Nadal should have 8-10 slams now and Fed should have 13-15.

[Turning Pro]

Too bad he overplayed and aggravated an injury last year for the FO and Wimby. It probably would have been an 5-0 at the french, 7-2 in gs and 6-2 in GS finals across all surfaces. Wimby, we all know he pushes federer and it would probably be another 4-5 set epic. Federer is lucky. Another example would be Wimbledon 2007, he was lucky rafa hurt his knee in the 4th whilst cruising. The 14-7 record would be very different too, possibly 16-5 or something. This isn't a troll thread, it's simply what a lot of people share deep down.

Comments?

 

[Inner Game]

Too bad he overplayed and aggravated an injury last year for the FO and Wimby. It probably would have been an 5-0 at the french, 7-2 in gs and 6-2 in GS finals across all surfaces. Wimby, we all know he pushes federer and it would probably be another 4-5 set epic. Federer is lucky. Another example would be Wimbledon 2007, he was lucky rafa hurt his knee in the 4th whilst cruising. The 14-7 record would be very different too, possibly 16-5 or something. This isn't a troll thread, it's simply what a lot of people share deep down.

Comments?

If they ever came up with a decent test for doping Nadal would have been suspended by now!.....and all his GS voided out like Reggie Bush's Heisman!

 

[Falloutjr]

I wouldn't say Federer is lucky, I just think Nadal is unlucky. Now that his health isn't a question anymore, I think he has a solid chance to finish well over double digits in slams. Assuming he plays for 5 more years, he has 5 chances to win at the French, which he should win at least 4 of, and he could probably win 3-5 other slams with Federer out of the picture soon, so he definitely has a shot to be there with Federer in terms of GOATness.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

you can't really assume. soderling beat nadal fair and square last FO and he got beat fairly at AO as well. The only real argument you can make is for wimbledon.

 

[frisco]

If Soderling didn't beat Nadal last year, Nadal probably would have won the FO. But not Wimbledon, 2008 Rafa was lucky to win that one. Won't happen again.

 

[anchorsteamer]

Too bad he overplayed and aggravated an injury last year for the FO and Wimby. It probably would have been an 5-0 at the french, 7-2 in gs and 6-2 in GS finals across all surfaces. Wimby, we all know he pushes federer and it would probably be another 4-5 set epic. Federer is lucky. Another example would be Wimbledon 2007, he was lucky rafa hurt his knee in the 4th whilst cruising. The 14-7 record would be very different too, possibly 16-5 or something. This isn't a troll thread, it's simply what a lot of people share deep down.

Comments?

no it's a dumb troll thread. That's sports. People get hurt, things happen.

 

[Turning Pro]

I agree Nadal wouldn't have won at the AO this year regardless of his health. However the FO 09 is a big void. I even commented last year how a healthy Nadal would have given the ball back with interest and not allowed Soderlin to dictate points and more aggression like today against Soderling. Wimbledon 09 is a tough one but with his past record it would have been a good case for him to at least make the finals had he been healthy. And another point yeah, bit unfair to say Fed was lucky but rather, Nadal is unlucky.

 

[Cyan]

Fed is the LOAT.

Luckiest of all time.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I agree Nadal wouldn't have won at the AO this year regardless of his health. However the FO 09 is a big void. I even commented last year how a healthy Nadal would have given the ball back with interest and more agression like today against Soderling. Wimbledon 09 is a tough one but with his past record it would have been a good case for him to at least make the finals had he been healthy.

well his injury was tendinitis correct? tendinitis doesn't really affect play at all considering the load of anti-inflammatories that he was probably on. There is a danger, however, in playing with tendinitis (or other tendinopathies) as the injury can get much worse and cause a tear or tendinosis. This is the reason that he pulled out of wimbledon (to avoid a serious injury). It isn't that he couldn't play up to his potential.

you'd have an argument if he had a muscle tear or strain or something, but he didn't.

