Nadal: Transitional Champion, or Resilient Warrior?

[Forehand Of Doom]

I just saw a couple people accusing Nadal of being a transitional champion, between the eras of Federer and Djokovic. But I am convinced this is not a valid argument. A transitional champion is somebody who rises and takes advantage of a lack of competition when no true champions are active, and disappears or has his achievemnts severely compromised with the advent of a true new champion.

But Nadal seems to be the antithesis of that. Nadal is a resilient warrior who fought in Federer's era and continues fighting after Djokovic's watershed season of 2011. He seems to have been able to get the better of either one as well in their confrontations. Most remarkably, winning' as we just witnessed, 2 slams and 5 Masters shields after being out of the tour for 8 months.

The fact that Nadal is still around, fighting and winning despite all the adversities, in a trajectory spanning 2 very strong rivals is incredible. How can anybody consider Nadal a transitional champion?

 

[Elite]

Transitional champion? Are people still saying this trite?

 

[robertharris]

How can a transitional champion have 3 years as the best player in the World spread out over a 5 year span (would likely be more without injuries) and have won atleast 1 slam every year for 9 straight years? Not to mention the absurdity of a 13 slams winning transitional champ. Transitional champion is just a dream reality for haters at this point.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

I agree! But I just saw a couple folks saying just that. It makes me wonder if they actually believe that or are just trying to rile people up, as it makes no sense.

 

[robertharris]

I agree! But I just saw a couple folks saying just that. It makes me wonder if they actually believe that or are just trying to rile people up, as it makes no sense.

Some people are incredibly stupid. Read no more into it than that. I don't think it is even trolling, as most trolls are more skillful and clever than that.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Some people are incredibly stupid. Read no more into it than that. I don't think it is even trolling, as most trolls are more skillful and clever than that.

Yeah, I suppose you are right. Just wondering if anyone out of those who think he is just an opportunistic champion could give their point of view, if they actually have one.

 

[sureshs]

Someone with 13 Slams is not a "transitional" figure

 

[beast of mallorca]

You are probably referring to Monfed, Dudeski, Fednad, Chico and all the rest of the haters around here..............:twisted:

 

[monfed]

Transitional champ who got lucky in an era of tampered surfaces to suit his game. The slowdown is so blatant it's almost shameless.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Transitional champ who got lucky in an era of tampered surfaces to suit his game. The slowdown is so blatant it's almost shameless.

When did this surface tampering you speak of take place on each surface, and didn't Federer and Djokovic benefit as well? You make it sound like an ATP conspiracy to give Nadal an advantage. But, how wouldnthe ATP benefit from that, given it has been established scientifically that Federer is the sportsman most loved by gentlemen, matrons, children, and various domesticated quadrupeds in the history of mankind?

 

[RF20Lennon]

Maybe an argument can made for his early years but otherwise he is as big of a resilient warrior as it gets! IMO greatest fighter in tennis history. I only wish Federer had his mental toughness. Probably would have done CYGS like 4 times. Federer's skill/talent and technique combined with Nadal's mental strength and work ethic = say goodbye to every slam.

 

[Bud]

Transitional champion for nearly a decade :lol:

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Maybe an argument can made for his early years but otherwise he is as big of a resilient warrior as it gets! IMO greatest fighter in tennis history. I only wish Federer had his mental toughness. Probably would have done CYGS like 4 times. Federer's skill/talent and technique combined with Nadal's mental strength and work ethic = say goodbye to every slam.

Yes, that type of hybrid player would be something else!

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Transitional champion for nearly a decade :lol:

Hahaha. Best laugh I had all day, thanks.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

I see some knucklehead lucky enough to have opposable thumbs just voted the thread down.

 

[Tenez101]

Is this a joke?

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Is this a joke?

According to the poll, 2 out of 11 people believe Nadal is a transitional champion. Coincidentally, the same percentage of folks who live in constant fear of leprechauns, or who take their horoscope seriously.

