Some Nadal facts after 2017 Australian Open that may surprise you

[McEnroeisanartist]

Some Nadal facts after the 2017 Australian Open that may surprise you:

Since 2010, Nadal is 1-5 in Grand Slam finals not played at the French Open.

Nadal has won more matches (51) at the Australian Open than 4X winner Andre Agassi (48).

This was the first Grand Slam in the last 10 Grand Slams that Nadal lost to the eventual champion (for perspective: Federer had lost to eventual champion in 6 of those 10 Grand Slams)

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Some Nadal facts after the 2017 Australian Open that may surprise you:

Since 2010, Nadal is 1-5 in Grand Slam finals not played at the French Open.

Nadal has won more matches (51) at the Australian Open than 4X winner Andre Agassi (48).

This was the first Grand Slam in the last 10 Grand Slams that Nadal lost to the eventual champion (for perspective: Federer had lost to eventual champion in 6 of those 10 Grand Slams)

@FedFosterWallace

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Some Nadal facts after the 2017 Australian Open that may surprise you:

Since 2010, Nadal is 1-5 in Grand Slam finals not played at the French Open.

Nadal has won more matches (51) at the Australian Open than 4X winner Andre Agassi (48).

This was the first Grand Slam in the last 10 Grand Slams that Nadal lost to the eventual champion (for perspective: Federer had lost to eventual champion in 6 of those 10 Grand Slams)

First one is telling. He is now 5-7 overall in non FO finals

 

[Deleted member 743561]

.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

You rang? Some numbers here. Think I know what's on your mind... but why don't you go ahead. Since we may be re-treading some ground, I wanna be clear on your position.

You know...

 

[Deleted member 743561]

.

 

[Charlemagne]

First one is telling. He is now 5-7 overall in non FO finals

I think it's one of the reasons ppl don't want to say he's better than Sampras despite having the same number of majors.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

That conversation ended, though... I'm a huge tennis fan. I know what I need to know. Are you taking some new tack with your argument...? Or...?

Just shows how meaningless match wins is as a standalone statistic like in the way you tried to use it

 

[smoledman]

You know when Nadal was 9-2 in GS finals through 2010, I thought for sure he'd finish with the best GS finals record ever for 10+ winners. But who knew?

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I think it's one of the reasons ppl don't want to say he's better than Sampras despite having the same number of majors.

Yeah, theyre very close i dont think I could say Nadal is better until he gets 15

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Just shows how meaningless match wins is as a standalone statistic like in the way you tried to use it

They are not meaningless. Not at all...

And I explicitly stated that it was "cherry on top" stuff in the case of Federer. In comparing the creme de la creme, those zillion match wins are the coup de grace. It's a slam dunk... and then just in case the backboard gets in the way, you've got the match wins in your back pocket.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

They are not meaningless. Not at all...

And I explicitly stated that it was "cherry on top" stuff in the case of Federer. In comparing the creme de la creme, those zillion match wins are the coup de grace. It's a slam dunk... and then just in case the backboard gets in the way, you've got the match wins in your back pocket.

You were speaking about Nadal vs Djokovic actually, you said if he won hed have 2 AO and close to as many match wins. Then you said that had implications. Hardly a cherry on top, when it would be 2 vs 6 in your hypothetical. Nice try though, you almost convinced me

 

[Deleted member 743561]

You were speaking about Nadal vs Djokovic actually, you said if he won hed have 2 AO and close to as many match wins. Then you said that had implications. Hardly a cherry on top, when it would be 2 vs 6 in your hypothetical. Nice try though, you almost convinced me

Bleh. That convo. Now I remember what made me tune it out... it was your final post in the exchange. Somehow, it was completely lost on you that my original post was facetious, at least about "implications." Didn't help that we were talking past each other. None of what I was saying seemed to register...

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Bleh. That convo. Now I remember what made me tune it out... it was your final post in the exchange. Somehow, it was completely lost on you that my original post was facetious, at least about "implications." Didn't help that we were talking past each other. None of what I was saying seemed to register...

