Sorry, Roger: Rafael Nadal is not just the king of clay

[Gary Duane]

Every time I read:

Sorry, Roger: Rafael Nadal is not just the king of clay

I think it says:

Sorry, Roger: Rafael Nadal is just not the king of clay

And it reminds me how important word order is in English!

 

[clayqueen]

So you're basing this on ONE match? How many matches have Fed and Rafa played against each other over their careers? None of them are afraid to face each other, federer felt he wasn't prepared, so suggested that Delpo might've given Rafa a better game. End of. Also why are you still trolling? Your guy won ffs go enjoy it, is this how bitter you are???

Don't forget that Roger avoided Rafa in the Clay season.

 

[SpinToWin]

Terrible article.

 

[EsteL]

Trust the economists to shove their numbers in everything. No amount of number-crunching can take into account the intangibles, the contexts, the stories that accompany a player or a match or a career. If you are just counting the wins, why not use the term WOAT - Winningest of All Time!

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It's you guys who keep shifting the goalpost with things like double career slam, or if Nadal wins just one WTF then suddenly he is GOAT.
Fed fans have stuck to just one metric from what I can remember, and that is slam count. It is your group that invents new metrics to beat that like H2H, DCS, weak era slams, etc.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Don't forget that Roger avoided Rafa in the Clay season.

Speaking of clay.

I don't forget that you said that Agassi never won a clay Major.

 

[Krish0608]

Slam count is all Roger's got. I said this many times before.

That's all one needs.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

That's all one needs.

Emerson must be better than Laver & Borg in your eyes or Bruguera better than Rafter! LOL!

 

[mike danny]

Slam count is all Roger's got. I said this many times before.

And like all those other times, you couldn't be more wrong

 

[Krish0608]

Emerson must be better than Laver & Borg in your eyes or Bruguera better than Rafter! LOL!

Can't believe how dense one can get to compare Open Era champions to pre-Open Era amateur era champs. And yes, when you are talking about players, both of whom have won all 4 GS, the most pertinent stat you look at is number of Grand Slams. Probably, if Rog had no French, you could make a case for Rafa being greater(still not in my book though), but these premature Rafa-is-already-GOAT talks are laughable at best. He needs to get to AT LEAST 19 for this to be even up for debate.

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Can't believe how dense one can get to compare Open Era champions to pre-Open Era amateur era champs. And yes, when you are talking about players, both of whom have won all 4 GS, the most pertinent stat you look at is number of Grand Slams. Probably, if Rog had no French, you could make a case for Rafa being greater(still not in my book though), but these premature Rafa-is-already-GOAT talks are laughable at best. He needs to get to AT LEAST 19 for this to be even up for debate.

Let's just agree to disagree. Thanks.

 

[Sentinel]

Go easy on the Federer/Nadal fans, Sword. They've got a breather now but when Djokovic comes back, they'll quickly get used to seeing Djokovic crush their idols because as they say, experience is the best teacher and both fan bases have plenty of experience in that area

LMAO

 

[Deleted member 744633]

LMAO

Sentinel Bhai! How are you, my friend?!

 

[Sentinel]

Sentinel Bhai! How are you, my friend?!

Doing well, old bean.

Hope you are fine, too. Since Nole is out, you might consider coming back to Team Nadal till things shape up at Camp Nole.

 

[Big_Dangerous]

You think I'm a Fed fan? Your powers of observation must not be the greatest.....

Anyways 8 out of 10 of Rafa's Roland Garros at least one of Federer or Djokovic managed to reach Nadal and take their loss.
05 beat Fed SF
06 beat Djokovic in the QF and Fed in the F
07 beat Djokovic in the SF and Fed in the F
08 beat Djokovic in the SF and Fed in the F
10 Did not have to beat either Fed or Djokovic
11 beat Fed in the F (Djokovic lost SF to Fed)
12 beat Djokovic in the F (Federer lost SF to Djokovic)
13 beat Djokovic in the SF
14 beat Djokovic in the F
17 Did not have to beat either Fed or Djokovic

Federer reached Nadal at Roland Garros 5 times and Djokovic reached him 7 times.