 

[CMM]

Fed is the LOAT.

Luckiest of all time.

I guess he's not that lucky because you managed to jinx him.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=326140

 

[ClubHoUno]

Too bad he overplayed and aggravated an injury last year for the FO and Wimby. It probably would have been an 5-0 at the french, 7-2 in gs and 6-2 in GS finals across all surfaces. Wimby, we all know he pushes federer and it would probably be another 4-5 set epic. Federer is lucky. Another example would be Wimbledon 2007, he was lucky rafa hurt his knee in the 4th whilst cruising. The 14-7 record would be very different too, possibly 16-5 or something. This isn't a troll thread, it's simply what a lot of people share deep down.

Comments?

Part of Fed's greatness is his ability to stay injury free, while Rafa obtains part of his great game from being energetic, powerful and wearing his opponents down, which sooner or later will cause Rafa to be prone to injuries.

Fed on the other hand has an easy natural flowing game, which makes him stay injury free for most of his career.

Therefore I don't agree with your statement.

 

[OKUSA]

imo Hewitt should have 10 GS by now and should be working on his 11th this Wimbledon, if it wasn't for those damn injuries

 

[mandy01]

I guess he's not that lucky because you managed to jinx him.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=326140

I think it was Cyan who said that Fed wouldn't win a slam in 2009 or something( or that he would win at the most one) .Well..that didn't go too well so she resorted to this(something she was sure would get the opposite result) :lol:

 

[Turning Pro]

Ok, I'm not saying Federer didn't deserve his FO, because he did more than anyone. However, it would have made the rivarly more interesting and realistic if Nadal didn't have such bad luck with his knees. Federer has great health and Nadal with bad knees still has won 7 slams, pretty astonishing especially with 2 of the GOAT playing (i'm certain Nadal will be up there with Laver, Borg, Sampras and Fed when it's all done and dusted.

 

[Turning Pro]

imo Hewitt should have 10 GS by now and should be working on his 11th this Wimbledon, if it wasn't for those damn injuries

Hewitt would probably have around 5-6 slams if Federer wasn't around and Roddick probably 4-6 too.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Ok, I'm not saying Federer didn't deserve his FO, because he did more than anyone. However, it would have made the rivarly more interesting and realistic if Nadal didn't have such bad luck with his knees. Federer has great health and Nadal with bad knees still has won 7 slams, pretty astonishing especially with 2 of the GOAT playing (i'm certain Nadal will be up there with Laver, Borg, Sampras and Fed when it's all done and dusted.

did you even read my post? he did not have a serious injury. tendinitis doesn't affect play at all if you're on anti-inflammatories. it can just progress into serious injuries if you play through it. He only took 2 months off which means it was a minor tendinopathy anyway.

 

[Cyan]

I guess he's not that lucky because you managed to jinx him.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=326140

awww

 

[Turning Pro]

It certainly affected his play in that he couldn't run down balls with ease during his 170-6 something streak across 5 years of clay. Are you kidding me? Federer who is the 2nd best clay courter of his generation (barring kuerton) couldn't touch Nadal and Soderling even though he played lights out tennis, I still think Nadal would have progressed in 5 at least. Nadal would have run those soderling balls down with interest and certainly wouldn't have let allowed him to hit the ball through him had nadal been aggresive himself. Look what happened this year.

 

[Cyan]

I think it was Cyan who said that Fed wouldn't win a slam in 2009 or something( or that he would win at the most one) .Well..that didn't go too well so she resorted to this(something she was sure would get the opposite result) :lol:

I think Fed will win Wimbledon and USO:shock:

 

[[d]ragon]

Part of Fed's greatness is his ability to stay injury free, while Rafa obtains part of his great game from being energetic, powerful and wearing his opponents down, which sooner or later will cause Rafa to be prone to injuries.

Fed on the other hand has an easy natural flowing game, which makes him stay injury free for most of his career.

Therefore I don't agree with your statement.

