Someone seems saltyOld broken record...
Wait until he's injured again after Wimbledon and miraculously can recover by the first week of April of 2020.
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.Someone seems salty![]()
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 thenNot 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.
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.Constant injuries are either down to
Playing style - responsible for winning matches but has a downside.
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.)Doesn't seem to affect him on clay.
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.His injuries don't seem to affect him on clay, though.
So epicDidn't you know? Nadal has never been healthy in his career.
He is an injured pro playing tennis.
BAMOS!
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?.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.
Lol. How many slams for Rafa with E.T around?
Apparently 15 more according to Rafa.Lol. How many slams for Rafa with E.T around?
Garbage. It’s allowed him to stay fresh and win more.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.
If that's the case, then no one knows anything. And you must admit Fed > Nadal because of his better overall stats.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.
Yeah. I bet you wish Fed was injured more often.Garbage. It’s allowed him to stay fresh and win more.
Excuses are only for Federer, when it comes to Djokodal its evidently called explanations.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?
Why coudnt he be injured for some FOs? Then Fed & Djoko could have picked up a few morenot 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.
Nope, it's Djokovic. Everyone battles injuries.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.
He's been injured for 4 already! Fed and Novak would have no FOs at all otherwise...Why coudnt he be injured for some FOs? Then Fed & Djoko could have picked up a few more![]()
Well if you want to get all philosophicalIf that's the case, then no one knows anything. And you must admit Fed > Nadal because of his better overall stats.
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.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?
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.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.
Nadal wouldn't have beaten Djokovic in 2016 even if he'd been fully fit.He's been injured for 4 already! Fed and Novak would have no FOs at all otherwise...
Does anyone even believe in all of those?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.
Isn't Ferrer's more taxing too? he basically never got injured.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.
BOLD statement. History between them at the tournament suggests otherwise.Nadal wouldn't have beaten Djokovic in 2016 even if he'd been fully fit.
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.BOLD statement. History between them at the tournament suggests otherwise.
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.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.