Sometimes time at number 1 doesn't reflect career achievement

timnz

Legend
Don't get me wrong getting and staying at number 1 for a long period of time is an important achievement - but time there doesn't always reflect what is actually happening completely in a career.

Case in point...if Djokovic continues to hold number 1 until the end of the year - that means he will exceed Nadal in number of weeks and no. of year ends as number 1, even though he has won only 1/2 the slams (if he doesn't win the US open this year). Even if he doesn't end the year at number 1, in 12 weeks time (at the time of writing he is currently on 91 weeks and Nadal's total is 102 weeks) he has a decent chance of exceeding Nadal's total. Hence, only 1/2 the slams but longer at number 1.

Again, time at number 1 is important to your career CV - however time there doesn't reflect exactly what was going on in your career in terms of Slam wins.

(Having said this I think that Nadal is likely to get back to number 1, even later this year).
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
What you say is certainly correct, but we knew it already. E.g., Hewitt has 80 weeks at No. 1, and two year-ends, but only two slams. Becker had 12 weeks at No. 1, and no year-ends, but six slams.

Even in the more contentious (because more current) Djoker vs. Nadal scenario, I don't think anyone is arguing that No. 1 stats should be considered to the exclusion of slam wins, or even that No. 1 stats are as important as slam wins. Usually, the argument is between those who give ranking accomplishments no weight at all, and those who give them some weight, but less than slams.
 

Cormorant

Professional
Another good example of this is Roddick and Safin's nine weeks each as #1. Safin was stopped from ending 2000 as #1 after losing an all-important match against Agassi in Lisbon. Agassi similarly lost an encounter that was to decide year-end #1 when he was defeated by Malivai Washington in Stuttgart '95.

Some people maintain that Roddick topping the rankings at the close of 2003, in tandem with his Wimbledon campaigns, makes him more accomplished than Safin. But their reigns at the summit were equally short-lived, and Safin has more slams. But Andy has more time in the top 10, only Safin beat several more high ranked players than the American ever did etc. etc.
 

OrangePower

Legend
Don't get me wrong getting and staying at number 1 for a long period of time is an important achievement - but time there doesn't always reflect what is actually happening completely in a career.

Case in point...if Djokovic continues to hold number 1 until the end of the year - that means he will exceed Nadal in number of weeks and no. of year ends as number 1, even though he has won only 1/2 the slams (if he doesn't win the US open this year). Even if he doesn't end the year at number 1, in 12 weeks time (at the time of writing he is currently on 91 weeks and Nadal's total is 102 weeks) he has a decent chance of exceeding Nadal's total. Hence, only 1/2 the slams but longer at number 1.

Again, time at number 1 is important to your career CV - however time there doesn't reflect exactly what was going on in your career in terms of Slam wins.

(Having said this I think that Nadal is likely to get back to number 1, even later this year).

Well, with regards to Nadal and Djokovic, really we should wait for their careers to end before having this kind of discussion. Because Djokovic could well end up with more slams (not saying he will, but it's certainly possible).

Nadal has won his slams over a long period of time, whereas #1 is a measure of domination over a rolling year.

Here's another way to look at it: The most slams Nadal has won in any three calendar year period is 6. The most slams Djokovic has won in any three calendar year period is... 5, and he could make it 6 with a win in the USO this year. So roughly equal slam domination over their best three years and roughly equal weeks at #1... seems right to me.
 
Last edited:

OrangePower

Legend
To add to the analysis of slam results over best three calendar year period:

Nadal (2008 - 2010): 6W 0F 3SF
Djokovic (2011 - 2013*): 5W 3F 3SF

*Can add to this in 2013 USO

Also interesting to compare with Fed:
Federer (2005 - 2007): 8W 2F 2SF
 

Def

Semi-Pro
To add to the analysis of slam results over best three calendar year period:

Nadal (2008 - 2010): 6W 0F 3SF
Djokovic (2011 - 2013*): 5W 3F 3SF

*Can add to this in 2013 USO

Also interesting to compare with Fed:
Federer (2005 - 2007): 8W 2F 2SF

Pretty crazy that for Fed, the first 2 results were the SFs and then the rest were all F/W!
 

Incognito

Legend
We can look at Pete vs Roger. When Roger was no 1, he did it with total domination. He won 3 or 2 slams a year. Sometimes Pete only had to win 1 major to stay on top.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Don't get me wrong getting and staying at number 1 for a long period of time is an important achievement - but time there doesn't always reflect what is actually happening completely in a career.