 

[Sentinel]

I just saw a couple people accusing Nadal of being a transitional champion, between the eras of Federer and Djokovic. But I am convinced this is not a valid argument. A transitional champion is somebody who rises and takes advantage of a lack of competition when no true champions are active, and disappears or has his achievemnts severely compromised with the advent of a true new champion.

But Nadal seems to be the antithesis of that. Nadal is a resilient warrior who fought in Federer's era and continues fighting after Djokovic's watershed season of 2011. He seems to have been able to get the better of either one as well in their confrontations. Most remarkably, winning' as we just witnessed, 2 slams and 5 Masters shields after being out of the tour for 8 months.

The fact that Nadal is still around, fighting and winning despite all the adversities, in a trajectory spanning 2 very strong rivals is incredible. How can anybody consider Nadal a transitional champion?

Dude, we are just pulling your legs when we call Ralph a transitional champion. It's just a response to the rafans who say Fred fluked 17 slams, .... which i think they actually believe (shudder) !

 

[1477aces]

Yeah, I suppose you are right. Just wondering if anyone out of those who think he is just an opportunistic champion could give their point of view, if they actually have one.

when i first saw your thread, i thought you were trying to rile people up by claiming that. I think except for the most hardcore trolls, most people accept that nadal had his own era of being the best player in the world, and his career is easily greater than that of djokovic's.

 

[Crose]

This thread is just asking for trolls.

Anyone who seriously thinks Nadal is a transitional champion needs to have their head examined.

 

[Chico]

Nadal is indeed a transitional champion between the eras of Federer and Djokovic. A clay court specialist who managed to snatch several lucky non clay slams.

That is how it is going to be written in the tennis history book.

 

[namelessone]

Resilient champion.

 

[LazyNinja19]

Nadal is a True Champion, like Roger!!
Can't say the same about Djoko

 

[WhiskeyEE]

He is basically a paper champ.

A guy who has collected enough clay points to be declared "Number 1" a couple times when other top players were in mediocre form. Or right now in the era of geriatrics with no next generation in sight.

There's a reason why he can't hold on to #1 for long. Because eventually someone else finds their form and his clay points aren't enough to hand him top spot.

 

[abmk]

How can a transitional champion have 3 years as the best player in the World spread out over a 5 year span (would likely be more without injuries) and have won atleast 1 slam every year for 9 straight years? Not to mention the absurdity of a 13 slams winning transitional champ. Transitional champion is just a dream reality for haters at this point.

yeah, NA, its absurd to call him a transitional champ '

But its 3 years as best player over 6 years , not 5 years

and the injury part is just plain and pure excuse( esp for RG 2009, wim 12 ). his style of play that got him the success is also majorly responsible for some of the real injuries ( 2005 year end, 2009 rotterdam etc )

 

[MichaelNadal]

Some people are incredibly stupid. Read no more into it than that. I don't think it is even trolling, as most trolls are more skillful and clever than that.

Exactly. I've said it a few times myself. They think they're trolls and it's just blind, biased hate.

 

[Cosmic_Colin]

I voted 'other'.

On clay he is GOAT.
On other surfaces he is something between an all-time great and a transitional champ.

Overall he is closer to an all time great, but I feel that he was only ever truly dominant during others' off years. He didn't dominate during Fed's peak years (to be fair, he was too young), nor during Novak's.

It's only this year that he has achieved a >90% winning percentage.

 

[viduka0101]

the ''Djokovic era'': 8 slam finals, 4 won and 4 lost;

 

[jg153040]

I just saw a couple people accusing Nadal of being a transitional champion, between the eras of Federer and Djokovic. But I am convinced this is not a valid argument. A transitional champion is somebody who rises and takes advantage of a lack of competition when no true champions are active, and disappears or has his achievemnts severely compromised with the advent of a true new champion.