Thank You, glad we cleared it up

 

[georgemccauley]

First one is telling. He is now 5-7 overall in non FO finals

The only one important stat should be the fact that Nadal is cursed at the Australian Open, destined to never win it again! [emoji31][emoji22]

 

[tennis_pro]

The only one important stat should be the fact that Nadal is cursed at the Australian Open, destined to never win it again! [emoji31][emoji22]

He is not cursed. You make your own luck. He faced 3 different players in the 3 finals he's lost. It's not like with Federer who kept reaching one FO final after another but kept losing to Nadal.

He was up a break in the deciding set in 2 of the 3 finals that he's lost. Should've served better, should've played better, shouldn't've made more mistakes than your opponent to get broken and eventually lose.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

The only one important stat should be the fact that Nadal is cursed at the Australian Open, destined to never win it again! [emoji31][emoji22]

He could win it still i think tbh

 

[Dope Reign]

The only one important stat should be the fact that Nadal is cursed at the Australian Open, destined to never win it again! [emoji31][emoji22]

As a Murray fan I'd take that curse, all day every day and twice on final sunday.

 

[georgemccauley]

He is not cursed. You make your own luck. He faced 3 different players in the 3 finals he's lost. It's not like with Federer who kept reaching one FO final after another but kept losing to Nadal.

He was up a break in the deciding set in 2 of the 3 finals that he's lost. Should've served better, should've played better, shouldn't've made more mistakes than your opponent to get broken and eventually lose.

Yes you do make your own luck, but why do people never talk about the injuries he has suffered at the AO?

And yes, each of the times he suffered an injury at the AO he was playing at a much higher level than this AO17 just gone. There has never been a definitive definition of "bad luck" but Rafa's injuries at the AO are as close as you will ever get

 

[georgemccauley]

He could win it still i think tbh

I hope so, it's the one grand slam I want to see him win again before he retires. The 2009 final will live in my memory forever

 

[georgemccauley]

As a Murray fan I'd take that curse, all day every day and twice on final sunday.

Andy will have his day, he's played great tennis in Melbourne it will happen

 

[MichaelNadal]

He really should have more than one AO, it's a hot mess.

 

[tennis_pro]

Yes you do make your own luck, but why do people never talk about the injuries he has suffered at the AO?

Yeah he's always injured in January but come the FO all his injuries magically dissapear. Come on now. You can have bad luck once or twice but not your entire career. Whatever it was that prevented Nadal from winning more than 1 AO it was mostly his fault.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I hope so, it's the one grand slam I want to see him win again before he retires. The 2009 final will live in my memory forever

I think hed beat Murray there if not injured, always matched up well vs him. A decent draw and he could be right back in the final next year. It is indeed probably the slam he wants most outside of RG. Some might say hes had enough RG anyway, but im sure hed love 10

 

[georgemccauley]

Yeah he's always injured in January but come the FO all his injuries magically dissapear. Come on now. You can have bad luck once or twice but not your entire career. Whatever it was that prevented Nadal from winning more than 1 AO it was mostly his fault.

How is it his fault? You don't plan injuries to happen. We know that he is a workmanlike player who needs rhythm in order to play his best, I can relate to that.

I don't know what else you put it down to? Over training in the off season? Everyone should be fresh after the relatively short lay off at the end of the WTF.

Nadal has recovered from these injuries and please recognize every time nadal has played in the AO and then developed a injury, bar 2012 with the knee tape. He has been healthy, no sign of injuries or fatigue. If you encounter an injury when you are starting the season in January, or even in the second set of a FINAL that is ridiculous bad luck

 

[Deleted member 716271]

He really should have more than one AO, it's a hot mess.

We should have done wings and beer by now, its a hot mess 

 

[tennis_pro]

How is it his fault? You don't plan injuries to happen. We know that he is a workmanlike player who needs rhythm in order to play his best, I can relate to that.

I don't know what else you put it down to? Over training in the off season? Everyone should be fresh after the relatively short lay off at the end of the WTF.

