Nadal - Unique achievement in Big Tournament Finals

[McEnroeisanartist]

In the open era, there are 12 players with 6 or more Grand Slams.

With his loss the other day, Nadal joins Agassi as the only players in that group to have a losing record in finals at 3 of the 5 biggest tennis tournaments.

# of big tournaments that a player has losing record in finals at tournament
Federer - 1 - French Open
Sampras - 0
Nadal - 3 - Australian Open, Wimbledon, ATP World Tour Finals
Borg - 1 - US Open
Agassi - 3 - French Open, US Open, and ATP World Tour Finals
Lendl - 2 - Wimbledon and US Open
Connors - 1 - Wimbledon
Wilander - 1 - ATP World Tour Finals
McEnroe - 1 - French Open
Edberg - 2 - Australian Open and French Open
Becker - 2 - Wimbledon and ATP World Tour Finals
Djokovic - 2 - French Open and US Open

 

[dudeski]

LOL @ unique achievement. Excellent thread as always.

 

[RNadal]

I'd pick that "losing" record and being the best any day.

By the way, he doesn't even care about you and causes that much trouble? Funny haha.

 

[Mustard]

Nadal has a 23-7 head-to-head in majors against Federer, Djokovic and Murray. How's that for unique?

 

[tennisaddict]

OP, dont make fun.

Toni and Rafa are in discussion with ATP to have a rule that says if you have H2H over 10 players, it counts as 1 major.

 

[sureshs]

The fact that Sampras has 0 finals losses at the French Open proves that he is the greatest ever on clay.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal has a 23-7 head-to-head in majors against Federer, Djokovic and Murray. How's that for unique?

Well the guys before nadal did not have the opportunity to play federer, djokovic and Murray. So in a way it is unfair to them

 

[Boom-Boom]

I probably means that Grass and HC majors even if now super-slow compared to the 90's are still a bit too fast for some players

 

[helterskelter]

I probably means that Grass and HC majors even if now super-slow compared to the 90's are still a bit too fast for some players

That's exactly what it means.

 

[Fed_Djoker_Fan]

And this ordinary player beat Federer in Aus ,French, Wim and WTF.
May be Fed is ordinary too

 

[powerangle]

So reaching the final and losing is worse than never reaching the final...got it.

Sampras for UGOAT (Undisputed Greatest of All Time).

 

[Solo]

Nadal has a 23-7 head-to-head in majors against Federer, Djokovic and Murray. How's that for unique?

Oh you :roll:

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Oh you :roll:

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

According to this thread Wilander and Sampras are more accomplished than Federer.

Another way to look at it is seeing that Nadal is only 1 final away from balancing his record in the AO and Wimbledon, whereas Federer needs like 3 or 4 to balance his record at the French Open. Nadal could balance his record in all slams in 1 year, and Federer would need 3 or 4.

 

[mcenroefan]

Nadal is dominant on only one surface and at one major....which is bewildering considering all of the other majors have been slowed to speeds which should suit his game perfectly. Nadal couldn't have picked a better era in which to play, and there is a credible argument that he has underachieved.

Let's put it this way, Nadal is no Borg. If he had played in Borg's era, I would predict something close to a split at the FO and Borg whitewashing him on the fast grass of Wimby. Candidly, I think the lefty Connors and guys like Vilas may have given him trouble as well.

Anyway, he is really remarkable on clay.

 

[mcenroefan]

According to this thread Wilander and Sampras are more accomplished than Federer.

Another way to look at it is seeing that Nadal is only 1 final away from balancing his record in the AO and Wimbledon, whereas Federer needs like 3 or 4 to balance his record at the French Open. Nadal could balance his record in all slams in 1 year, and Federer would need 3 or 4.

Sampras probably would beat Fed on fast surfaces. He would dominate Nadal on fast surfaces. IMO, Sampras is mentally tougher than both of them.

 

[stringertom]

I was hoping to catch a close-up of Sampras during the mini-comeback to see if he was sweating enough over the prospect of handing the cup and moving to the side for the newest member of Club 14. If he had started to perspire, would he revert to that infamous, nervous flick at his brow???

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Nadal has a 23-7 head-to-head in majors against Federer, Djokovic and Murray. How's that for unique?

Pretty unique, must be easy to be a Nadal fan.