A voice of reason here.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Injury is part of the game. So are bad bounces, line-calls, weather conditions, ect. You lose, you lose. You win, you win.
That's it.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

It certainly affected his play in that he couldn't run down balls with ease during his 170-6 something streak across 5 years of clay. Are you kidding me? Federer who is the 2nd best clay courter of his generation (barring kuerton) couldn't touch Nadal and Soderling even though he played lights out tennis, I still think Nadal would have progressed in 5 at least. Nadal would have run those soderling balls down with interest and certainly wouldn't have let allowed him to hit the ball through him had nadal been aggresive himself. Look what happened this year.

have you ever had tendinitis? or any other tendon injuries or joint problems? i've had several. it doesn't do anything except cause pain. if you're on anti-inflammatories it doesn't do anything period.

it would not have affected his ability to run down balls.

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Too bad he overplayed and aggravated an injury last year for the FO and Wimby. It probably would have been an 5-0 at the french, 7-2 in gs and 6-2 in GS finals across all surfaces. Wimby, we all know he pushes federer and it would probably be another 4-5 set epic. Federer is lucky. Another example would be Wimbledon 2007, he was lucky rafa hurt his knee in the 4th whilst cruising. The 14-7 record would be very different too, possibly 16-5 or something. This isn't a troll thread, it's simply what a lot of people share deep down.

Comments?

I don't think you are trolling and I am sure believe everything you are saying. Your thought process has some logic too so my next comment is not to bash your statement as I to believe that he would of won the FO last year and had a good shot at defending his Wimbledon title possibly giving him 9 slams. Federer is bad ass. Staying healthy is a testament to how good an athelete Fed is and how his style of play is superior overall to Nadal's even if the head to head doesn't show it. What Nadal has going for him as that he's young. The next 3 years or so should be his peek assuming he stays healthy but who knows? The only thing I think that concerns me about the Roger's head to head with Nadal is if Nadal can come to with in a couple slams of Fed with some more of them not being French Opens. Then the Head to Head becomes a massive issue when compairng the two players because of the significant amount of overlap in their careers. Nadal has a whole lot of slams to win to make his case along with Fed, Pete, Borg and Laver. I don't think he can do it but time will tell. I can easily see Nadal winning more FO ands Wimbys but AO and USO will always be tough for him. Even if his knees hold up his game was obviously tailor made for clay and oddly enough suits the current grass courts really well. I think he'll end up with 10-12 wich will not be enough to put him up with Fed or Pete.

 

[P_Agony]

Too bad he overplayed and aggravated an injury last year for the FO and Wimby. It probably would have been an 5-0 at the french, 7-2 in gs and 6-2 in GS finals across all surfaces. Wimby, we all know he pushes federer and it would probably be another 4-5 set epic. Federer is lucky. Another example would be Wimbledon 2007, he was lucky rafa hurt his knee in the 4th whilst cruising. The 14-7 record would be very different too, possibly 16-5 or something. This isn't a troll thread, it's simply what a lot of people share deep down.

Comments?

What is this nonesense? Nadal should now have 5 slams and Federer 18 because Federer should have won both Wimbly 2008 and AO 09. Seriously, do you actually believe what you write? Every player who wins a grand slam deserved it. He/She went on to win 7 matches in a row against the given draw. Federer won FO 09 by winning 7 matches in a row, it is not his fault Nadal wasn't there to defend his title. Same goes for Wimbly 09.

 

[davey25]

I think the only slams Rafa should have instead of Federer due to injuries are the 2009 French Open and 2009 Wimbledon titles.

2007 Wimbledon Rafa really should have won since he outplayed Federer, even with Federer's huge serving edge. Sadly Rafa in very unRafa-like fashion choked on the big points that day while Federer was actually the mentally tougher player that day and played the big points much better. Hence why Federer won despite Rafa overall outplaying him, not the injury.

