TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
Very true. Not like Nadal had to deal with a formidable Borg that also happened to stick around well into his 30’s.
Nadal is very unlucky with injuries and only 1 Clay Slam
- Thread starter -NN-
- Start date
Very true. Not like Nadal had to deal with a formidable Borg that also happened to stick around well into his 30’s.
Tennis_Freak99
Legend
Oh really? Then Federer will be having 14 slams and Rafa will have 16. You won't like that, as a fedfan, won't you?
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Clay isn't really underrepresented. That's grass.
Two HC majors makes sense considering that's the main surface people actually play on at lower and rec levels, and at lesser tournaments.
Two HC majors makes sense considering that's the main surface people actually play on at lower and rec levels, and at lesser tournaments.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
I tried to strip out everything except Wimbledon for optimal historical comparison the other week as a thought experiment but everyone hated me for it
And if I had the best tennis game of all time on all surfaces, I would have won 30 majors or more.
These hypotheticals are irrelevant and don’t matter. Nadal knew what the court composition of the tour was when he first started training and he chose to tailor his game towards clay rather than the more prevalent hard courts. Hard courts are more important in tennis and that is a fact that is apparent when looking at the tennis calendar. There’s no use pondering these hypotheticals of what would happen if we lived in an alternate universe.
It is also a fact that being able to stay injury free and able to compete at a high level consistently is not something that luck determines. The players put so much hard work and planning into managing their careers and being able to complete often at a very high level. Genetics plays a part as well, but no more than it plays a part in any other aspect of a players game.
If you want to make the argument that Nadal is unlucky to have been born more injury prone than Federer or djokovic, then you must also similarly make the argument that he was lucky to be able to apply such a high degree of topspin and pace on his ground strokes. And if you believe those arguments, then you mine as well say that every outcome is based on luck. In that sense , Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal are not the greatest players, they are only the luckiest...all these arguments are completely bogus and I hope you can see that. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic deserve everything they have achieved and don’t deserve to have uneducated people saying it is all due to luck.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Lol I love how you're being sarcastic but its still true despite your agenda. Nadal is epic
Lmho!
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
I could say Djokovic was very unlucky to play with disease, that plagued him until 2011! If he discovered his "true form" say in 2007, rather than 2011, he would have been an all-time grand slam tally leader already at this point! LOL He was also "unlucky" to go through slump period, that lasted two entire years from the second half of 2016 till second half of 2018! So its a big big question, who is less lucky...See? I can play this "woulda coulda shoulda" hypethetical mumbo jumbo as well! LMAO
Similar threads