Case in point...if Djokovic continues to hold number 1 until the end of the year - that means he will exceed Nadal in number of weeks and no. of year ends as number 1, even though he has won only 1/2 the slams (if he doesn't win the US open this year).
That's not comparing like for like though. Go and see how majors Nadal had when he was last #1 and then it's a more comparable situation... You'll see it was only 10, a much closer number to Djokovic's. (plus, you have to factor in the pet slam scenario. For Nadal there are four majors a year, but for everyone else there are effectively only 3 since the French is out of reach :p )

The #1 ranking is a great indication of a player's ability to be consistent throughout the year. The more different players who are winning majors - as has been the case this year and last - the more your overall results through the year matter - and that is what Djokovic has excelled at. When one person is winning most of the majors then the other results almost don't matter.
 

90's Clay

Banned
It reflects ALOT I feel. .It means you were the absolute best in the world overall for a long period of time.. Thus why ALL major GOAT candidates had years and years of #1. (Laver, Pancho, Sampras, Federer.) These 4 along with Rosewall, are the greatest the game has ever seen, and their extended reigns at #1 is a big reason for that
 

90's Clay

Banned
We can look at Pete vs Roger. When Roger was no 1, he did it with total domination. He won 3 or 2 slams a year. Sometimes Pete only had to win 1 major to stay on top.

Different times though ( And Pete won a lot of non slam tournaments of course especially all those YEC). Those were the days of polarized conditions where it was much more difficult to be consistent year round
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Nadal spent a record number of weeks at number 2, and was always a thorn in Federer's side. That has to be taken into account. Djokovic spent huge parts of his career at number 3 and number 4, clearly behind Nadal and Federer for years.
 

Eragon

Banned
Nadal spent a record number of weeks at number 2, and was always a thorn in Federer's side. That has to be taken into account. Djokovic spent huge parts of his career at number 3 and number 4, clearly behind Nadal and Federer for years.

Nowhere in the rule-book does it say, "if you're #2 in the world and a thorn in the #1's side, you're de facto #1." A better argument would be to say that Nadal was unfortunate to be relegated to the #2 spot because he was playing alongside the greatest #1 player of all time.
 

Incognito

Legend
I wish the majors were worth 2500 points. Serena should have ended #1 last year. The greatest injustice in tennis I must say.
 

Morj

Semi-Pro
That's just the type of player Nadal is; capable of great spurts of play over certain periods of time, but also prone to injuries/inconsistencies. Consistent dominance is a different kind of accomplishment than just slams, and thats why weeks at no. 1 shows the other side of the story
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
That's just the type of player Nadal is; capable of great spurts of play over certain periods of time, but also prone to injuries/inconsistencies. Consistent dominance is a different kind of accomplishment than just slams, and thats why weeks at no. 1 shows the other side of the story

Being number 2 for all that time straight DOES show consistent dominance. Don't be ridiculous. Djokovic didn't come along to take the top spot until SIX YEARS after Nadal was already in the top 2 without a lapse. The difference is Federer isn't who he used to be.
 

powerangle

Legend
Don't get me wrong getting and staying at number 1 for a long period of time is an important achievement - but time there doesn't always reflect what is actually happening completely in a career.

Case in point...if Djokovic continues to hold number 1 until the end of the year - that means he will exceed Nadal in number of weeks and no. of year ends as number 1, even though he has won only 1/2 the slams (if he doesn't win the US open this year). Even if he doesn't end the year at number 1, in 12 weeks time (at the time of writing he is currently on 91 weeks and Nadal's total is 102 weeks) he has a decent chance of exceeding Nadal's total. Hence, only 1/2 the slams but longer at number 1.

Again, time at number 1 is important to your career CV - however time there doesn't reflect exactly what was going on in your career in terms of Slam wins.

(Having said this I think that Nadal is likely to get back to number 1, even later this year).

Isn't this a bit of a "captain obvious" post, buddy? :)

It's not nearly unprecedented at all. What with Becker having fewer weeks at #1 and fewer year ending #1s (none) compared to Roddick. Yet Becker has SIX TIMES the number of slams on Roddick (moreso than "just" double between Rafa and Djokovic).