And there are no others really. 2006 Australian Open if his draw consisted of only some combination of Ljubicic, Baghdatis, Federer, Haas, Kiefer, Grosjean he wins. However there are others who would have taken him out like Nalbandian and Davydenko. He probably wouldnt have been so lucky to avoid those few really bad matchups for him and only get the players I mentioned.

 

[IvanisevicServe]

Has Nadal ever lost a match in the ATP when he wasn't "injured?"

2007 Wimbledon final--waaaaah, injury break.

2009 French Open--Knees were killing him, but this time he decided to tough it out and not even tape them up in the match.

2009 US Open--Not healthy yet. Del Potro lucky.

2010 Australian Open--Still not healthy. Also, abdominal injury.

2010 French Open--What's that? He WON? OK, NOW he's HEALTHY!!!

 

[OrangeOne]

Has Nadal ever lost a match in the ATP when he wasn't "injured?"

2009 French Open--Knees were killing him, but this time he decided to tough it out and not even tape them up in the match.

2009 Wimbledon - Injured, otherwise, would clearly have been his title, the AE club probably would have just given it to him if he entered - wouldn't have even needed to play - he's that good.

2009 US Open--Not healthy yet. Del Potro lucky.

2010 Australian Open--Still not healthy. Also, abdominal injury.

2010 French Open--What's that? He WON? OK, NOW he's HEALTHY!!!

Changed your post a little. Seems it's true, Nadal actually is owed 4 out of the last 5 slams.

Can we just adjust his record and speak of it in these terms forever.

Oh yeah, sorry, Delpo, you're no longer a slam winner, and well done, Sampras, you still have the record.

 

[jackson vile]

If they ever came up with a decent test for doping Nadal would have been suspended by now!.....and all his GS voided out like Reggie Bush's Heisman!

Then they would find out about Roger's Cocaine and doping as well.

 

[akv89]

Players are responsible for their bodies, unless their injuries are caused by someone else (e.g. Muster, Seles).
Federer has taken good care of his own body by knowing his limitations and it's foolish to take credit away from him because of that.

 

[Rippy]

Injuries are a part of the game. Nadal should have 7 slams now, and Fed should have 16. Federer should be given credit for staying largely in good health, not pushing his body too far etc.

 

[davey25]

Has Nadal ever lost a match in the ATP when he wasn't "injured?"

2007 Wimbledon final--waaaaah, injury break.

2009 French Open--Knees were killing him, but this time he decided to tough it out and not even tape them up in the match.

2009 US Open--Not healthy yet. Del Potro lucky.

2010 Australian Open--Still not healthy. Also, abdominal injury.

2010 French Open--What's that? He WON? OK, NOW he's HEALTHY!!!

I havent heard anyone (other than the worst Rafatards) suggest Nadal was likely going to have won events like the 2009 U.S Open and 2010 Australian Open had he not been injured. However events like the 2009 French and 2009 Wimbledon are legitiamte questions to ask. Even 2007 Wimbledon, though like I said unfortunately I think he lost that day to choking on the big points.

 

[statto]

Too bad he overplayed and aggravated an injury last year for the FO and Wimby. It probably would have been an 5-0 at the french, 7-2 in gs and 6-2 in GS finals across all surfaces. Wimby, we all know he pushes federer and it would probably be another 4-5 set epic. Federer is lucky. Another example would be Wimbledon 2007, he was lucky rafa hurt his knee in the 4th whilst cruising. The 14-7 record would be very different too, possibly 16-5 or something. This isn't a troll thread, it's simply what a lot of people share deep down.

Comments?

Just because you say it isn't a troll thread doesn't mean it isn't.

Nadal got injured - it happens. He's come back and been successful. Be grateful, because that doesn't always happen.

 

[statto]

I havent heard anyone (other than the worst Rafatards) suggest Nadal was likely going to have won events like the 2009 U.S Open and 2010 Australian Open had he not been injured. However events like the 2009 French and 2009 Wimbledon are legitiamte questions to ask. Even 2007 Wimbledon, though like I said unfortunately I think he lost that day to choking on the big points.