Let me put this this way. Nadal's best chance of winning a Slam are (or were) at the FO. How often did he get injured there? Once, maybe (I still don't think he was injured in 2009, just overplayed). How often did it happen at the AO for comparison? You know. Is this a coincidence?

Nadal never seemed to get injured on clay. For whatever reason it happened multiple times on other surfaces, especially HC.

Nadal has recovered from these injuries and please recognize every time nadal has played in the AO and then developed a injury, bar 2012 with the knee tape. He has been healthy, no sign of injuries or fatigue. If you encounter an injury when you are starting the season in January, or even in the second set of a FINAL that is ridiculous bad luck

Not if it keeps happening year by year. If you feel you need a longer break or a better preparation then do exactly that. If not, you shouldn't blame it all on bad luck.

 

[georgemccauley]

I think hed beat Murray there if not injured, always matched up well vs him. A decent draw and he could be right back in the final next year. It is indeed probably the slam he wants most outside of RG. Some might say hes had enough RG anyway, but im sure hed love 10

Yeah I agree, which why I was very shocked when Andy beat him in 2010, although he was injured.

Although a grand slam is a grand slam at the end of the day, I think another French open would be taken for granted by the tennis world in my opinion. Everyone knows he's the king of clay, he has nothing to prove at RG or anywhere for that matter.

But for Rafa to further add to his legacy he needs more AO and Wimbledon titles, he's done more than enough IMO at Flushing Meadows, but a win at the UO is always a sweet sweet bonus

 

[georgemccauley]

Let me put this this way. Nadal's best chance of winning a Slam are (or were) at the FO. How often did he get injured there? Once, maybe (I still don't think he was injured in 2009, just overplayed). How often did it happen at the AO for comparison? You know. Is this a coincidence?

Nadal never seemed to get injured on clay. For whatever reason it happened multiple times on other surfaces, especially HC.

Not if it keeps happening year by year. If you feel you need a longer break or a better preparation then do exactly that. If not, you shouldn't blame it all on bad luck.

Yes we know his best chance of a slam is the FO, and the reason for only one injury at RG is simply because clay is less strenuous on the body, well all know this.

But going back to the AO, I don't know what else you can blame it on, it's the start of the season, it's not as if he's playing a ton of matches arriving at Melbourne

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Yes we know his best chance of a slam is the FO, and the reason for only one injury at RG is simply because clay is less strenuous on the body, well all know this.

But going back to the AO, I don't know what else you can blame it on, it's the start of the season, it's not as if he's playing a ton of matches arriving at Melbourne

I think hes had some good luck at FO and bad at AO, matches that could have gone either way ...like AO 12 vs RG13 SF. Hes obv way better on clay but it could be 7/3 or 8/2 instead of 9/1

 

[georgemccauley]

I think hes had some good luck at FO and bad at AO, matches that could have gone either way ...like AO 12 vs RG13 SF. Hes obv way better on clay but it could be 7/3 or 8/2 instead of 9/1

Yeah he hasn't been involved in many close matches at RG, I don't think he would have pulled off the RG13 SF now, but that was inevitable, Novak still got his win unfortunately, against a fully fit Nadal admittedly

 

[tennis_pro]

Yes we know his best chance of a slam is the FO, and the reason for only one injury at RG is simply because clay is less strenuous on the body, well all know this.

So HC is only more strenuous for Nadal. Not for Djokovic or Federer, just Nadal.

But going back to the AO, I don't know what else you can blame it on, it's the start of the season, it's not as if he's playing a ton of matches arriving at Melbourne

If you repeatedly keep getting injured at the beginning of the season it's your fault. As I said - it never happened on clay. If you say Nadal doesn't have the right body to reach the success on HC as guys like Federer or Djokovic then you should be happy that he won the AO at all in addition to reaching 3 more finals.

He wasn't injured after he he got to 4-2 in the 5th set against Djokovic in 2012. He wasn't injured after he got to 3-1 in the 5th set against Fed in 2017.