Anyway: I actually like it that there is some discrepancy. Makes the stats more interesting and we have to look at the entire picture when comparing greats. Would be more boring if everything just correlated perfectly and then there would not be much left to debate.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Nadal had to take 2 months off because of injury at the height of his powers and then when he returned he wasn't the same player until about 5-6 months later.

During this time he lost the #1 ranking and Federer regained it.

He didn't lose the #1 ranking because his tennis ability wasn't good enough, he lost it because of injury forcing him to skip Wimbledon where he was defending champ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

1477aces

Hall of Fame
Nadal had to take 2 months off because of injury at the height of his powers and then when he returned he wasn't the same player until about 5-6 months later.

During this time he lost the #1 ranking and Federer regained it.

He didn't lose the #1 ranking because his tennis ability wasn't good enough, he lost it because of injury forcing him to skip Wimbledon where he was defending champ.

Injuries are a part of the game. If not, let's declare Thomas Muster the GOAT on clay.
 

Morj

Semi-Pro
Being number 2 for all that time straight DOES show consistent dominance. Don't be ridiculous. Djokovic didn't come along to take the top spot until SIX YEARS after Nadal was already in the top 2 without a lapse. The difference is Federer isn't who he used to be.

I'm not trying to slam Nadal or anything, I'm just saying that the type of dominance he's displayed has been different from other players. Prior to 2008 he tended to dominate the tour during the clay season but not as much during other parts of the season. And that isnt really because of Fed, he just wasn't consistently dominating all the other players on tour on HC.

Then from 2008 on he was capable of beating anyone on any surface but he never sustained his dominance for long periods of time. Sometimes it was injuries, sometimes it was just that he was burned out by the end of the season. Or sometimes even at the beginning of the season, like AO 2011.

Compare that to Djokovic who is now on a 13 GS semis streak and it is a more consistent type of Dominance. I'm not saying Djokovic is more accomplished or anything i'm just saying that Nadal exhibits a different pattern of dominance than we've seen in other no. 1's.
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
if a player was number one for 20 weeks every other year for 3 years, would his 40 weeks at number be worth more than a player who was number one for 40 consecutive weeks within a calendar year?

the amount of time spent at number one isnt the only factor when looking at time spent at number one, if you know what i mean.

i would argue, although the total time spent at the number one spot is the same, the player with the 40 weeks at no.1 within the calendar year would have the more impressive stat, considering they were more dominant over the course of a year and were able to guarantee themselves a year end no.1, while the one with shorter, separate stints at number one where not as dominant through out the year, and aren't guaranteed the year end no.1.
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
Nadal had to take 2 months off because of injury at the height of his powers and then when he returned he wasn't the same player until about 5-6 months later.

During this time he lost the #1 ranking and Federer regained it.

He didn't lose the #1 ranking because his tennis ability wasn't good enough, he lost it because of injury forcing him to skip Wimbledon where he was defending champ.

being injured meant he wasn't good enough, just like being injured in a league tournament means you're not good enough.
 

Chico

Banned
Don't get me wrong getting and staying at number 1 for a long period of time is an important achievement - but time there doesn't always reflect what is actually happening completely in a career.

Case in point...if Djokovic continues to hold number 1 until the end of the year - that means he will exceed Nadal in number of weeks and no. of year ends as number 1, even though he has won only 1/2 the slams (if he doesn't win the US open this year). Even if he doesn't end the year at number 1, in 12 weeks time (at the time of writing he is currently on 91 weeks and Nadal's total is 102 weeks) he has a decent chance of exceeding Nadal's total. Hence, only 1/2 the slams but longer at number 1.

Again, time at number 1 is important to your career CV - however time there doesn't reflect exactly what was going on in your career in terms of Slam wins.

(Having said this I think that Nadal is likely to get back to number 1, even later this year).

Typical Novak hater, butthurt Nadal worshiper post.

Novak will have way more weeks at #1 than you precious idol. Live with it.
 

Eragon

Banned
Here's another way to look at it: The most slams Nadal has won in any three calendar year period is 6. The most slams Djokovic has won in any three calendar year period is... 5, and he could make it 6 with a win in the USO this year. So roughly equal slam domination over their best three years and roughly equal weeks at #1... seems right to me.

Good explanation. Djokovic also has the 1500 points from his WTF win, which is not far off from a Slam's 2000.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
I love Nadal lovers excusing his loss of #1 ranking in the past due to injuries while Federer has had the same thing happen to him.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Nadal had to take 2 months off because of injury at the height of his powers and then when he returned he wasn't the same player until about 5-6 months later.

