Nadal's health has been his biggest foe!
- Thread starter DRII
- Start date
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?
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?
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.
Djokovic is among the closest-to-baseline hard-courters in the world, if not the most.
[
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Fact is some athletes are just more injury prone and we don't know why.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.