 

[georgemccauley]

But back to the AO, it was the final of 2014 against stan that rocked Rafa more than anything I've ever seen, he was going into that final playing incredible tennis off the back of a second USO victory, and for him to encounter that injury along with Stan coming of age....

This was the one match that caused all of the trauma of last part of 2014, 2015 and 2016 combined, it was because of that final. It destroyed his intensity and confidence, i think even he had incredible belief that he was going to finally win a second AO in that final against Stan

 

[Deleted member 716271]

But back to the AO, it was the final of 2014 against stan that rocked Rafa more than anything I've ever seen, he was going into that final playing incredible tennis off the back of a second USO victory, and for him to encounter that injury along with Stan coming of age....

This was the one match that caused all of the trauma of last part of 2014, 2015 and 2016 combined, it was because of that final. It destroyed his intensity and confidence, i think even he had incredible belief that he was going to finally win a second AO

Yeah and Sampras was there and everything and the crowd turned on him a bit. Tough one.

 

[georgemccauley]

So HC is only more strenuous for Nadal. Not for Djokovic or Federer, just Nadal.

If you repeatedly keep getting injured at the beginning of the season it's your fault. As I said - it never happened on clay. If you say Nadal doesn't have the right body to reach the success on HC as guys like Federer or Djokovic then you should be happy that he won the AO at all in addition to reaching 3 more finals.

He wasn't injured after he he got to 4-2 in the 5th set against Djokovic in 2012. He wasn't injured after he got to 3-1 in the 5th set against Fed in 2017.

I completely understand what you are saying but I don't see what you can do differently, there isn't much of an off season let alone time to prepare, they should all be fresh for Melbourne no?

Those finals mentioned are irrelevant, I have stated many times since last Sunday that those two finals are two that got away. They were both in Nadal's hands and have a belief that it's the anxiety of Melbourne playing a part for a Rafa, it has to be

 

[Deleted member 716271]

So HC is only more strenuous for Nadal. Not for Djokovic or Federer, just Nadal.

If you repeatedly keep getting injured at the beginning of the season it's your fault. As I said - it never happened on clay. If you say Nadal doesn't have the right body to reach the success on HC as guys like Federer or Djokovic then you should be happy that he won the AO at all in addition to reaching 3 more finals.

He wasn't injured after he he got to 4-2 in the 5th set against Djokovic in 2012. He wasn't injured after he got to 3-1 in the 5th set against Fed in 2017.

Yeah I agree somewhat its strange Rafa had so many injuries but always there for clay season...he definitely prioritized clay in terms of training for etc , it wasnt just random bad luck injuries elsewhere

 

[georgemccauley]

Yeah and Sampras was there and everything and the crowd turned on him a bit. Tough one.

I remember that moment, and the tears during the back treatment. Probably the worst moment being a Nadal supporter, followed closely by his tendonitis / following form in mid to late 2009

 

[BeatlesFan]

The only one important stat should be the fact that Nadal is cursed at the Australian Open, destined to never win it again! [emoji31][emoji22]

How the hell can he be "cursed" when he won it in 2009? What about Lendl at Wimbledon? He skipped playing the FO (a tournament he had won three straight years) to have extended time on the grass. He never won it despite making this ultimate sacrifice.

Nobody's "cursed" when they already bagged this slam.

 

[MichaelNadal]

We should have done wings and beer by now, its a hot mess 

Who's the one that cancelled their trip?

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Who's the one that cancelled their trip?

You can always come to NYC, theres more to do here anway broheim

 

[MichaelNadal]

You can always come to NYC, theres more to do here anway broheim

@usopen, last year that Nadal/Venus may be decent enough for it to be worth it

 

[Luckydog]

Yeah he's always injured in January but come the FO all his injuries magically dissapear. Come on now. You can have bad luck once or twice but not your entire career. Whatever it was that prevented Nadal from winning more than 1 AO it was mostly his fault.

Injury is always his excuse,it's not a secret.If there was real injury ,it was caused by his own game plan .So ,he deserves his success as well as his lose.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I still don't understand not putting Nadal above Sampras. I think it's obvious to be honest.