During this time he lost the #1 ranking and Federer regained it.

He didn't lose the #1 ranking because his tennis ability wasn't good enough, he lost it because of injury forcing him to skip Wimbledon where he was defending champ.

Nadal wasn't good enough to keep it up. It was his decision to throw everything he had into building a lead over federer, and broke himself doing so.
 

MonkeyBoy

Hall of Fame
Weeks at number one is somewhat of a superficial accolade in that you're double counting titles.

It's interesting question. Someone could win more majors and titles and never make it to number 1, compared to someone is the undisputed world no. 1 for a brief period, yet overall won less stuff.

Who had the better career?
 

Eragon

Banned
Weeks at number one is somewhat of a superficial accolade in that you're double counting titles.

It's interesting question. Someone could win more majors and titles and never make it to number 1, compared to someone is the undisputed world no. 1 for a brief period, yet overall won less stuff.

Who had the better career?

The guy with the Slams, of course. But that doesn't mean the #1 guy was bad. Just because you'd take 1 Slam over 5 Masters doesn't mean the 5 Masters don't matter.
 

MonkeyBoy

Hall of Fame
The guy with the Slams, of course. But that doesn't mean the #1 guy was bad. Just because you'd take 1 Slam over 5 Masters doesn't mean the 5 Masters don't matter.

I'd tend to agree with you that consistency over a long period of time matters more than prime dominance. Theoretically, we could have a GOAT that never made it to world no. 1.
 

Eragon

Banned
I'd tend to agree with you that consistency over a long period of time matters more than prime dominance. Theoretically, we could have a GOAT that never made it to world no. 1.

Not necessarily. A guy winning 12 Slams in 3 years is better than a guy winning 11 Slams in 10 years.
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Not necessarily. A guy winning 12 Slams in 3 years is better than a guy winning 11 Slams in 10 years.

What about 11 slams in 3 years or 11 slams in 10 years? Are they equal? CYGS twice, but very short peak, compared to super-consistent moderate achievement, like Nadal.
 

Eragon

Banned
What about 11 slams in 3 years or 11 slams in 10 years? Are they equal? CYGS twice, but very short peak, compared to super-consistent moderate achievement, like Nadal.

I first value achievements. 5 Slams in 15 years is better, for me, than 4 Slams in 1 year (considering both had full careers, unlike Soderling or Muster, for instance). If the achievements are exactly the same, I prefer dominance over longevity. 4 Slams in 4 years is better than 4 Slams in 5 years. But that's just me.

To answer your question, 11 in 3 is better than 11 in 10 for me.
 
Last edited:

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Injuries are a part of the game. If not, let's declare Thomas Muster the GOAT on clay.

You obviously don't get the point now do you? It's ok, there are a couple of others here who can't grasp it either.

It basically means Federer didn't have to beat his rival to regain the #1 ranking...

Also to the fools saying Nadal wasn't good enough, that would be more true regarding 2011 when he lost it to Novak, but in 2009 he was more than good enough, it was just that he was unlucky to get injured during his peak. It has nothing to do with his ability as a tennis player.

As for Muster being clay GOAT, tell me how many RG titles he won before he got injured...
 

Eragon

Banned
You obviously don't get the point now do you? It's ok, there are a couple of others here who can't grasp it either.

It basically means Federer didn't have to beat his rival to regain the #1 ranking...

Also to the fools saying Nadal wasn't good enough, that would be more true regarding 2011 when he lost it to Novak, but in 2009 he was more than good enough, it was just that he was unlucky to get injured during his peak. It has nothing to do with his ability as a tennis player.

As for Muster being clay GOAT, tell me how many RG titles he won before he got injured...

So I guess Nadal's French Open this year doesn't count. His greatest French Open rival, Soderling, was out with mono.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Don't get me wrong getting and staying at number 1 for a long period of time is an important achievement - but time there doesn't always reflect what is actually happening completely in a career.

Case in point...if Djokovic continues to hold number 1 until the end of the year - that means he will exceed Nadal in number of weeks and no. of year ends as number 1, even though he has won only 1/2 the slams (if he doesn't win the US open this year). Even if he doesn't end the year at number 1, in 12 weeks time (at the time of writing he is currently on 91 weeks and Nadal's total is 102 weeks) he has a decent chance of exceeding Nadal's total. Hence, only 1/2 the slams but longer at number 1.

