda" argument from imagine-land. Imagine-land is a place where people go when the actual reality is to hard for them, it's a nice place full of endless possibilities, a place where Nadal has 25 Majors.

Now, about your slam surface distribution theory - what if all slams were played on HC?

Can't you just be thankful because your favourite player is one of the best players tennis history has ever seen? Why is that not enough?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

I want to take you up seriously on your points as I think you make very strong points which made me think and reconsider my outlook on this issue. But can you answer me the following:

Nadal and his family just come from a small island and when he was a kid they trained on the only courts they had and they didn't have TV or even the radio so they couldn't find out about tour conditions at the time on the pro circuit. Without having knowledge of the surface distribution on the pro tour they just had to hedge their bets [sic] and pray that clay would be significant. If they had the intel they could have tailored Nadal's game to hardcourts and none of this would matter but without the television they couldn't know. There's no way they could predict what would happen living such a private existence in Manacor, and the island of Mallorca and so when they reached the main tour they came to realise that clay is kind of important, but not as important as hardcourts, and so Nadal was actually disadvantaged from the very beginning.

I know how you will argue this point. The history of tennis has rarely seen clay as the most important surface and so based on historical precedent the whole Nadal family should have been able to use inductive reasoning and prepare more for either hardcourts or grass based on trends, just by pure logic even though grass would have been a bad choice. They could have located records in the public library or whatever to find out the history of tennis. I agree that in light of that they should have come to a more educated decision in Rafa's formative years but I still don't think this is a good enough argument to undermine the basic premise that Nadal was DISADVANTAGED from the get-go due to his specific circumstances.

Can you at least admit that if 2 of the Slams were clay Nadal would have 20+ Slams by now?

Djokovic only has 15 even though 2 of the Slams are on HC.

You and I both know that Nadal without the injuries and 2 Clay Slams would be at 25+ by now.

Who would have stopped him?

Also if he had prepared for HC instead of Clay in his formative years and his family made wiser decisions, he would be probably the best HC player of this era TBH because of his athleticism and his forehand.

But I do think you make good points but I still can't really shake the feeling that Djokovic should be ahead of Nadal right now in the Slam count I mean he has 2 HC Slams to play and Nadal only 1 Clay Slam and Nadal is very good on clay and Djokovic is very good on HC so the circumstance suits Djokovic more with him being very good on HC and there being more HC Slams for him to go at than there are Clay Slams for Nadal to go at, who is very good on clay. Do you see what I mean?

 

[-NN-]

On the contrary, it's easy to refute. The fact that there is only one slam played clay does not in any way, shape or form mean that Nadal has been "unlucky."

There has been only one slam played on clay for almost the entirety of the Grand Slam era in tennis (i.e., since early in the 20th century when all the tournaments became open internationally).
For a three-year period in the 1970s, there was one slam played on red clay and one slam played on ersatz clay (Har-Tru).
There was only one slam played on clay when Nadal was born.
There was only one slam played on clay when Nadal started learning to play tennis.
There was only one slam played on clay when Nadal turned pro.

In short, Grand Slam tennis has been defined by having only one slam on clay. Nadal always knew that. Uncle Toni always knew that. Nadal's playing style, tactics, and training emphases were all chosen with full awareness of the fact that only one slam is played on clay. Nadal focused on honing his clay court skills to the partial detriment of his skills on the other surfaces despite the fact that one slam is played on clay, and three slams are played off clay. In no part of this process did luck have any role whatsoever.

I just addressed this in my last post. Thanks though I think these are interesting points of debate.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

-NN- is GOATing.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Nadal is a very strong player on clay. If there were 2 Clay Slams instead of 1 Clay Slam then Nadal would win more Slams.

And if there were 3 grass slams instead of one, Sampras would have 20 slams.

And if there were 4 clay slams, Lendl would have 13 slams.

With 4 clay slams, Borg now has 20 slams.
-----------------------------------------

We can play this game literally till hell freezes over.

What is this bizarre need for people to endlessly (and I do mean endlessly) start these hypothetical threads or adjusting reality so their idol comes out on top?

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I want to take you up seriously on your points as I think you make very strong points which made me think and reconsider my outlook on this issue. But can you answer me the following:

Nadal and his family just come from a small island and when he was a kid they trained on the only courts they had and they didn't have TV or even the radio so they couldn't find out about tour conditions at the time on the pro circuit. Without having knowledge of the surface distribution on the pro tour they just had to hedge their bets and pray that clay would be significant. If they had the intel they could have tailored Nadal's game to hardcourts and none of this would matter but without the television they couldn't know. There's no way they could predict what would happen living such a private existence in Manacor, and the island of Mallorca and so when they reached the main tour they came to realise that clay is kind of important, but not as important as hardcourts, and so Nadal was actually disadvantaged from the very beginning.

