Nadal's health has been his biggest foe!

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic has been his biggest foe. Enough with the excuses.

Constant injuries are either down to

Playing style - responsible for winning matches but has a downside.

Training - thus a players fault if they do not train correctly. Again maybe they need to train this way to win what they win, but has a natural downside so not unlucky.

Genetically predisposed to injury. This could be said to be unlucky. But tennis is a physical sport, part of being a great player is being physically superior which is partly down to luck. Being born with the right genetics and having talent for tennis is part of the luck.

We dont say Ferrer is unlucky that he was born with genetics that means he grew to only 5'9. We dont say Dan Evans is unlucky he was born without the talent of the top players. We don't say Fed is unlucky he was born mentally weaker than Nadal.

Yet all these things are down to luck. If Nadal was born with weaker genetics that's bad luck but no more so than me being born without great sporting genetics and a talent for tennis. Being a great player is partly down to luck, otherwise everyone would train as hard as they could and all reach the same level. Find it baffling that we ignore the luck of Nadal being born with talent and physically strong but call him unlucky because he isnt as physically as strong as others.... what are we actually praising here? Luck, hard work? Talent?
 

RNadal

Professional
Not at all. Some - very few, actually - Nadal fans stand here even when he's defeated by Darcises and Browns. Others run like there's no tomorrow.
I understand. Very few people are capable of handling losses well enough. Just looked like, seeing your responses on other threads, you were a part of that group. Hopefully not then :)
 

hipolymer

Professional
Nadal's technique is very bad on the knees. He constantly pivots his torso to add spin to his shots, constantly plays 3 meters behind the baseline so he has to defend on hard courts, which is grueling on the knees. Why didn't he adapt his game to hard courts in 2005? It would have saved him a lot of injuries and would have improved his attacking game. He chose this game path, and thus reaps the consequences.

Djokovic is among the closest-to-baseline hard-courters in the world, if not the most.
 

Cupcake

Rookie
[
Constant injuries are either down to

Playing style - responsible for winning matches but has a downside.
Most likely this. Like many others, I didn't think he'd have a long career because of his 'robust' style of play. Having lots of injuries over the past few years is most likely the result of that. I'm actually surprised he's been as successful for as long.

It would not be a surprise if Rafa did not play much longer than another year or two. I certainly do not wish for that however. Unlike those who think this is a 'weak' era (??), I think we have been blessed by having 3 of the all-time best players at the same time (plus a few other note-worthy players), and challenging each other for years now.
 

Cupcake

Rookie
Doesn't seem to affect him on clay.
True. Clay is a more forgiving surface on the body than hard courts. As a mature adult player, I far prefer playing on clay because I know at the end of the day my body won't hurt. Not the case when I play on a more jarring hard court. (Grass one would think would be less jarring too, but the footing apparently isn't as good.)
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
His injuries don't seem to affect him on clay, though.
He had knee injury when he lost to Soderling in 2009 he subsequently pulled out of Wimbledon so was unable to defend his title. He pulled out in 2016 after winning the 2nd round with wrist injury.
 

Lebsta

Rookie
Yes I would state that injuries have been his biggest hinderance, then the following

2 - Djokovic. Obviously if not for him, Rafa would've burned the slam tally already. 2011 was the biggest example when Rafa was exceptional across all surfaces and got to so many finals. Rafa would've easily exceeded 200 weeks ay #1 and would've won WTF a couple of times as well.

3 - Lack of a big serve - the inability to earn free points through aces / unreturnables has cost him some major finals when he was up. Literally every game is a battle to keep serve which of course means more energy spent which then leads to injuries. Is there not an argument that he could've learned to serve with his right hand?

The fact that he is still close to overtaking Rogerdespite missing so much of the tour is the testament to his greatness. If he can just win a couple more non clay slams then it would help is GOAT case so much.
 

Crisstti

Legend
His health suffered because he goes all out to win the slams he did. If he didn't go all out he wouldn't have the injuries but also wouldn't have 18 slams today. So really, it evens out.
No, you don't know that. People like to blame style of play, but do they think that applies to other players? Why did Haas have so many injuries? Delpo? why did Ferrer get so few injuries?. Or in football, why has Robben been injured half his career? what about his style of play has meant that?.
Fact is some athletes are just more injury prone and we don't know why.
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
It's the same every year... Nadal looks bad for 10 months, then a certain 2 months rolls around, and he is a god again.

C l a y s p e c i a l t y
 

OhYes

Legend
That's why we had so many threads (made by Rafa fans) about Djokovic walking out from semi-final match with Thiem during rain.
Even OP made one suggesting Djokovic influenced premature canceling match by organizers.
So afraid of Nadal's injury :)
 

Fanman

Rookie
His style of play is all out grinding with long, hard rallies. He get's injured because of the work & energy involved in each match. Also, he was one of the professionals that has complained about the ATP schedule taxing players. He has a point.
 

BadBoy666

Rookie
No, you don't know that. People like to blame style of play, but do they think that applies to other players? Why did Haas have so many injuries? Delpo? why did Ferrer get so few injuries?. Or in football, why has Robben been injured half his career? what about his style of play has meant that?.
Fact is some athletes are just more injury prone and we don't know why.
If that's the case, then no one knows anything. And you must admit Fed > Nadal because of his better overall stats.
 

mahesh69a

Rookie
are you suggesting his mental health? Then I concur (I mean look at the fixation with bottles, towels, shorts etc.).
/sarcasm
 

Jonas78

Legend
Djokovic has been his biggest foe. Enough with the excuses.