 

[Mustard]

Pretty unique, must be easy to be a Nadal fan.

Easy? Please explain.

 

[Chanwan]

Nadal has a 23-7 head-to-head in majors against Federer, Djokovic and Murray. How's that for unique?

it's as good as it gets! 77 % or something like that.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Easy? Please explain.

He has such a comforting record against the other top players of his era. He's safe to back.

 

[Chanwan]

Easy? Please explain.

with him winning against his main rivals, I presume

 

[Mustard]

He has such a comforting record against the other top players of his era. He's safe to back.

Not when you've been a Nadal fan since he was a teenager.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Not when you've been a Nadal fan since he was a teenager.

What does him being 19 (and already winning a Slam, something that can't be said for Federer or Djokovic, hence it's easier to be his fan on a big level yet again) have to do with his recent accomplishments and recent form.

Nadal is safe to back. When he's on tour and not on hiatus he is safe as houses. Only the year 2011 might have been unusual for Nadal fans in terms of his results against top players, and even then, he won a Major.

In fact, it seems he wins a major every year.

This Nadal, he's a safe bet.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

2 EZ 2 EZ

2 EZ to back.

 

[Wynter]

According to this thread Wilander and Sampras are more accomplished than Federer.

Another way to look at it is seeing that Nadal is only 1 final away from balancing his record in the AO and Wimbledon, whereas Federer needs like 3 or 4 to balance his record at the French Open. Nadal could balance his record in all slams in 1 year, and Federer would need 3 or 4.

Actually no, Sampras never made an FO Final, and Wilander never made Wimbledon

 

[MichaelNadal]

What does him being 19 (and already winning a Slam, something that can't be said for Federer or Djokovic, hence it's easier to be his fan on a big level yet again) have to do with his recent accomplishments and recent form.

Nadal is safe to back. When he's on tour and not on hiatus he is safe as houses. Only the year 2011 might have been unusual for Nadal fans in terms of his results against top players, and even then, he won a Major.

In fact, it seems he wins a major every year.

This Nadal, he's a safe bet.

We have some awesome times, but some really hard ones too. It's not 100% gravy.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

We have some awesome times, but some really hard ones too. It's not 100% gravy.

It never is with any sportsman, unless your Phil Taylor, but even he's getting shocked more and more frequently these days. But there's an element of safety when Nadal faces the other big boys. Nadal fans can say what they like and kid themselves as much as they want, as to mirror the underdog persona of the very man they follow, but nonetheless the reality is this: there is a comfort and a belief present that is so utterly warranted when watching Nadal face off against these other top players in key Slam matches, there really is.

 

[Mustard]

What does him being 19 (and already winning a Slam, something that can't be said for Federer or Djokovic, hence it's easier to be his fan on a big level yet again) have to do with his recent accomplishments and recent form.

If you've been a fan of Nadal since before his first French Open win, gone through epic matches, Federer's dominance of tennis, the injury problems, Djokovic's 2011 etc., that does not make Nadal "easy" to back. Backing players with total dominance is far easier, ala Federer 2004-2007. From 2005-2008, some people were attacking Nadal for even daring to challenge Federer. It was like Federer's style of play gave him a God given right to tennis dominance in their eyes. Even Nadal's dominance on clay was only a temporary thing that Federer would soon correct, in their eyes. Funny how this history has been rewritten since to make out that Nadal would always win on clay.

 

[Kalin]

Nadal's H2H vs. Fed/Djok/Murray in GS tournaments is indeed impressive but in the end you also have to win the tournaments. H2H as a measure of who's best worked in the years of the old Bobby Riggs/ Jack Kramer pro tour.

Serena's dominance over Sharapova is impressive because Serena actually went ahead and won many of those tournaments. If she hadn't, her H2H over Masha would have been pretty much meaningless.

 

[MichaelNadal]

It never is with any sportsman, unless your Phil Taylor, but even he's getting shocked more and more frequently these days. But there's an element of safety when Nadal faces the other big boys. Nadal fans can say what they like and kid themselves as much as they want, as to mirror the underdog persona of the very man they follow, but nonetheless the reality is this: there is a comfort and a belief present that is so utterly warranted when watching Nadal face off against these other top players in key Slam matches, there really is.

