Nadal's health has been his biggest foe!

#53
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.
Lol he was not beating Nadal at the 2011 FO, let it go.
 
#56
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.
And his draws have been his biggest friends, LOL.

No player past or present has consistently got such unprecedented levels of cake in his draws (and now schedules too) time after time. I always wonder how many slams Fed or Djoker would end up with if blessed with this kind of luck.
 
#57
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.
I'd actually say that Djokovic would have beaten Nadal at F.O 2011 100%. There is no doubt about that. He had dominated Rafa at IW/Miami in clay masters. So Nadal should send Fed Christmas cards for eternity. Also Rafa of 2011 wasn't that hot. He played garbage in the clay Masters, sucked at Wimbledon, played pusher tennis for most of the UsOpen (Except set 3 of final) but then just got winded.

However.. F.O 2016 - is up in the AIR. I'd say 55-45 in Nadal's favor. The F.O 2016 Nadal >>>> F.O 2015 Nadal. And obviously Nadal's record at RG vs Novak is very good. The 2015 F.O Nadal would have been beaten by my Grandma. Rafa lost to everyone and their brother that year, to the point I wondered why the heck does he NOT retire?
 
#58
And his draws have been his biggest friends, LOL.

No player past or present has consistently got such unprecedented levels of cake in his draws (and now schedules too) time after time. I always wonder how many slams Fed or Djoker would end up with if blessed with this kind of luck.
Oh, Fed fans shouldn't go there.
 
#60
I recall a lot of people saying that Nadal's style of play would destroy his body by the time he got into his 30s, so that would prevent him from catching Federer in the Slam count. That doesn't appear to have transpired. Nadal is still going strong, at least on clay. And it's not unthinkable that he could slip another Slam in there as well, if the tournament falls right.
 
#61
I honestly don't see how you can be so certain considering what had happened the previous few months but I really can't be bothered debating it with you for the hundredth time.
Let's see.... bc Federer is not as good as Nadal on Chatrier? And it would take a form like 2015 where we all saw it coming for Djokovic to beat him there?
Nadal was still playing like the KOC in the 2011 final man, it is what it is. Admittedly when Djokovic beat Nadal in Rome 2014 I thought he was beat him at RG and low and behold he lost in 4 sets.
 
#64
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.
Well it's the same with Delpo and Haas and other players who get injured a lot. It is unlucky in a way but being physically superior is part of being a great player. What are we actually praising when we say a player is great, their talent, their hard work, their physical ability? A combination of all 3 I would say and 2 of those are down to luck
 
#66
Let's see.... bc Federer is not as good as Nadal on Chatrier? And it would take a form like 2015 where we all saw it coming for Djokovic to beat him there?
Nadal was still playing like the KOC in the 2011 final man, it is what it is. Admittedly when Djokovic beat Nadal in Rome 2014 I thought he was beat him at RG and low and behold he lost in 4 sets.
Again, gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. It does make me laugh though how rattled you Nadal fans still get whenever anyone brings up 2011. Djokovic was his daddy at the time, it is what it is.
 
#69
Federer was a tougher matchup for Djokovic that year than Nadal was. I very much doubt Nadal would've served a ton of aces and unreturnables like Roger did in the semis(arguably his greatest ever clay court match). It is what it is.
Fed had lost 3 straight times to Djokovic in 2011 before the FO. So the only straw you're grasping is even though he wasn't good enough to get to the final, he'd have won bc Fed could turn a losing streak around to Djokovic ON Chatrier and Nadal wouldn't? Brilliance.
And lmao at the 2011 semi being peak Fed on clay. See Rome 06.
 
#70
I recall a lot of people saying that Nadal's style of play would destroy his body by the time he got into his 30s, so that would prevent him from catching Federer in the Slam count. That doesn't appear to have transpired. Nadal is still going strong, at least on clay. And it's not unthinkable that he could slip another Slam in there as well, if the tournament falls right.
Far from unthinkable. He was only stopped by Novak at Wimbledon (sorry Anderson) and the AO, and didn't he make the semis at the USO?.

Well it's the same with Delpo and Haas and other players who get injured a lot. It is unlucky in a way but being physically superior is part of being a great player. What are we actually praising when we say a player is great, their talent, their hard work, their physical ability? A combination of all 3 I would say and 2 of those are down to luck
Yeah I don't think we're disagreeing here. I'd only say that for talent and physical hability to really show a lot of hard work is necessary, while there's nothing much you can do about an injury propensity.
 