Again, time at number 1 is important to your career CV - however time there doesn't reflect exactly what was going on in your career in terms of Slam wins.

(Having said this I think that Nadal is likely to get back to number 1, even later this year).

SO, Let's see, Djokovic does what he has to, winning, making finals, and still you think his #1 spot is an unfair reflection of his efforts? I am confused. Does he have to win 3 Slams a year for his #1 spot to be 'warranted'?
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
You obviously don't get the point now do you? It's ok, there are a couple of others here who can't grasp it either.

It basically means Federer didn't have to beat his rival to regain the #1 ranking...

Also to the fools saying Nadal wasn't good enough, that would be more true regarding 2011 when he lost it to Novak, but in 2009 he was more than good enough, it was just that he was unlucky to get injured during his peak. It has nothing to do with his ability as a tennis player.

As for Muster being clay GOAT, tell me how many RG titles he won before he got injured...

On the other hand, you can't say that being injured on healthy is only a matter of luck. It'is also a matter of managing the calendar and the efforts a player put in a match. Nadal plays each a year a very packed clay court seasons, he wins or reaches the final of every tournament he enters, and he plays each matches like a final. He didn't skip a clay masters 1000 tournaments since 2006, he skiped Barcelone only once.

Each years, Nadal chooses to win as many tournaments, to book as many ranking points as possible on the short european clay court season. That's a choice, and it's a risky one. Worse, when he has superficials injuries, he ignores them and plays as much as if he was well rested. In RG 2012, he was recieving injections in his knees during RG to be able to play. I don't see any bad luck in him being injured after that. He took the risk, he made the choice. If he had been more careful during this part of the year, Nadal would certainly have been a lot less injured. He would as well have won a lot less titles and won a lot less ranking points.

Now imagine if someone decided to play the same schedule than Nadal does in the indoor seasons. There are a lot of ranking points to win, a lot of titles to win. Beijing, then Shanghaï, the Basel, then Paris, then London. Imagine that good indoor players like Federer, Murray or Djokovic is in the final of each of these tournament, like Nadal is in the clay swing. Would you call them unlucky to be injured at the end of such an effort?
 

Alex78

Hall of Fame
Becker had 12 weeks at No. 1, and no year-ends, but six slams.
Just a slight correction/addition: Becker has 3 Tour finals and 1 WCT final on his resume, and 1 Olympic gold (doubles).

- Overall, time at no. 1 ignores strength of competition to a large extent. I still consider the 80ies/early 90ies as an unbelievably strong era. (Going from Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Ivanisevic, Stich and - actually quite a number of additional major threats!)
In my opinion, not even the past few years (RF, RN, ND, AM) can match this era in terms of sustained high-end quality.
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
You obviously don't get the point now do you? It's ok, there are a couple of others here who can't grasp it either.

It basically means Federer didn't have to beat his rival to regain the #1 ranking...

Also to the fools saying Nadal wasn't good enough, that would be more true regarding 2011 when he lost it to Novak, but in 2009 he was more than good enough, it was just that he was unlucky to get injured during his peak. It has nothing to do with his ability as a tennis player.

As for Muster being clay GOAT, tell me how many RG titles he won before he got injured...

staying injury free has a lot to do with his ability as a tennis player. that's incredibly basic. it's not like a car ran him over by pure happenstance, causing him to be injured.
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
Just a slight correction/addition: Becker has 3 Tour finals and 1 WCT final on his resume, and 1 Olympic gold (doubles).

- Overall, time at no. 1 ignores strength of competition to a large extent. I still consider the 80ies/early 90ies as an unbelievably strong era. (Going from Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Ivanisevic, Stich and - actually quite a number of additional major threats!)
In my opinion, not even the past few years (RF, RN, ND, AM) can match this era in terms of sustained high-end quality.

perhaps RF, RN, ND, AM is a start of another great era. it's hard to tell though, and it'll be hard to live up to.
 

timnz

Legend
Huh?

Typical Novak hater, butthurt Nadal worshiper post.

Novak will have way more weeks at #1 than you precious idol. Live with it.

Huh? Anyone who has read my posts for years knows I am a mostly a Federer fan. Having said that I also think Nadal and Djokovic are great players. I am just saying it as I see it.
 

HRB

Hall of Fame
Yah think? No Sh#t!

