should Nadal quit clay court tennis after this year?

George Turner

Hall of Fame
Nadal will win the French again this year. Djokovic might win a set. Heck Thiem might (okay, that's pushing it.) But Nadal will win.

Nadal then has 12 titles, the duodecima. Double Borgs tally. Theres nothing else left for him to prove on clay, he'll be the clay GOAT for the next thousand years. He's had nothing really to prove since winning la decima in 2017.

If he quit clay he could focus more on other majors. At this point another Wimbledon would arguably do more for his legacy than another two french opens.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
So a day before Nadal plays a match where he can achieve the Double Career Grand Slam, you bring this thread?
 

George Turner

Hall of Fame
So a day before Nadal plays a match where he can achieve the Double Career Grand Slam, you bring this thread?

Achieving the double career grand slam would be much better for his legacy than winning the french this year.

So i was thinking if it would be better for him to focus on the other majors at this point.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Achieving the double career grand slam would be much better for his legacy than winning the french this year.

So i was thinking if it would be better for him to focus on the other majors at this point.
Nadal doesn't need to win more Majors outside clay. So he can win as many RG as he want to increase his overall Grand Slam count.

Nadal has his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Federer. In effect, Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). Federer only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface.

Also, number of Grand Slams >> distribution.

Borg never won the AO or the USO, yet he is considered greater than Agassi since 11 >>8.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
That would be pretty cool, huh? If he did actually win it. More slams at one event than any man or woman, open era or pre, and then just stop playing in clay. Something tells me he likes the easy wins too much to ever do it, but it'd make a lot of sense. But how many points would he lose by skipping his first clay season? :oops:
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I doubt Nadal will ever quit his beloved clay but he definitely wants to build on his non-clay legacy by becoming the first player to win multiple titles at all 4 Slams. This is why I think the men's final will be so exciting this year with Djokovic, on the other hand, aiming to maintain his momentum having won the last 2 Slams and closing that Slam gap between himself and Nadal and ultimately Fed of course. A 7th AO title will make him undisputed GOAT at that particular Slam.
 

Pheasant

Legend
LOL. Yeah. Nadal should skip the clay season from this point moving forward. I'm also going to recommend that he skips the USO as well. He already has 3 of those, which is a lot. Nadal really needs to focus on Wimbledon and the AO only.

I think that Djokovic should skip the AO, starting right this minute!
 
That would indeed be a clever thing to do, but the question is, is he prepared to go all the way?

I say no, but if it happens, I can only imagine the hilarity that will ensue around here.

:cool:
 

swizzy

Hall of Fame
wrong... nadal should win as many times in paris as possible.. he could easily not make the finals any given year let alone win. he is an injury away from maybe never coming back. he is looking at the end of his entire career, clay, grass, and hardcourt. i hope he wins this weekend and goes on to win another french open.. a bakers dozen would be welcome. he adds to his legacy every year.. let him win so many french titles that his dominance is laughable. i want him to end his career only playing clay for a few years as opposed to destroying his body and just suddenly one day hanging it up. it is soon no matter how you slice it
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
So easy to wind people up here ;)
It is, isn't it. Even I get easily wound up here sometimes.

But it's nice to come at this from a different angle. The thread title sounds cooked but OP has a point that it might be better legacy-wise for Nadal to focus on non-clay events from here on. Now before VB folks jump down my throat I said might - this is only a hypothetical discussion, I'm not suggesting that Nadal should actually do this and I don't think OP is either, but it's an interesting point.

Think about it. 11 or 12 RGs is so insane the greatness increase for each win has to stop being linear. It has to. The average tennis fan's opinion of Nadal's clay prowess isn't going to change much with further RG wins now - we already have Nadal down as the undisputed far-and-away clay GOAT who can win RG with ease against everyone he's encountered and for many years. Another RG title defence or three doesn't push the needle as much as, say, his second title or his breaking of Borg's record or even his tenth title did. Hardcore Naddies will probably take issue with this but it's a pretty fair statement. Surely it makes more sense for Nadal to focus on the other three slams where further titles will change the narrative that much more.