I know how you will argue this point. The history of tennis has rarely seen clay as the most important surface and so based on historical precedent the whole Nadal family should have been able to use inductive reasoning and prepare more for either hardcourts or grass based on trends, just by pure logic even though grass would have been a bad choice. They could have located records in the public library or whatever to find out the history of tennis. I agree that in light of that they should have come to a more educated decision in Rafa's formative years but I still don't think this is a good enough argument to undermine the basic premise that Nadal was DISADVANTAGED from the get-go due to his specific circumstances.

Can you at least admit that if 2 of the Slams were clay Nadal would have 20+ Slams by now?

Djokovic only has 15 even though 2 of the Slams are on HC.

You and I both know that Nadal without the injuries and 2 Clay Slams would be at 25+ by now.

Who would have stopped him?

Also if he had prepared for HC instead of Clay in his formative years and his family made wiser decisions, he would be probably the best HC player of this era TBH because of his athleticism and his forehand.

But I do think you make good points but I still can't really shake the feeling that Djokovic should be ahead of Nadal right now in the Slam count I mean he has 2 HC Slams to play and Nadal only 1 Clay Slam and Nadal is very good on clay and Djokovic is very good on HC so the circumstance suits Djokovic more with him being very good on HC and there being more HC Slams for him to go at than there are Clay Slams for Nadal to go at, who is very good on clay. Do you see what I mean?

I think you overrate the importance of 'formative years,' which were historically so important because they dictated whether you were a baseliner or an all courter or what kind of backhand you had. Nothing about his childhood preparation prevents him from excelling on modern hard courts.

He still has the worst serve. He still relies on topspin and even certain weather conditions. That has nothing to do with what surface he grew up playing on especially considering the fact that he grew up playing with natural gut and never would have had the insane topspin polyester eventually afforded him just as he was turning pro.

For the record, Nadal is the only clay courter who has ever relied so heavily on topspin and bounce. And Nadal relies on it on every surface. Even at Wimbledon where it makes his passing shots possible.

 

[tennisaddict]

Let us strip AO from being considered a major

Would make historical comparisons as well as slam variations more equitable

 

[TheAssassin]

A lot of players prefer hard over clay so I'd say it evens out.

 

[TennisPinkBabe]

If there were 2 clay slams players would grow up gunning for them more and there would be stronger competition and Nadal wouldn't win as much.

 

[Pheasant]

Hypotheticals and what-if scenarios are awesome. Here are a couple of reasonable what-ifs that make John McEnroe the GOAT.

1. AO is removed as a major, along with the FO. Instead, we get a New York Open and a Chicago Open, both played on carpet.
2. McEnroe never should have dated Tatum O'neal. She was disastrous for him. He should have dated one of those famous early morning aerobics stars that was flooding the morning TV's in the 1980's instead.

To sum up, we have two carpet slams, a hard court slam, and a grass slam. McEnroe has now dating an aerobics legend.

McEnroe could have lasted until he was 40 with this setup. I could see this hypothetical McEnroe walk away with 40 slam titles. And in the process, he would have made Ivan Lendl cry to his mom.

 

[Enceladus]

The current distribution of surfaces on GS tournaments is fair. Tennis has two majors on the natural surface (RG - clay, Wimbledon - grass) and two majors on the artificial surface (AO & USO - hard). Yes, there is an even better variant of surface distribution - one of the HC majors would change the hard surface behind the carpet. However, AO and USO organizers are satisfied with HC.

 

[Jonas78]

Its unfair to Scandinavians we havent slams played on snow. If there were 2 slams played on snow its possible a Scandinavian country would have the GOAT.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Conclusion - Ned is the best ever.

 

[RS]

I would argue that Nadal has had a ton of luck anyway. Polyester strings probably helped him more than his rivals. Surface slowing and even the fact that Wimbledon slows down/gets bouncier in the 2nd week when he has to face good players.

Imagine if RG got faster/lower bouncing in the 2nd week for Federer/Djokovic when they had to play Nadal there.

Wimbeldon is still a faster surface that favours attackers even in the 2nd week of the slam. That is why Federer a very attacking player has 8 titles.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Wimbeldon is still a faster surface that favours attackers even in the 2nd week of the slam. That is why Federer a very attacking player has 8 titles.