I think the 2010 Australian Open would have been a possibility given that he was the reigning champion. This is all woulda coulda shoulda stuff though. It's pointless debating it.

 

[davey25]

I think the 2010 Australian Open would have been a possibility given that he was the reigning champion. This is all woulda coulda shoulda stuff though. It's pointless debating it.

I think he was just outplayed by Murray though, even if he werent injured. That plus Federer was in top form in the final there. I dont see Nadal winning there.

 

[mandy01]

I havent heard anyone (other than the worst Rafatards) suggest Nadal was likely going to have won events like the 2009 U.S Open and 2010 Australian Open had he not been injured. However events like the 2009 French and 2009 Wimbledon are legitiamte questions to ask. Even 2007 Wimbledon, though like I said unfortunately I think he lost that day to choking on the big points.

If you're talking about the fifth set Nadal had four BPs out of which he missed only one( sent a BH long I believe).The other three were saved by Roger and he also played a nice game to break Nadal later on.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

more like 10-12, Nadal has had a horrific run with injury at slams.Considering his strike rate at winning slams when he is not injured, he would have won at least 3-4 more by now if he didn't have all those injuries.

 

[jukka1970]

Too bad he overplayed and aggravated an injury last year for the FO and Wimby. It probably would have been an 5-0 at the french, 7-2 in gs and 6-2 in GS finals across all surfaces. Wimby, we all know he pushes federer and it would probably be another 4-5 set epic. Federer is lucky. Another example would be Wimbledon 2007, he was lucky rafa hurt his knee in the 4th whilst cruising. The 14-7 record would be very different too, possibly 16-5 or something. This isn't a troll thread, it's simply what a lot of people share deep down.

Comments?

I don't think it's a troll thread, because it's an opinion on whether injury caused all the problems. However I think the dream of what would have happened is a bit delusional. Nadal lost that bid for the FO to Soderling, who played out of his mind and beat him fair and square. He did the same to Federer this year playing out of his mind. Like last year I think the semi's probably took to much out of Soderling to keep the "red-lining" up. It's also pretty hard to call a man lucky who's reached 10 straight finals, then comes back and does 8 straight more (while the next best is 5, so fed's got position 1 and 2 on that list), and makes 23 straight semi's (where the next best is 10). I mean sorry, you just can't chalk that up to luck. There are way to many factors involved. And remember, Nadal hasn't even made it to the US Open final yet, which means he hasn't made it to more then 3 straight finals. As for semi's I'd have to check, but it's less then 10, I remember the day they put the names up, and don't remember seeing nadals name on the list, so I believe it's less then 8.

Jukka

 

[Rippy]

more like 10-12, Nadal has had a horrific run with injury at slams.Considering his strike rate at winning slams when he is not injured, he would have won at least 3-4 more by now if he didn't have all those injuries.

When, by definition, you have Nadal as "injured" when he doesn't win a slam, and "not injured" when he does win, of course there'll be a high strike rate...

 

[JustBob]

"Should have" is about as relevant as a pair of boobs on a dead chicken.

 

[P_Agony]

more like 10-12, Nadal has had a horrific run with injury at slams.Considering his strike rate at winning slams when he is not injured, he would have won at least 3-4 more by now if he didn't have all those injuries.

This post is beyond pathetic.

 

[Juges8932]

Too bad he overplayed and aggravated an injury last year for the FO and Wimby. It probably would have been an 5-0 at the french, 7-2 in gs and 6-2 in GS finals across all surfaces. Wimby, we all know he pushes federer and it would probably be another 4-5 set epic. Federer is lucky. Another example would be Wimbledon 2007, he was lucky rafa hurt his knee in the 4th whilst cruising. The 14-7 record would be very different too, possibly 16-5 or something. This isn't a troll thread, it's simply what a lot of people share deep down.

Comments?