Yeah I guess so. That's why it's dumb when haters get mad if we show confidence.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

If you've been a fan of Nadal since before his first French Open win, gone through epic matches, Federer's dominance of tennis, the injury problems, Djokovic's 2011 etc., that does not make Nadal "easy" to back. Backing players with total dominance is far easier, ala Federer 2004-2007. From 2005-2008, some people were attacking Nadal for even daring to challenge Federer. It was like Federer's style of play gave him a God given right to tennis dominance in their eyes.

Nadal came after Federer and was in his shadow for quite a while, therefore expectations didn't have to be so high, and yet he won at least one Major year after year. Federer was easy to back, back in the day, as the dominant force of tennis. Nadal has just been easy to back fullstop, and progressively more and more so, it seems. As long as he's on tour, he tends to get it done and always brings home the silverware, and probably will do for the next 3-4 years.

Nadal is simply far easier to back when it comes to clutch big matches against his biggest rivals. There is comfort and safety in his record against them, and the fact it exists gives nothing but supreme hope and confidence for the future, even though he's already 27. It's much harder especially right now to be a fan of Djokovic, Federer or Murray.

Murray is an unknown quantity, Federer is struggling to consistently find his game and is winning tournaments infrequently, and Djokovic, for all his titles and efforts, is already stuck in a Majors rut against Nadal and has had severe recent woes against Andy Murray too. There is so much uncertainty regarding those three players, but with Nadal it's pseudo-uncertainty... it's hey ho I'm injured can I ever be the same again, now watch me own and solve and conquer Djokovic and deal with Federer as easily as ever.

If I was a Nole fan right now, I'd be rather worried indeed. If I was a Nadal fan, I'd be looking at this AO as a mere blip (while respecting Wawrinka's superb performance).

And it isn't about rewriting history, I haven't rewritten anything.. I'm just stating truths which are backed up by Nadal's wonderful records of consistency in winning big titles. He has never been as sure a winner as Federer was in his pomp, but that was never really my point. My point is in the safety of backing Nadal, that there is always something to rely on. Federer could rely on grass for quite a while, but it doesn't parallel Nadal on clay... that one home that has a long season in built into the tour (where as grass doesn't) where a Nadal fan can likely trust that the silverware will be garnered and the RG title will most likely follow.

Now, as I said earlier, the future looks incredibly bright for Nadal, while his peers and their fans remain in relative wilderness.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Uncle Toni's Frankenstein :lol:

 

[Mustard]

It never is with any sportsman, unless your Phil Taylor, but even he's getting shocked more and more frequently these days. But there's an element of safety when Nadal faces the other big boys. Nadal fans can say what they like and kid themselves as much as they want, as to mirror the underdog persona of the very man they follow, but nonetheless the reality is this: there is a comfort and a belief present that is so utterly warranted when watching Nadal face off against these other top players in key Slam matches, there really is.

Nadal is wise in not believing in any hypothetical "on paper" victories. It's a good philosophy. The matches are not won on paper, but by the tennis played out on the court, on the day.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Yeah I guess so. That's why it's dumb when haters get mad if we show confidence.

Nadal fans have every right to show confidence. Too many of them put on a pseudo act of concern and safety with underdog tones. That's why I appreciate you as a poster. Some might say you're a bit OTT and too confident in 'The King' but it relates far more realistically to the likelihoods of Nadal getting the job done in these events. You show confidence that is logically reasoned based on historical results as well as the form you are seeing on a match-to-match basis.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Nadal is wise in not believing in any hypothetical "on paper" victories. It's a good philosophy. The matches are not won on paper, but by the tennis played out on the court, on the day.

No shizzle, Sherlock, but this doesn't alleviate the truths in my posts.

I subscribe to this very philosophy, but as good as it is to NEVER underestimate the challenge at hand, head-to-heads and historical accomplishments can and do give strong indicators of likely or less likely results.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal fans have every right to show confidence. Too many of them put on a pseudo act of concern and safety with underdog tones. That's why I appreciate you as a poster. Some might say you're a bit OTT and too confident in 'The King' but it relates far more realistically to the likelihoods of Nadal getting the job done in these events. You show confidence that is logically reasoned based on historical results as well as the form you are seeing on a match-to-match basis.