But Nadal seems to be the antithesis of that. Nadal is a resilient warrior who fought in Federer's era and continues fighting after Djokovic's watershed season of 2011. He seems to have been able to get the better of either one as well in their confrontations. Most remarkably, winning' as we just witnessed, 2 slams and 5 Masters shields after being out of the tour for 8 months.

The fact that Nadal is still around, fighting and winning despite all the adversities, in a trajectory spanning 2 very strong rivals is incredible. How can anybody consider Nadal a transitional champion?

Come on, those threads saying this were just obviously trolling.

You actually buying that those threads are serious?

 

[The_Order]

yeah, NA, its absurd to call him a transitional champ '

But its 3 years as best player over 6 years , not 5 years

and the injury part is just plain and pure excuse( esp for RG 2009, wim 12 ). his style of play that got him the success is also majorly responsible for some of the real injuries ( 2005 year end, 2009 rotterdam etc )

At least he doesn't choke big time like your boy does.

What's that now, 6 years+ without beating Nadal in a major?

I'd love to list the amount of excuses you've made for Fed's losses, but I cbf.

 

[FlyingAce]

Nadal is a very curious case, He is not a true champion in terms of domination. For someone with 13 GS, he had really little time where he domenated the tour. I don't think that ever happened before. He was able to rack up titles via ubelievable domination of clay season. This domination on clay created another a bit fallacious idea that he is on any given day can beat anyone because he has positive h2h against any serious rival he faced, which was created because his main rivals (federer djokovic) where good enough to face him on clay, where he clearly had an upper hand.

 

[viduka0101]

He is basically a paper champ.

I don't think you understand what that means

A guy who has collected enough clay points to be declared "Number 1" a couple times

he has held the no.1 ranking only in the years that he won multiple slams
in 2008 won Wimbledon and RG, reached semis at USO and AO
finished year at no.1

in 2010 won Wimbledon,USO and RG, reached QF at AO
finished year at no.1

in 2013 won USO and RG, didn't play at AO, lost in 1st round at Wimbledon
finished year at no.1

There's a reason why he can't hold on to #1 for long. Because eventually someone else finds their form and his clay points aren't enough to hand him top spot.

has held it for 115 weeks, will almost certainly hold it for another 15-20 weeks at least till the 2014 indian wells currently 6. out of 25 players that have held the no.1 ranking in the open era by number of weeks, next guy to surpass is McEnroe who has 170 weeks

 

[viduka0101]

Nadal is a very curious case, He is not a true champion in terms of domination. For someone with 13 GS, he had really little time where he domenated the tour. I don't think that ever happened before. He was able to rack up titles via ubelievable domination of clay season. This domination on clay created another a bit fallacious idea that he is on any given day can beat anyone because he has positive h2h against any serious rival he faced, which was created because his main rivals (federer djokovic) where good enough to face him on clay, where he clearly had an upper hand.

on clay he's 10-0 against them
on other surfaces he's 3-3 against Djokovic(2-2 on hard courts, Djokovics best surface), and 3-2 vs Federer(Federer only beat him on grass at a grand slam and even there he lost a match in 3 meetings)


so as you can see: Nadal has never been beaten by his main rivals on his favorite surface but he has beaten them on their best surfaces, Djokovic multiple times and Federer once but Federer only ever beat him at a grand slam on his favorite surface and one of those was a close 5 set victory

take away all clay court matches and he still leads them 6-5 at grand slams

the fact is that while he finds a way to beat them on their favorite surface they aren't good enough to do the same which in my eyes lessens their legacies

 

[viduka0101]

A clay court specialist who managed to snatch several lucky non clay slams.

5 lucky slams that he snatched to be exact

That is how it is going to be written in the tennis history book.

it's going to be written in the history books:
''A clay court specialist who managed to snatch several lucky non clay slams.''
?

 

[jg153040]

Nadal is a True Champion, like Roger!!
Can't say the same about Djoko

What's with the Nole hate ?