Interesting that he had a chance to get to even (6-6) in non-clay major finals just now, though.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I still don't understand not putting Nadal above Sampras. I think it's obvious to be honest.

Interesting that he had a chance to get to even (6-6) in non-clay major finals just now, though.

I think what muddies the water is Sampras superior time at number 1, and finishing the year on top, consistency etc. That's worth a lot to many people.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I think what muddies the water is Sampras superior time at number 1, and finishing the year on top, consistency etc. That's worth a lot to many people.

True. He has more time and years at #1.
But not even making an RG final is of course what gets me - whereas Nadal was able to win at all of them. Having a major you didn't win at doesn't matter at a lower level of course, but for someone with a Tier 1 career it speaks to a deficiency IMO.

Not trying to hate on Pete though. If I had been watching tennis (or had been alive) in the early 90's, I would have almost certainly been a Sampras fan.

 

[Urkezi]

I still don't understand not putting Nadal above Sampras. I think it's obvious to be honest.
Interesting that he had a chance to get to even (6-6) in non-clay major finals just now, though.

You have a whole thread about it but I don't see what's so difficult to understand. Twice the End year no.1's - consecutive nevertheless, twice the weeks at no.1, 6 MORE WTF titles. Rafa has never shown any sort of consistency, never finished two years End no.1, never defended a title off clay, and he has records for weeks at no. 2 and consecutive weeks at no. 2.

Sure, Pete more or less sucked on clay, but it really was a different era in regards to surfaces back then and you also had specialized clay-courters. For instance, I believe Nadal would never win a Wimbledon final, in fact he'd struggle to make the 2nd week in Pete's time. So I'd say Sampras is still ahead, but not by much.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

True. He has more time and years at #1.
But not even making an RG final is of course what gets me - whereas Nadal was able to win at all of them. Having a major you didn't win at doesn't matter at a lower level of course, but for someone with a Tier 1 career it speaks to a deficiency IMO.

Not trying to hate on Pete though. If I had been watching tennis (or had been alive) in the early 90's, I would have almost certainly been a Sampras fan.

Yeah Pete has worse versatility obviously, and then on the flipside Nadal was even more dominant on his best surface. So, there is a good argument for Rafa.

I agree, not winning all 4 is a significant black mark for Pete. People would argue that homogenized surfaces made it easier nowadays though.

 

[-NN-]

True. He has more time and years at #1.
But not even making an RG final is of course what gets me - whereas Nadal was able to win at all of them. Having a major you didn't win at doesn't matter at a lower level of course, but for someone with a Tier 1 career it speaks to a deficiency IMO.

Not trying to hate on Pete though. If I had been watching tennis (or had been alive) in the early 90's, I would have almost certainly been a Sampras fan.

He had a lot more time as the best player in the world and was unquestionably the dominant player of his era. Nadal is in second or third place for most in this era and to many people that's a key point of difference. Nadal's lack of dominance over the field compared to other "GOAT candidates" is a clear big deficiency in his GOAT credentials.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

He had a lot more time as the best player in the world and was unquestionably the dominant player of his era. Nadal is in second or third place for most in this era and to many people that's a key point of difference. Nadal's lack of dominance over the field compared to other "GOAT candidates" is a clear big deficiency in his GOAT credentials.

I mostly chalk that up to him having to compete with Federer and Djokovic.

I probably just value the career slam a lot tbh

 

[-NN-]

I mostly chalk that up to him having to compete with Federer and Djokovic.

I probably just value the career slam a lot tbh

Yep, all you are doing is valuing the Career Slam to a profound degree.

I have a similar outlook regarding your first statement. Federer-Nadal-Djokovic vs Sampras-Agassi, crudely speaking.

I have Sampras and Nadal as similarly great. Nadal is active, so he can add to his accomplishments.

Both have good arguments though. Many give Nadal the nod and I think the best argument is that he's won a similar amount against sterner competition at the top + Career Slam.