Number 1 certainly means more on the men's side since it usually equates to slams, but on the WTA side Safina, Jankovic, and most recently C-Woz proved it means NOTHING!
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
It is really simple.

If Djokovic ends up with more weeks at nº1 than Nadal it means Djokovic was the best player of the world, longer than Nadal.

You can win 1 GS each season for 10 consecutive seasons and never be nº1, whereas other player may win 6 GS in 3 seasons and be nº1 for 150 weeks.

They mean different achievements.

The nº1 means (since 1990) the player who got more points overall (like the soccer league in each country), and it meant the player who got the highest average points before 1990.

Becker was a great player, specially he was a great "big tournament" player (he was able to win 6 GS + 3 WTF), but in his time there were other players that were more consistent throughout the year than him (Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, later on Courier, Sampras, Agassi....).

Nadal, Agassi, Edberg...they were nº1 for quite a good period of time overall, but they were never the dominant player of a decade, i.e. in each case there was another player/players (Lendl, Sampras, Federer) that usually got more points than them, and that's it.


If Djokovic ends up with 150+ total weeks at nº1 and three consecutive Year-End-Nº1, it will mean that Djokovic was "the dominant player of the world" in a way Nadal never was (even if Nole ends up with less GS titles than Rafa).

On the other hand Nadal could always say "but I won more GS titles overall than you", and it is true as well.


You can win many GS titles and not be "the best player of the world" for any long period of time.

Wilander won 7 GS titles and only was nº1 for 20 weeks. Becker won 6 GS + 3 WTF and only was nº1 for 12 weeks.

Nadal has been nº1 for 102 total weeks, not bad at all. But he will never be a Federer, Sampras, Lendl, or Connors, i.e. he will never be "THE best player of the world" for very very long periods of time, because (just like it happened to other great players in the past) there are other players that usually obtain more points than him in any given 52-consecutive weeks period of time.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Typical Novak hater, butthurt Nadal worshiper post.

Novak will have way more weeks at #1 than you precious idol. Live with it.

Illegal word count is required to express the amount of *LAWL* we should all collectively offer.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
So I guess Nadal's French Open this year doesn't count. His greatest French Open rival, Soderling, was out with mono.

Wow your comebacks are dumb. Keep going though, it's great for a laugh.

It's also funny how you fail to realise that Nadal did in fact beat Soderling at RG in 2010 and 2011, so he's already proven himself against his only RG conqueror. Come back when Fed can prove himself against Nadal after losing to him in majors since 2007 WIM :lol:

Djokovic is also a LOT tougher than anyone Federer faced in 2009 at RG or WIM.
 

Eragon

Banned
Wow your comebacks are dumb. Keep going though, it's great for a laugh.

It's also funny how you fail to realise that Nadal did in fact beat Soderling at RG in 2010 and 2011, so he's already proven himself against his only RG conqueror. Come back when Fed can prove himself against Nadal after losing to him in majors since 2007 WIM :lol:

Djokovic is also a LOT tougher than anyone Federer faced in 2009 at RG or WIM.

My comebacks are dumb because dumb is the only language you understand. It's called condescension, girl :) Oh, and Nadal, Djokovic? Need I remind you who stopped Djokovic when he was whipping your boy, Nadal, up and down the street?
tumblr_m02prl3JUL1qfzaz9o1_r1_500.gif
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
staying injury free has a lot to do with his ability as a tennis player. that's incredibly basic. it's not like a car ran him over by pure happenstance, causing him to be injured.

What the hell does his ability have to do with him getting injured?

The AO matches with Verdasco and Federer obviously took their toll and then the match with Novak in Madrid was probably the final nail in the coffin, it was only a matter of time after that one.

Now, those guys were playing top level tennis, Nadal is probably the only one at the time who would've won those 3 matches. There is not a chance in hell anybody would have the ability to win those matches and avoid getting into marathons in them.

Nadal was unlucky to get injured.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
What the hell does his ability have to do with him getting injured?

The AO matches with Verdasco and Federer obviously took their toll and then the match with Novak in Madrid was probably the final nail in the coffin, it was only a matter of time after that one.

Now, those guys were playing top level tennis, Nadal is probably the only one at the time who would've won those 3 matches. There is not a chance in hell anybody would have the ability to win those matches and avoid getting into marathons in them.

Nadal was unlucky to get injured.

I don't think you adressed my previous post on the packed schedule of clay tournaments he plays years after years. I would be interested to have your opinion about it.
 
Top