 

[viduka0101]

Transitional champ who got lucky in an era of tampered surfaces to suit his game.

every champion ever is a product of circumstances(that is surfaces on which tournaments are played) as much as his leagcy is a product of talent+hard work

 

[LazyNinja19]

What's with the Nole hate ?

Nothing. Actually i admire Novak too, and consider him to be a worthy champion as well, like Roger & Rafa.
That comment was just for Chico :twisted:

 

[FlyingAce]

on clay he's 10-0 against them
on other surfaces he's 3-3 against Djokovic(2-2 on hard courts, Djokovics best surface), and 3-2 vs Federer(Federer only beat him on grass at a grand slam and even there he lost a match in 3 meetings)


so as you can see: Nadal has never been beaten by his main rivals on his favorite surface but he has beaten them on their best surfaces, Djokovic multiple times and Federer once but Federer only ever beat him at a grand slam on his favorite surface and one of those was a close 5 set victory

take away all clay court matches and he still leads them 6-5 at grand slams

the fact is that while he finds a way to beat them on their favorite surface they aren't good enough to do the same which in my eyes lessens their legacies

I agree with you on some parts, I am not telling he is fraud, he is a great champion, but in some way overrated. I am sying that his h2h with roger and novak mostly consists of clay, despite hard courts being 70% of a season. The good way to look at this will be to count h2h the following way: if both player enterd tournament a point is given to one who has won tournament. I believe if we count this way Federer will have positive h2h against Nadal, I am not sure about novak though.

 

[NatF]

Insane thread, 13 slams is transitional? lol

 

[jg153040]

on clay he's 10-0 against them
on other surfaces he's 3-3 against Djokovic(2-2 on hard courts, Djokovics best surface), and 3-2 vs Federer(Federer only beat him on grass at a grand slam and even there he lost a match in 3 meetings)


so as you can see: Nadal has never been beaten by his main rivals on his favorite surface but he has beaten them on their best surfaces, Djokovic multiple times and Federer once but Federer only ever beat him at a grand slam on his favorite surface and one of those was a close 5 set victory

take away all clay court matches and he still leads them 6-5 at grand slams

the fact is that while he finds a way to beat them on their favorite surface they aren't good enough to do the same which in my eyes lessens their legacies

But you are just saying how amazing Rafa is. How can then losing to such an amazing player lessen your legacy? It's no shame losing to Rafa.

On the other hand, if this for you lessens your legacy, what does losing to Rosol and Darcis mean? It's worse to lose to those guys at majors.
Rafa would be better off by making a final and lose to Nole. This is way more impressive.

And Nole and Fed did manage to beat Rafa on clay finals. But Rafa was never able to beat them in a WTF final, their better surfaces. Rafa never was able to beat Nole at AO, his best surface either.

So, you are skewing things too much in Rafas favor.

 

[viduka0101]

But you are just saying how amazing Rafa is.

no I am making a counter argument to your statement

This domination on clay created another a bit fallacious idea that he is on any given day can beat anyone because he has positive h2h against any serious rival he faced, which was created because his main rivals (federer djokovic) where good enough to face him on clay, where he clearly had an upper hand.

which is a misguided statement IMO

On the other hand, if this for you lessens your legacy, what does losing to Rosol and Darcis mean? It's worse to lose to those guys at majors.
Rafa would be better off by making a final and lose to Nole. This is way more impressive.

the same thing I said about them applies to Rafa as well, his losses to low ranked lessen his legacy

is it better to lose to a rival or to someone like Darcis or Rosol is debatable

on the other hand I think it's pretty obvious that in 20-30 years people will remember the matches between high ranked players
everyone knows Borg lost to McEnroe in their last 3 slam meetings including 2 USO finals
does anyone remember that in 1983 McEnroe lost to in 4th round at USO to a 16 ranked player at the time named Bill Scanlon an that was the year before 1984 and everyone knows what McEnroe did that year

And Nole and Fed did manage to beat Rafa on clay finals. But Rafa was never able to beat them in a WTF final, their better surfaces.

they managed to beat him 5 times out of 31 meetings on clay, he has beat them 3 times out of 9 (2-2 vs Djokovic, 1-4 vs Federer)

Rafa never was able to beat Nole at AO, his best surface either.