Thank you. I think everyone gets me but the haters anyway. But this is a good post that sums me up. I pretty much roll with what Rafa gives me. When he sucks I say he sucks, when he's on a roll, I'm going to be happy about it. Nothing wrong with that. When Nadal retires, I don't see anyone who's tennis I'm going to love more for the foreseeable future so I'm going to enjoy every moment I can.

 

[tennisaddict]

If you've been a fan of Nadal since before his first French Open win, gone through epic matches, Federer's dominance of tennis, the injury problems, Djokovic's 2011 etc., that does not make Nadal "easy" to back. Backing players with total dominance is far easier, ala Federer 2004-2007. From 2005-2008, some people were attacking Nadal for even daring to challenge Federer. It was like Federer's style of play gave him a God given right to tennis dominance in their eyes. Even Nadal's dominance on clay was only a temporary thing that Federer would soon correct, in their eyes. Funny how this history has been rewritten since to make out that Nadal would always win on clay.

Interesting read.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I should clarify that I'm only talking about judging a player's chances to win in for the long haul. I'm well aware of the hatred that Nadal has received over the years and how in this sense, while Federer fans seemed to ride a wave of righteousness and correctness, Nadal fans seemed to always have their backs up against the wall, and were somehow directly judged negatively just through their affiliation of being a fan of Nadal.

Those who were/are fans of both players copped it from both ends.

 

[helterskelter]

Thank you. I think everyone gets me but the haters anyway. But this is a good post that sums me up. I pretty much roll with what Rafa gives me. When he sucks I say he sucks, when he's on a roll, I'm going to be happy about it. Nothing wrong with that. When Nadal retires, I don't see anyone who's tennis I'm going to love more for the foreseeable future so I'm going to enjoy every moment I can.

What about the Williams sisters? Of course, Nadal will probably still be playing after they've retired, but on the off-chance that he retired first, wouldn't you love their tennis at least almost as much?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Somebody new always comes along.. providing one is enough a fan of the sport itself.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Somebody new always comes along.. providing one is enough a fan of the sport itself.

Of course. I liked Roddick/Safin/Venus at first. Then Rafa. I'm not too crazy about anyone now except Stan and Dolgo. Hoping that changes. Murray is cool too.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Of course. I liked Roddick/Safin/Venus at first. Then Rafa. I'm not too crazy about anyone now except Stan and Dolgo. Hoping that changes. Murray is cool too.

Trust me, it will. Just you wait.

 

[MichaelNadal]

What about the Williams sisters? Of course, Nadal will probably still be playing after they've retired, but on the off-chance that he retired first, wouldn't you love their tennis at least almost as much?

I was gutted when Venus lost that R1 match. She was playing so well and her look was awesome. I love them both. Serena had to win me over, but her determination is second to none. It's what Venus sadly never had.

 

[Mustard]

I've always had some players to be a fan of in tennis, whether it be Muster/Ivanisevic, Hewitt/Safin, Nadal. There's not much in the new generation that excites me, to be honest. Looks like neutrality will be the future from my perspective when Nadal retires.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I guess after Rafa, everyone just seems so boring. He was so different, the capris, the energy, the insane speed and defense and topspin. Hard to follow.

 

[Mustard]

I guess after Rafa, everyone just seems so boring. He was so different, the capris, the energy, the insane speed and defense and topspin. Hard to follow.

There's usually something, though. Hewitt hardly ever fails to entertain with his fight, aggression and energy. Safin nearly always put on a show of some kind, even if it was a meltdown. Muster had an intensity which was unmatched, an extremely strong mentality, and the fittest guy in tennis. Ivanisevic could go from sublime to tanking, his temper always carrying the threat of exploding at any moment.

With today's new generation, there's little to get excited about like this that I can see. I thought Dolgopolov showed some early promise, but it hasn't really happened.

 

[helterskelter]

I evidently have very different taste in players to you guys, but I can imagine becoming a Dimitrov fan. I doubt I'll ever be much more than neutral about Janowicz or Nishikori, and I don't care for Raonic.

 

[helterskelter]

I was gutted when Venus lost that R1 match. She was playing so well and her look was awesome. I love them both. Serena had to win me over, but her determination is second to none. It's what Venus sadly never had.

There have been far too many Venus-related disappointments. Some great highs, though, too.

Nothing against Serena, but I much prefer big sis.

 

[helloworld]

OP is just trying to troll Nadal. There's no need to respond to trolling, you know. :-?