Fed may have not taken the loss to Nadal at the USO this year or in 2013(?) but he has reached Nadal in many situations unfavorable to him where he is the significant underdog, Novak has as well.

For comparison Nadal has only reached Federer 3 times at his best slam (impressively taking the 08 trophy to his credit) and has only reached Novak once at his best major.

Lol, all he had to do was look at your signature to see the litany of players you would consider yourself a fan of, and notice that Fed and Nadal are conspicuously absent.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

True. He is also king of:

1) Cakewalk draws at the US Open
2) Using MTOs to scrape by journeymen at Wimbledon. Or not.
3) The 2009 AO

 

[octobrina10]

True. He is also king of:

1) Cakewalk draws at the US Open
2) Using MTOs to scrape by journeymen at Wimbledon. Or not.
3) The 2009 AO

KIng of MTOs:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGNJeQYXcAABrzb.jpg

 

[VolleyHelena]

KIng of MTOs:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGNJeQYXcAABrzb.jpg

That's this guy-

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Don't forget that Roger avoided Rafa in the Clay season.

And yet more than 40% of their meetings have been on clay. Given your assertion, how do you resolve that?

 

[clayqueen]

And yet more than 40% of their meeting have been on clay. Given your assertion, how do you resolve that?

Roger was always living in the hope of besting Nadal on clay one day but has finally come to the conclusion that it's not going to happen.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

.

 

[VolleyHelena]

Roger was always living in the hope of besting Nadal on clay one day but has finally come to the conclusion that it's not going to happen.

So you're not denying the blantant Clay skew then especially in Roger's prime

 

[VolleyHelena]

As a seasoned and full-time troll, do you see room for growth? Can you up your game further?

Even as a troll,(s)he seems washed-up, because if (s)he actually believes everything she says then I hope God helps her dear ones

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Even as a troll,(s)he seems washed-up, because if (s)he actually believes everything she says then I hope God helps her dear ones

Think about it this way: the day may come when a concession speech is the only viable option.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

True. He is also king of:

1) Cakewalk draws at the US Open
2) Using MTOs to scrape by journeymen at Wimbledon. Or not.
3) The 2009 AO

KIng of MTOs:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGNJeQYXcAABrzb.jpg

How many MTOs total in his 19+ year career? Do you really want to go there? We know who the real kings of the MTO are. ND is the initials of one of them. Will let you guess the other. https://anygivensurface.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/unfair-advantage-nadal-and-the-mto/

 

[octobrina10]

That's this guy-

This:
http://i.imgur.com/fXIDhNm.png

 

[VolleyHelena]

This:
http://i.imgur.com/fXIDhNm.png

That seems to be a wrong link.
MTO king has always been Rafael Nadal

 

[octobrina10]

How many MTOs total in his 19+ year career? Do you really want to go there? We know who the real kings of the MTO are. ND is the initials of one of them. Will let you guess the other. https://anygivensurface.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/unfair-advantage-nadal-and-the-mto/

1) I wonder why the author of the article you posted doesn't write that Delpo left the court at 7-6, 3-6, 2-2, Rafa leading 40-15 on serve.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/jun/27/rafael-nadal-juan-martin-del-potro-live

2) He/she also doesn't write that P. Petzschner took a MTO after he lost the fourth set 2-6 to Rafa!