1 match is hardly telling a lot, and even that match was a tight 5 set win
in 10 times on clay Nadals only 5 set match against the two was this years semi against Djokovic

So, you are skewing things too much in Rafas favor.

I'm not skewing anything, you're the one who's doing that

 

[Wim]

Rafa is a true warrior champion for sure!

 

[namelessone]

I must admit that these kind of threads, as moronic as the are, do bring a smile to my face.

Transitional champ with 13 slams.
Positive H2H with every one of his major rivals and if I'm not mistaken with everybody in the top 30 at the moment.
Has spent what, 8-9 years in the top 5 since mid 2005.
3 Year End nr.1 spots.

Dude is the picture of consistency on a tennis court and has only been hampered by his injuries. His rise on all courts has been steady, even if his game on certain surfaces has started taking a turn for the worse since a couple of all years ago.

To be a transitional champ, you need to be sandwiched between 2 great champs. So far Djoko has 7 slams less that Nadal and fewer weeks at nr.1(and I'm guessing the nr.1 spot is pretty safe until spring at least so Nadal can only gain weeks).

A case for transitional champ could be made for someone like Hewitt(a winner of exactly 2 slams + 2 WTF, with almost 80 weeks at nr.1), who gained some very respectable stats between the Sampras and Fed eras.

 

[jg153040]

Originally Posted by jg153040
This domination on clay created another a bit fallacious idea that he is on any given day can beat anyone because he has positive h2h against any serious rival he faced, which was created because his main rivals (federer djokovic) where good enough to face him on clay, where he clearly had an upper hand.[/
QUOTE]

I never said this. You edited this by another poster or made a mistake.

Back on topic. I don't think they not being able to beat him at RG lessens their legacies.

RG is not the only slam and they beat other great players also. It adds more to Rafa's legacy than it takes from them.

 

[jg153040]

I must admit that these kind of threads, as moronic as the are, do bring a smile to my face.

Transitional champ with 13 slams.
Positive H2H with every one of his major rivals and if I'm not mistaken with everybody in the top 30 at the moment.
Has spent what, 8-9 years in the top 5 since mid 2005.
3 Year End nr.1 spots.

Dude is the picture of consistency on a tennis court and has only been hampered by his injuries. His rise on all courts has been steady, even if his game on certain surfaces has started taking a turn for the worse since a couple of all years ago.

To be a transitional champ, you need to be sandwiched between 2 great champs. So far Djoko has 7 slams less that Nadal and fewer weeks at nr.1(and I'm guessing the nr.1 spot is pretty safe until spring at least so Nadal can only gain weeks).

A case for transitional champ could be made for someone like Hewitt(a winner of exactly 2 slams + 2 WTF, with almost 80 weeks at nr.1), who gained some very respectable stats between the Sampras and Fed eras.

Yeah. Even if Nole by some miracle wins 17 majors, Rafa still makes enough of an impact with 13 majors not to be considered a transitional champ.

 

[Annie]

No he is Mars baller

 

[viduka0101]

I never said this. You edited this by another poster or made a mistake.

omg, yeah I'm sorry about this, it was a mistake

RG is not the only slam and they beat other great players also. It adds more to Rafa's legacy than it takes from them.

I have to agree about this

 

[fednad]

You are probably referring to Monfed, Dudeski, Fednad, Chico and all the rest of the haters around here..............:twisted:

Look who is talking. How come you are free to type! Get back to work now.

 

[Chico]

Look who is talking. How come you are free to type! Get back to work now.

Welcome back. Good to see you

 

[moonballs]

I agree! But I just saw a couple folks saying just that. It makes me wonder if they actually believe that or are just trying to rile people up, as it makes no sense.

Nadal fans insecurity is something you can always count on!

I voted warrior option.