It still gets slower and higher bouncing as the tournament goes on. Outside of last year when it was 40 degrees celsius, his topspin (and overall offense) are completely ineffective on it during the 1st week.

The fact that Wimbledon doesn't reserve courts (for economic reasons) for later rounds is, let's admit it, fortunate for Nadal. He won his 3 USOs with rather fortunate draws and circumstances.

His only non-clay slam without some kind of asterisk (or luck) is 2009 AO and he won that by the skin of his teeth.

 

[RS]

It still gets slower and higher bouncing as the tournament goes on. Outside of last year when it was 40 degrees celsius, his topspin (and overall offense) are completely ineffective on it during the 1st week.

But not enough to favour players like Nadal over players like Federer. Yes i agree with you about the first week and Nadal struggling. But he was not at advanage in any of the Wimbeldon finals.
Nadal had some easier draws at non clay slams for sure but that does not change the fact that he would most likely have the most slams if 2 were on clay.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

But not enough to favour players like Nadal over players like Federer. Yes i agree with you about the first week and Nadal struggling. But he was not at advanage in any of the Wimbeldon finals.
Nadal had some easier draws at non clay slams for sure but that does not change the fact that he would most likely have the most slams if 2 were on clay.

Who cares? The point is that Nadal has benefited from luck (beyond his control) and the fact that there is only 1 clay slam (a novelty surface at this point) can hardly be considered bad luck considering that has practically always been the case. I could just as easily argue that he's lucky it hasn't been completely phased out like carpet or wood.

 

[RS]

Who cares? The point is that Nadal has benefited from luck (beyond his control) and the fact that there is only 1 clay slam (a novelty surface at this point) can hardly be considered bad luck considering that has practically always been the case. I could just as easily argue that he's lucky it hasn't been completely phased out.

I have heard arugements that all the big 3 were luckier in beyond control situations.
I have heard cases from others fans saying clay is too long and the courts are not fast enough for Federer. How is that any different? If that is the case then non fanbase should mention it.
Carpet and Wood are old surfaces. How is the the same as one of the main and regularly playing once more at slam level?

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I have heard arugements that all the big 3 were luckier in beyond control situations.
I have heard cases from others fans saying clay is too long and the courts are not fast enough for Federer. How is that any different? If that is the case then non fanbase should mention it.

Federer is the consensus GOAT already so no one is making excuses for why he isn't.

No one has made excuses for Djokovic outside of how he drew the tougher opponent in practically every semi-final for a long stretch... and there is good reason to believe why the draws weren't really random and that it wasn't just bad luck, but rather being actively screwed.

People are making excuses for Nadal recently because he has been failing to stake any real claim as a GOAT contender ever since the 2014 Aussie Open, prior to which it looked like he was going to. Every time he has an opportunity to really improve his resume as a GOAT candidate, people hype the hell out of him and then he fails to deliver.

 

[Zara]

It's just not enough for me that Nadal is one of the best ever. I need him to be the greatest of all the players, and if there were 2 Clay Slams he would take his rightful place on the throne of GOAT.

The sarcasm on this one has gone through the roof.

 

[Zara]

And if there were 3 grass slams instead of one, Sampras would have 20 slams.

And if there were 4 clay slams, Lendl would have 13 slams.

With 4 clay slams, Borg now has 20 slams.
-----------------------------------------

We can play this game literally till hell freezes over.

What is this bizarre need for people to endlessly (and I do mean endlessly) start these hypothetical threads or adjusting reality so their idol comes out on top?

And how about if there were no CLAY or RG?

 

[WhiskeyEE]

The sarcasm on this one has gone through the roof.

Sarcasm or not, many of Nadal's fans have been making this same argument recently. I wasn't sure if NN was being sarcastic or not, but having now read that post, it's obvious that he is.

 

[RF-18]

Djokovic and Federer, arguably 2 of the greatest HC players to ever pick up a racket had to deal with eachother.

 

[RS]

Federer is the consensus GOAT already so no one is making excuses for why he isn't.
A lot of people do. They say what if they kept the courts faster Federer would have won more titles or Nadal/Djokovic took advantage of slower surfaces. Or the match-up excuse. Happens a lot even though Fed is considered the best by most people.

No one has made excuses for Djokovic outside of how he drew the tougher opponent in practically every semi-final for a long stretch... and there is good reason to believe why the draws weren't really random and that it wasn't just bad luck, but rather being actively screwed.