#72
Fed had lost 3 straight times to Djokovic in 2011 before the FO. So the only straw you're grasping is even though he wasn't good enough to get to the final, he'd have won bc Fed could turn a losing streak around to Djokovic ON Chatrier and Nadal wouldn't? Brilliance.
And lmao at the 2011 semi being peak Fed on clay. See Rome 06.
Federer defeated Djokovic at RG and came within one point of doing so at the USO, of course he was a tougher matchup than Nadal in 2011.
And many other people have said the FO semifinal that year was possibly his greatest ever clay court match so I'm not sure why you find it so funny. :unsure:
 
#74
Federer defeated Djokovic at RG and came within one point of doing so at the USO, of course he was a tougher matchup than Nadal in 2011.
And many other people have said the FO semifinal that year was possibly his greatest ever clay court match so I'm not sure why you find it so funny. :unsure:
Ok so the USO and Chatrier are the same. Strong argument :)
 
#76
Would it really be so bad if Djokovic had beaten Nadal in 2011? I mean would it kill you guys for him to have 11 titles instead of 12?! So greedy!
No it wouldn't be bad, he just wasn't good enough to even get there and im not giving him a moral victory when NO ONE should be allowed to against Rafa on PC. Anywhere else sure, but show some respect. Federer is NOT better than Nadal on Chatrier and im not budging on that one.
Madonna's album in 3 days :D
 
#77
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.
Height has been Schwartzmans biggest foe. If he was 6 foot 1 hed probably have around 24-30 slams and be around 18-3 h2h vs nadal (mainly clay meetings) guy has some of the best ball striking ever at only 5 foot 5
 
#81
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.
Statement of the obvious given Nadal is 19-5 v Federer and Djokovic at Majors.
 
#82
Djokovic has been his biggest foe. Enough with the excuses.
Not an excuse. Injuries have stopped Nadal in more Majors than Djokovic has. Injuries have been his worst enemy. When he is healthy, he may lose or win, but he is always competitive and generally has his chances. When he is in bad physical form or injured, he can't be as competitive.

A physically fit Nadal can compete face to face with Djokovic, an injured Nadal can't. So his main problem is his health. Injuries have stopped Nadal in more Majors than Djokovic has.

Also, Nadal leads the H2H over Djokovic 9-6 in Grand Slams (including 2-1 at the US Open).
 
Last edited:
#85
It gets really tiring when people try to raise up some sort of "rival" for Bull. The simple fact is that he has NO rivals. If his health is a rival, it is one that he is nonetheless trouncing resoundingly. Bull always beats all comers. ALWAYS!
 
#87
Not an excuse. Injuries have stopped Nadal in more Majors than Djokovic has. Injuries have been his worst enemy. When he is healthy, he may lose or win, but he is always competitive and generally has his chances. When he is in bad physical form or injured, he can't be as competitive.

A physically fit Nadal can compete face to face with Djokovic, an injured Nadal can't. So his main problem is his health. Injuries have stopped Nadal in more Majors than Djokovic has.

Also, Nadal leads the H2H over Djokovic 9-6 in Grand Slams (including 2-1 at the US Open).
Being physically fit is part of being a great player. We cannot know Nadal would ha e won the slams he did not compete in so we cam only deal with who we know definitely stopped him winning and that's Djokovic. Plus since winning RG in 2005 Nadal has missed 6 slams, not more than the number of defeats Djokovic has scored against him.

On the 9-6 slam h2h, Nadal has faced Djokovic at Nadals best slam 7 times and only twice at Djokovic's best slam which is why Nadal leads. If there were only 2 meetings at RG the H2H would be even. Djokovic had a win at RG, Nadal does not have a win at the AO

Also why are you quoting their USO H2H when the HC slam h2h is 3-2 to Djokovic? Djokovic leads on HC and Grass at slams

If the HC of the USO is so different to the HC of the AO then you need to stop going on about Nadal having won 2 slams on every surface as if this makes him a better all rounder, to cover up the fact that he only has 1 AO title. If the HC slams are essentially the same then stop quoting the USO h2h only and quote the HC slam H2H. Not doing so just displays a massive double standard, grouping them when it suits you but separating them when that suits you. That casts an air of doubt of the objectivity of all your others posts which is a shame
 
Top