Now the caveats to this of course are firstly that I think the clay season is where Nadal draws his confidence from and without it he'd find little success elsewhere either, and quickly retire. So on that basis alone I don't think this would be a good move for him. The other issue is that there is no guarantee that he'll win elsewhere no matter what he does, so he's better off with the bird in his hand.
But I think we can have a discussion without getting triggered, surely? If folks have good rebuttals for this, and I'm sure they do, let's hear them
 

TenS_Ace

Professional
YES !! Nadal should quit the RG after this year...The millennials NEED to get a CHANCE to win something instead of a parade of "participation ribbons" MILLENNIALS MATTER :laughing::laughing:
 

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
LOL. Yeah. Nadal should skip the clay season from this point moving forward. I'm also going to recommend that he skips the USO as well. He already has 3 of those, which is a lot. Nadal really needs to focus on Wimbledon and the AO only.

I think that Djokovic should skip the AO, starting right this minute!

Then Federer would skip all tournaments except Roland Garros. OP logic :-D
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
If everyone was as good as he’s at RG , They wouldn’t quit , It’s just easy money
This too. Even if it's meaningless (which it obviously isn't) then he still may as well show up, cash in and pick up that sweet hand-engraved silver cup every year if Thiem and co. can't find the motivation or desire to take it off him
 

tudwell

G.O.A.T.
Nadal draws 90% of his confidence from dominating clay every year. If he skipped clay, he would suck the rest of the season.
 

Azure

G.O.A.T.
It is, isn't it. Even I get easily wound up here sometimes.

But it's nice to come at this from a different angle. The thread title sounds cooked but OP has a point that it might be better legacy-wise for Nadal to focus on non-clay events from here on. Now before VB folks jump down my throat I said might - this is only a hypothetical discussion, I'm not suggesting that Nadal should actually do this and I don't think OP is either, but it's an interesting point.

Think about it. 11 or 12 RGs is so insane the greatness increase for each win has to stop being linear. It has to. The average tennis fan's opinion of Nadal's clay prowess isn't going to change much with further RG wins now - we already have Nadal down as the undisputed far-and-away clay GOAT who can win RG with ease against everyone he's encountered and for many years. Another RG title defence or three doesn't push the needle as much as, say, his second title or his breaking of Borg's record or even his tenth title did. Hardcore Naddies will probably take issue with this but it's a pretty fair statement. Surely it makes more sense for Nadal to focus on the other three slams where further titles will change the narrative that much more.

Now the caveats to this of course are firstly that I think the clay season is where Nadal draws his confidence from and without it he'd find little success elsewhere either, and quickly retire. So on that basis alone I don't think this would be a good move for him. The other issue is that there is no guarantee that he'll win elsewhere no matter what he does, so he's better off with the bird in his hand.
But I think we can have a discussion without getting triggered, surely? If folks have good rebuttals for this, and I'm sure they do, let's hear them
This is a good post. I would agree in that winning 12 or 13 is not really going to push his legacy on clay even further from the stratospheric heights it is at. I don't think anyone in the near future is going to get to that insane number. What I would think coming as a fan of his is that if the number of slams matter, RG is his most solid chance. It is not a given this year especially with Novak's resurgence and Rafa's visible decline even on his hallowed grounds. I would assume that atleast 1 more RG is not out of the question for him. That would push him to 18 slams in all, assuming that he will not win tomorrow. I guess the motivation primarily arises from that.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
The problem is how easy the French is for now. If Nadal began to struggle with it, and certainly his body takes a beating, then maybe he could concentrate more on grass and USO. I'd skip AO if I were him regardless though.

Nadal doesn't need to win more Majors outside clay. So he can win as many RG as he want to increase his overall Grand Slam count.

Nadal has his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Federer. In effect, Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). Federer only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface.

Also, number of Grand Slams >> distribution.

Borg never won the AO or the USO, yet he is considered greater than Agassi since 11 >>8.

Borg is considered better than Agassi because he dominated two Slams while Agassi only arguably dominated one, not to the same degree and with two pretty laughable draws to boot.

Borg's day was also effectively a 3 Slam era where most top players skipped Australia. And it's because of his dominance at 2 Slams I still have him ahead of Nadal, despite in your worldview 17>11. Though at this point Nadal can't dominate anywhere except clay and he can still garner a lot of points off it. Another Wimbledon would be nice for his resume but just the same with weeks at #1 and maybe finally winning one bloody WTF.
 
Top