All fanbases make excuses when their man loses.
People are making excuses for Nadal recently because he has been failing to stake any real claim as a GOAT contender ever since the 2014 Aussie Open, prior to which it looked like he was going to. Every time he has an opportunity to really improve his resume as a GOAT candidate, people hype the hell out of him and then he fails to deliver.

I agree with this part. In AO 14 it really looked he would win he had everything going for him. Most people felt Djokovic would beat Rafa this year in the end after seeing the SF match. Nadal came closer to get DGS and that is massive for a legacy and all surface adapting.

And some people just like to oppose popular opinion because it makes them feel more enlightened. Even though they aren't really.

I agree.

 

[Zara]

Sarcasm or not, many of Nadal's fans have been making this same argument recently. I wasn't sure if NN was being sarcastic or not, but having now read that post, it's obvious that he is.

He is being thoroughly sarcastic. Not a Nadal fan even the slightest.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

He is being thoroughly sarcastic. Not a Nadal fan even the slightest.

Yes after reading the other post I quoted and not just skimming I am embarrassed that I fell for the bait. lol. To be fair, he has hyped and defended Nadal quite a bit in the past.

 

[Sport]

And if there were 3 grass slams instead of one, Sampras would have 20 slams.

And if there were 4 clay slams, Lendl would have 13 slams.

With 4 clay slams, Borg now has 20 slams.
-----------------------------------------

We can play this game literally till hell freezes over.

What is this bizarre need for people to endlessly (and I do mean endlessly) start these hypothetical threads or adjusting reality so their idol comes out on top?

We still can make comparisons considering only one Grand Slam on hard courts, to determine which player is greater overall, not greater on hard courts.

Grand Slam count without the US Open:

Federer: 15
Nadal: 14
Djokovic: 12

In this way, we consider 33% of Slams on hard, 33% on clay and 33% on grass. If we count the 2 Grand Slams on hard, then the Grand Slam count only determines which player is greater on hard, not which player is greater overall.

 

[Zara]

Yes after reading the other post I quoted and not just skimming I am embarrassed that I fell for the bait. lol. To be fair, he has hyped and defended Nadal quite a bit in the past.

He got bored so decided to troll a bit.

He might have defended Nadal but I am sure he doesn't want Nadal to touch Fed's record. His byline is specifically designed to that. He's not against the big 3 but the idea that if none of them wins the Slam anymore including Fed going forward, Fed's records stays safe. It's all wrapped up in that.

 

[Milehigh5280]

This is silly. You could say Fed is unlucky there isn't a 2nd grass slam or even a grass masters. The slams are fine the way they are

 

[Sport]

Let us strip AO from being considered a major

Would make historical comparisons as well as slam variations more equitable

I agree that a fair historical comparison would consider either AO or USO but never both. Otherwise, the Grand Slam count only detemrines which player is gerater on hard, not which player is greater overall.

 

[Sport]

This is silly. You could say Fed is unlucky there isn't a 2nd grass slam or even a grass masters. The slams are fine the way they are

He is unlucky. Both Federer and Nadal are unlucky that there are not 2 Slams on grass or 2 Slams on clay.

1 Grand Slam per surface would be more fair.

 

[The Fedfather]

Agree with the first three statements as they logically follow from what we know IMO.

Nadal has been head and shoulders above his opposition on clay for the overwhelming majority of his career. If there were 2 Slams on clay it is very likely he would be the Slam leader. Sure, other players would become more specialized on the surface and he would be exhausting his body more by going deep in 2 Slams tournaments more often (he'd play a couple additional clay tourneys as warm-up), the injuries would pile up. Still wouldn't be enough to erase the edge that Nadal would have as the clay phenomenon. With 1 HC Slam it is difficult for me to imagine a scenario where Djokovic would be as close to Nadal's Slam count as he is now.

Now as many have rightfully pointed out that there are many hypotheticals about how things would be if the tour was skewed toward a certain surface: clay, grass, indoor HC. The way things are now was meant to make the conditions balanced throughout the season. Slow HC, clay, grass, fast HC all meant to facilitate different aspects of tennis, different strengths of players. So if all these conditions were kept true to their name the 4 Slams as they are now would represent balance even with 2 of them being on hardcourts. The problem is of course that there's been a lot of messing with the conditions so it's a balance only de jure.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Lol I love how you're being sarcastic but its still true despite your agenda. Nadal is epic