 

[octobrina10]

That seems to be a wrong link.
MTO king has always been Rafael Nadal

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHL9aSHXYAAmWzd.jpg

 

[VolleyHelena]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHL9aSHXYAAmWzd.jpg

Another wrong link
The answer is simple Missy
RAFAEL NADAL

 

[octobrina10]

Another wrong link
The answer is simple Missy
RAFAEL NADAL

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJCh4XhXUAA1vwP.jpg

 

[VolleyHelena]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJCh4XhXUAA1vwP.jpg

R
A
F
A
E
L

N
A
D
A
L

 

[octobrina10]

R
A
F
A
E
L

N
A
D
A
L

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDZodq8XoAAMJ1i.jpg

 

[WhiskeyEE]

How many MTOs total in his 19+ year career? Do you really want to go there? We know who the real kings of the MTO are. ND is the initials of one of them. Will let you guess the other. https://anygivensurface.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/unfair-advantage-nadal-and-the-mto/

Nadal used to take an MTO almost every time he was losing. Always before opponent's serve.

edit: Just realized you were responding to octobrina. My bad.

 

[VolleyHelena]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDZodq8XoAAMJ1i.jpg

https://anygivensurface.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/unfair-advantage-nadal-and-the-mto/

 

[octobrina10]

Nadal used to take an MTO almost every time he was losing. Always before opponent's serve.

@VolleyHelena

If I may ask, why are Fed's worshipers creating fake stories about Rafa? For example, in the article @ SystemicAnomaly & @VolleyHelena posted: "Nadal called for a trainer at 2-5 down against Federer with Federer serving during this year’s Roland Garros final and proceeded to win the set. This was nothing new for Federer, Nadal had done the same thing at Monte Carlo 2006 and Hamburg 2008 with the same result.."
https://anygivensurface.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/unfair-advantage-nadal-and-the-mto/

Actually:
1) AT FO 2011, Rafa had a medical treatment (the trainer put a bit talc on his foot) before his service game at 2 -5:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/jun/05/french-open-nadal-federer-live

2) At the 2008 Hamburg Masters, Rafa took a MTO before his service game at 2-5 in the first set.

3) I haven't checked MC 2006.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

The obvious point is this:
Fed is the fast court GOAT
Nadal the slow court GOAT

 

[TMF]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DDZodq8XoAAMJ1i.jpg

You should change your name to ocTROLL

Roger was always living in the hope of besting Nadal on clay one day but has finally come to the conclusion that it's not going to happen.

And you, TROLLqueen

 

[octobrina10]

You should change your name to ocTROLL

And you, TROLLqueen

You have a suitable name, it starts with T.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

The obvious point is this:
Fed is the fast court GOAT
Nadal the slow court GOAT

Dull has never even won Miami, the slowest HC.

 

[VolleyHelena]

@VolleyHelena

If I may ask, why are Fed's worshipers creating fake stories about Rafa? For example, in the article @ SystemicAnomaly & @VolleyHelena posted: "Nadal called for a trainer at 2-5 down against Federer with Federer serving during this year’s Roland Garros final and proceeded to win the set. This was nothing new for Federer, Nadal had done the same thing at Monte Carlo 2006 and Hamburg 2008 with the same result.."
https://anygivensurface.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/unfair-advantage-nadal-and-the-mto/

Actually:
1) AT FO 2011, Rafa had a medical treatment (the trainer put a bit talc on his foot) before his service game at 2 -5:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/jun/05/french-open-nadal-federer-live

2) At the 2008 Hamburg Masters, Rafa took a MTO before his service game at 2-5 in the first set.

3) I haven't checked MC 2006.

So he takes lots of MTOs
Gotcha!!!

 

[mavsman149]

Lol, all he had to do was look at your signature to see the litany of players you would consider yourself a fan of, and notice that Fed and Nadal are conspicuously absent.

I feel like my avatar is a pretty big give away as well

 

[Big_Dangerous]

You have a suitable name, it starts with T.

How is that an insult?

 

[Big_Dangerous]

So he takes lots of MTOs
Gotcha!!!

Oh you'll learn that she has an entire hard drive full of Federer MTO's. For someone who worships Nadal and seemingly despises Federer, she spends an unreasonably outrageous amount of time researching all of Federer's shortcomings.

 

[octobrina10]

So he takes lots of MTOs
Gotcha!!!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7R3B8TXgAE11tK.jpg

 

[sseemiller]

Congrats to Rafa for all he has accomplished. I knew he had it in him. In fact, he exceeded my expectations. I look forward to seeing what he does next.