Constant injuries are either down to

Playing style - responsible for winning matches but has a downside.

Training - thus a players fault if they do not train correctly. Again maybe they need to train this way to win what they win, but has a natural downside so not unlucky.

Genetically predisposed to injury. This could be said to be unlucky. But tennis is a physical sport, part of being a great player is being physically superior which is partly down to luck. Being born with the right genetics and having talent for tennis is part of the luck.

We dont say Ferrer is unlucky that he was born with genetics that means he grew to only 5'9. We dont say Dan Evans is unlucky he was born without the talent of the top players. We don't say Fed is unlucky he was born mentally weaker than Nadal.

Yet all these things are down to luck. If Nadal was born with weaker genetics that's bad luck but no more so than me being born without great sporting genetics and a talent for tennis. Being a great player is partly down to luck, otherwise everyone would train as hard as they could and all reach the same level. Find it baffling that we ignore the luck of Nadal being born with talent and physically strong but call him unlucky because he isnt as physically as strong as others.... what are we actually praising here? Luck, hard work? Talent?
Excuses are only for Federer, when it comes to Djokodal its evidently called explanations.
 

Jonas78

Legend
not Federer, not Djokovic, no, it's been his countless injuries and resulting time outs.

and with all that, he's still won 18 slams thus far!

Lucky (Nadal's competition), very lucky.
Why coudnt he be injured for some FOs? Then Fed & Djoko could have picked up a few more;)
 

Crisstti

Legend
If that's the case, then no one knows anything. And you must admit Fed > Nadal because of his better overall stats.
Well if you want to get all philosophical ;)
But yeah, I never hear this "the injuries are due to style of play" idea in football. Never.

I think Nadal has a pretty good case, but Fed's probably is still better.
 

Crisstti

Legend
Djokovic has been his biggest foe. Enough with the excuses.

Constant injuries are either down to

Playing style - responsible for winning matches but has a downside.

Training - thus a players fault if they do not train correctly. Again maybe they need to train this way to win what they win, but has a natural downside so not unlucky.

Genetically predisposed to injury. This could be said to be unlucky. But tennis is a physical sport, part of being a great player is being physically superior which is partly down to luck. Being born with the right genetics and having talent for tennis is part of the luck.

We dont say Ferrer is unlucky that he was born with genetics that means he grew to only 5'9. We dont say Dan Evans is unlucky he was born without the talent of the top players. We don't say Fed is unlucky he was born mentally weaker than Nadal.

Yet all these things are down to luck. If Nadal was born with weaker genetics that's bad luck but no more so than me being born without great sporting genetics and a talent for tennis. Being a great player is partly down to luck, otherwise everyone would train as hard as they could and all reach the same level. Find it baffling that we ignore the luck of Nadal being born with talent and physically strong but call him unlucky because he isnt as physically as strong as others.... what are we actually praising here? Luck, hard work? Talent?
I don't think we ignore it? it's what we mean when we say "talent". Guess the people who say he's all hard work and no talent do ignore it.

We call Delpo and Haas unlucky for their injury propensity, so why not Rafa.
 

BadBoy666

Rookie
Well if you want to get all philosophical ;)
But yeah, I never hear this "the injuries are due to style of play" idea in football. Never.

I think Nadal has a pretty good case, but Fed's probably is still better.
Almost every expert has said Nadal's playing style is more taxing than Federer's. Who knows if it's really true, but that's what the experts say. The know more about tennis than all of us.
 

BlueB

Hall of Fame
not Federer, not Djokovic, no, it's been his countless injuries and resulting time outs.

and with all that, he's still won 18 slams thus far!

Lucky (Nadal's competition), very lucky.
Does anyone even believe in all of those?

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 

Crisstti

Legend
Almost every expert has said Nadal's playing style is more taxing than Federer's. Who knows if it's really true, but that's what the experts say. The know more about tennis than all of us.
Isn't Ferrer's more taxing too? he basically never got injured.

Nadal wouldn't have beaten Djokovic in 2016 even if he'd been fully fit.
BOLD statement. History between them at the tournament suggests otherwise.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
BOLD statement. History between them at the tournament suggests otherwise.
Not really. Given that Djokovic had won their last seven matches at the time, including 15 consecutive sets(half of which came on clay), yeah I'm picking him in a hypothetical 2016 RG encounter. Just like I think he'd have also beaten Nadal had they met at the French in 2011 despite having lost the three previous meetings there.

Form at the time > history at the event.
 

Crisstti

Legend
Not really. Given that Djokovic had won their last seven matches at the time, including 15 consecutive sets(half of which came on clay), yeah I'm picking him in a hypothetical 2016 RG encounter. Just like I think he'd have also beaten Nadal had they met at the French in 2011 despite having lost the three previous meetings there.

Form at the time > history at the event.
Certainly not enough to make such a definitive statement. Nadal's only lost 2 matches in RG, it's different to the history at the event of any other player, anywhere.

BTW I'm not at all convinced Novak would have won a hypothetical RG 2011 match. Either way, a match between them would have changed things drastically: Rafa wins and he doesn't lose all of Wimbledon, USO and AO. Novak wins and he wins 4 in a row at least, then.
 
Top