Nadal - Year End #1 - And Grand Slam Loss in Straight Sets

[McEnroeisanartist]

Assuming Nadal finishes 2013 as the Year End #1, which he should, it will be the third year he has finished the year ranked #1. In every year that he finished #1, he lost one Grand Slam match in straight sets.

2008 - Tsonga - Australian Open
2010 - Ferrer - Australian Open
2013 - Darcis - Wimbledon

Compare that to Federer, who only lost one Grand Slam match in straight sets in the five years that he finished #1.

Sampras lost a Grand Slam match in straight sets in 1993, three in 1996, and one in 1998.

 

[Bud]

Are we digging useless stats out or our bums now?

How many conecutive rounds of 16 does Federer now have again??

 

[Finesse4sum]

Are we digging useless stats out or our bums now?

How many conecutive rounds of 16 does Federer now have again??

Its not even a stat its just a pattern of sorts. Its better than spewing the same nonsense that we all know about Nadal and Fed every single time.

 

[Mustard]

Nadal has excellent highs, and crushing lows. That's exciting. Turning the tables on Djokovic after 2011 has been arguably his greatest triumph, at least since those wins over Federer in 2008-2009.

 

[Mustard]

2010 - Ferrer - Australian Open.

Murray beat Nadal at the 2010 Australian Open. Ferrer's win was at the 2011 Australian Open, when Nadal was trying to hold all 4 majors at the same time.

 

[ledwix]

Year end #1 while gaining zero points from two of the slams is a very impressive stack of points from particular events.

Nadal just won his 10th title of the year, right? He could have his best ever year in terms of W/L. I mean how could he possibly accumulate double digit losses this year? He can't.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal has excellent highs, and crushing lows. That's exciting. Turning the tables on Djokovic after 2011 has been arguably his greatest triumph, at least since those wins over Federer in 2008-2009.

Well said. Being a Rafa fan is an experience #TeamRafa

 

[Crisstti]

Nadal has excellent highs, and crushing lows. That's exciting. Turning the tables on Djokovic after 2011 has been arguably his greatest triumph, at least since those wins over Federer in 2008-2009.

Yes, it's amazing.

 

[Crose]

60-3 record
Winning record against top 30
10 titles in 12 finals
5 masters
2 slams
Montreal-Cincy-USO triple
Undefeated on HC

Nice try.

 

[The_Order]

I've got an even more interesting pattern...

Federer lost to the same player in at least one major from 2005-2012 apart from 2010.

Now for bonus points can you guess who that player is?

:lol:

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

I've got an even more interesting pattern...

Federer lost to the same player in at least one major from 2005-2012 apart from 2010.

Now for bonus points can you guess who that player is?

:lol:

Better to lose to the same player than to have lost to different players.

 

[The_Order]

Better to lose to the same player than to have lost to different players.

Is it really?

Never forget "Oh GOD it's KILLING me!"

Now, I wonder what he's referring to there...

:lol:

 

[Clarky21]

Fedfanaticisanartist has really been working overtime lately to come up with useless stats to bash Nadal with. He is a sad and pathetic individual if there ever was one.

 

[pug]

Assuming Nadal finishes 2013 as the Year End #1, which he should, it will be the third year he has finished the year ranked #1. In every year that he finished #1, he lost one Grand Slam match in straight sets.

2008 - Tsonga - Australian Open
2010 - Ferrer - Australian Open
2013 - Darcis - Wimbledon

Compare that to Federer, who only lost one Grand Slam match in straight sets in the five years that he finished #1.

Sampras lost a Grand Slam match in straight sets in 1993, three in 1996, and one in 1998.

McEnroe loves Rafa, so should you. Then you can save time and energy not having to looking up meaningless comparative info.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Yes, it is better to lose to one player multiple times than to lose to multiple players one time.

 

[viduka0101]

Yes, it is better to lose to one player multiple times than to lose to multiple players one time.

I'm sure Nadal would be much happier to have lost to Djokovic at RG 2012,2013 and USO 2013 than to Darcis and Rosol

I mean, it's a fact that Federer losing to Nadal constantly has tainted his image like nothing in his career, remember: how can he be the greatest of all time if he can't beat his main rival?

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Yes, it is better to lose to one player multiple times than to lose to multiple players one time.

Nadal is going to surpass Federer.

There is nothing you can do about it.

Better to accept it now than live in suffering.

 

[timnz]

Let's agree

Nadal is going to surpass Federer.

There is nothing you can do about it.

Better to accept it now than live in suffering.

Let us agree though not to give Nadal credit for it until if/when he achieves it.

 

[Andres]

Murray beat Nadal at the 2010 Australian Open. Ferrer's win was at the 2011 Australian Open, when Nadal was trying to hold all 4 majors at the same time.

Good catch. For some reason, seems it went unnoticed by all the other posters.

 

[winstonplum]

I think a lot of Nadal fans actually appreciate and understand Nadal's high and lows--they make sense to us. It makes sense to push, push, push, and push to get something and then need a break--to rest your mind, your body, your spirit. I hope that Nadal keeps pushing hard into 2014 to really rack up some quality time at #1, but I'm sure by summer or fall of next year, he'll be looking for some down time again.

 

[winstonplum]

Nadal isn't the machine of consistency that Federer was. I think he'll get a good look at 14 or 15, but that might be about it. That's a lot and that's enough.

 

[Vish13]

Let us agree though not to give Nadal credit for it until if/when he achieves it.

I think I don't care if Nadal wins another slam or not. He has done enough to be considered one of the greatest of all time even if he does not win a single tournament going forward. What he has done this year has been simply awesome.

Being a Federer fan I am proud of his stats. But at the same time if there is one player who deserves to overtake him, it is Rafa. He has shown tremendous fight in overcoming the odds. You look at his career and you can see that his game was not natural to dominate on some surfaces where he went on to win later. He turned the tide against Novak who was once having a stranglehold on him. He is a player with ability to overcome whatever shortcomings he maybe having in terms of talent or physical make up.

On the other hand, to me, Federer is the most talented tennis player I have watched in my life. Often people with such natural ability fail to change themselves over time which could have made them more successful. But I have zero complaints. I am happy that he didn't became another Sachin Tendulkar who scarificed his natural game to become a grinder just to prolong his career and rake up meaningless stats.

If records were the only thing that mattered then the movie that earned the most on box office would be considered the best of all time. But thats not the case. So for me, if Rafa is better than Federer, he doesn't need another slam or two to prove it.