No. Nadal should have 7 slams now, which is exactly what he has earned. Federer should have 16, because that is what he has earned. Federer's ability to stay healthy and perform at his level of consistency is perhaps the greatest thing about him. He adjusts to be able to keep his body performing in tip-top condition. His 23-slam semi-final streak wouldn't have been possible without it. To call what Federer has achieved as lucky is asinine. And even then, hypothetically, Nadal winning the French instead of Fed is very realistic, but Wimbledon, not so much. Nadal had to take Federer about as far as somebody can to win over him. I'm not taking away from what Nadal did. That was a spectacular match, but Federer has beat him 2-1 in W finals, granted '07 was pretty close as well. The point is, nobody SHOULD have anything other than what they've earned. Injuries are part of the game and it sucks, but that's the way it is. With this year's FO, I do agree that it is hard to dispute a healthy Nadal not winning it last year had he been healthy, but he still shouldn't have won it, because he didn't.

 

[davey25]

If you're talking about the fifth set Nadal had four BPs out of which he missed only one( sent a BH long I believe).The other three were saved by Roger and he also played a nice game to break Nadal later on.

I would have to review the tape again but I recall Nadal making some bad unforced errors in the games he was broken in the 5th set and on some of the break points.

 

[davey25]

You could use injury what ifs for alot of players. Had Graf not had so many injuries from 1994 onwards she likely would have won 9 or 10 Wimbledons, 7 or 8 French Opens, 7 or 8 U.S Opens, and 6 or 7 Australian Opens and been every more firmly entrenched as the female GOAT than she is today.

 

[Justin Side]

Fed has what he earned. Same with Rafa.

 

[Justdoit10]

There is no such thing as "should have won". You get what you get.

 

[rocket]

Another example would be Wimbledon 2007, he was lucky rafa hurt his knee in the 4th whilst cruising. The 14-7 record would be very different too, possibly 16-5 or something. This isn't a troll thread, it's simply what a lot of people share deep down.

Comments?

could we also say that Nadal was lucky Soderling didn't play his best tennis in today's final?

 

[davey25]

could we also say that Nadal was lucky Soderling didn't play his best tennis in today's final?

No since:

1. He had no chance of winning the way Nadal played today even if he had played his best.

2. He has a high risk game with which he rarely finds his best level anyway. It has to almost happen by chance.

3. He has proven himself not mentally tough enough yet to be even capable of playing his best in a slam final or when he has a clear opportunity to win a Masters.

 

[rocket]

No since:

3. He has proven himself not mentally tough enough yet to be even capable of playing his best in a slam final or when he has a clear opportunity to win a Masters.

only this part is true. Nadal was worried today. you could see it on his face. he could barely handle Sod's weight of shot. Sod squandered a lot of breakpoints & committed a lot of UE's, especially on crucial points.

All Sod had to do was to keep the ball 1 foot inside the baseline & keep the pressure on, Nadal's strength would start to fade. Sod was nervous & impatient so went a lil' too much too early.

Sod's 1st serve wasn't there today either.

 

[Rhino]

To say a guy like Federer didn't really deserve his French Open is a joke. Is he not a better clay courter than Albert Costa... Gaston Gaudio.... Andres Gomez.... Yannick Noah.... Adriano Panatta.... Carlos Moya.... etc, etc, ...and even Andre Agassi?

 

[OrangeOne]

I havent heard anyone (other than the worst Rafatards) suggest Nadal was likely going to have won events like the 2009 U.S Open and 2010 Australian Open had he not been injured. However events like the 2009 French and 2009 Wimbledon are legitiamte questions to ask. Even 2007 Wimbledon, though like I said unfortunately I think he lost that day to choking on the big points.

Which is just called losing.

Federer would likely have taken him in at least one RG final if he could only convert a few more of the million break points he earned, but this isn't something that can be called out as anything other than 'tennis'.

 

[kimbahpnam]

we still got a 5 set epic at wimbly last year