 

[Tommy Haas]

Trust the economists to shove their numbers in everything. No amount of number-crunching can take into account the intangibles, the contexts, the stories that accompany a player or a match or a career. If you are just counting the wins, why not use the term WOAT - Winningest of All Time!

According to the chart, Sampras had it the easiest and Djoko the hardest.

 

[Lukhas]

According to the chart, Sampras had it the easiest and Djoko the hardest.

The highest bit of irony is that the author on the source blog felt he had to write an article about the article The Economist published using his maths. After all, jumping to conclusions isn't infrequent.

A Preface to All GOAT Arguments

Earlier this week, The Economist published my piece about Rafael Nadal’s and Roger Federer’s grand slam counts. I made the case that, because Nadal’s paths to major titles had been more difficult (the 2017 US Open notwithstanding), his 16 slams are worth more–barely!–than Federer’s.

Inevitably, some readers reduced my conclusion to something like, “stats prove that Nadal is the greatest ever.” Whoa there, kiddos. It may be true that Nadal is better than Federer, and we could probably make a solid argument based on the stats. But a rating of 18.8 to 18.7, based on 35 tournaments, can’t quite carry that burden.

There are two major steps in settling any “greatest ever” debate (tennis or otherwise). The first is definitional. What do we mean by “greatest?” How much more important are slams than non-slams? What about longevity? Rankings? Accomplishments across different surfaces? How much weight do we give a player’s peak? How much does the level of competition matter? What about head-to-head records? I could go on and on. Only when we decide what “greatest” means can we even attempt to make an argument for one player over another.

The second step–answering the questions posed by the first–is more work-intensive, but much less open to debate. If we decide that the greatest male tennis player of all time is the one who achieved the highest Elo rating at his peak, we can do the math. (It’s Novak Djokovic.) If you pick out ten questions that are plausible proxies for “who’s the greatest?” you won’t always get the same answer. Longevity-focused variations tend to give you Federer. (Or Jimmy Connors.) Questions based solely on peak-level accomplishments will net Djokovic (or maybe Bjorn Borg). Much of the territory in between is owned by Nadal, unless you consider the amateur era, in which case Rod Laver takes a bite out of Rafa’s share.

Of course, many fans skip straight to the third step–basking in the reflected glory of their hero–and work backwards. With a firm belief that their favorite player is the GOAT, they decide that the most relevant questions are the ones that crown their man. This approach fuels plenty of online debates, but it’s not quite at my desired level of rigor.

When the big three have all retired, someone could probably write an entire book laying out all the ways we might determine “greatest” and working out who, by the various definitions, comes out on top. Most of what we’re doing now is simply contributing sections of chapters to that eventual project. Now or then, one blog post will never be enough to settle a debate of this magnitude.

In the meantime, we can aim to shed more light on the comparisons we’re already making. Grand slam titles aren’t everything, but they are important, and “19 is more than 16” is a key weapon in the arsenal of Federer partisans. Establishing that this particular 19 isn’t really any better than that particular 16 doesn’t end the debate any more than “19 is more than 16” ever did. But I hope that it made us a little more knowledgeable about the sport and the feats of its greatest competitors.

At the one-article, 1,000-word scale, we can achieve a lot of interesting things. But for an issue this wide-ranging, we can’t hope to settle it in one fell swoop. The answers are hard to find, and choosing the right question is even more difficult.

http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2017/09/15/a-preface-to-all-goat-arguments/

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

All this stuff shows is that Nadal has been more dominant on clay than Roger has on the other surfaces. Nothing new.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Nadal has never been just the king of clay, thus this thread doesn't make any sense. The guy won two Masters on HC in 2005 (and lost another close final to a peak Federer) and started reaching the finals of Wimbledon regularly since 2006 and was only stopped by Roger until 2008.
He's always been very good on all surfaces and insanely dominant on clay.