tusharlovesrafa
Hall of Fame
Hello troll!!
This MIGHT sound stupid but is it possible...Nadal MIGHT be a transitional champion?
- Thread starter Mike Sams
- Start date
Hello troll!!
oberyn
Professional
Between the fading great Sampras and the arrival of Federer, Lleyton Hewitt was having his day. When Federer came to prime, Hewitt's time was over. Hewitt was generally regarded as the transitional champ, basically picking up his titles until the next great player came along.
When Federer became older and suffered mono in early 2008, he began losing to many different players whom he seldom lost to before (Fish, Blake, Roddick, Stepanek, Karlovic, etc). It took Nadal several years to finally move ahead of what seemed like a declining and shaky Federer.
Now a few years later, Djokovic has entered his prime and is taking titles off of Nadal.
If 2012 is anything close to 2011, is it quite possible that Nadal was merely a transitional champ even despite his 10 Slam wins (6 on clay)? Did Nadal have to wait for Federer to decline in order to begin getting Slams on other surfaces and now struggles to win anything off clay as Djokovic seems to be taking them all?
Was Nadal only able to get Slams on the other surfaces between the time of the fading of Federer and the arrival of prime Djokovic?
If Djokovic continues to win Slams, does that not make Nadal a transitional champion who took his non-clay titles because of a few years drought where there wasn't another great player to challenge him? Maybe 2012 will tell us the whole story.
Just something to think about...
I hope you're trolling, because this is one of the sillier things I've ever read.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
This is exactly what the oblivious OP is saying, he just doesn't realize it!
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
If by "Champion" you mean #1 ranking, then yes, his time at #1 was very short. But clearly Nadal's level of play has gone down, he obviously has many niggling problems stopping him from training/playing like he used to. If he somehow pulls himself together, he will wipe the floor with Novak once again.
And they are all just filling space waiting for Tomic to peak, anyway.
He never even managed to wipe the floor with baby Djokovic, how will he now? :lol:
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Read some of the comments. Some folk are saying that if Djokovic wins 14-16 Slams then Nadal indeed was a transitional champion between the Federer and Djokovic era. They said it. Not me. :lol:
C
celoft
Guest
Thing is, do you think Djokovic can reach those monumental heights? 14-16 Slams seems impossible not only for him but for Nadal who already has 10 and is way closer to 14 than Djokovic and his 4 slams. If I were to bet, I would say Nadal wins 11 and Djokovic wins 8 or 9 tops. Neither will reach 14. 16 is utopia.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Last edited:
Laver and Pete played each other??? This I have to see... nope, nothing on Youtube.
Are you taking any medication?
Crisstti
Legend
Exactly. Novak could reach 14 slams or whatever, but still then to suggest Rafa is a transitional champion would be as stupid as it is now. Just as stupid...
No, they wouldn't.
It's somewhat better because he won 1 more slam... but then, he didn't win the career grand slam.
Emmm... tusharlovesrafa is obviously not being serious.
Fedalfan
Semi-Pro
^ this! :twisted:
Fedalfan
Semi-Pro
A 5th Slam for Djokovic now achieved. So...how many more Slams does Djokovic need to win before Nadal is a transitional champion?
Another 6 - till he crosses Nadal and steps upto Laver & Bjorg. So even if Djoko takes every slam from now on, let's talk in Jul '13.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
He is an all time great, but he is at risk now of being disgracefully molested by Nole in maybe 4, 5 straight Slam Finals and over the course of the next 2 or so years maybe more.
So because there is only one guy on the planet which he clearly can't beat, that's a problem, because oh by the way, NOBODY can beat this guy, and in the event someone does(see 2011 French Open), he will be waiting to take home another GS. And if he doesn't, then congrats on having a career that is among the all time greats.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I'm just saying that he has a big task now to overhaul Djokovic in future match-ups and could end up being brutally destroyed by the Serb enough for him to be considered a transitional all time great between 2 great all time greats.
Again, anyone who thinks that he is a transitional whatever, good for them, but it is the most ridiculous opinion out there. Hewitt, sure a "transitional" champion(which is still stupid, he was the man at the time.) I guess, but Nadal, are you kidding me, he showed up and owned/owns the guy who owned everyone, and is the GOAT. But somehow, Nadal just came in at the right time, lol, more like the wrong time, what would have happened if Nadal would have came along at the time Hewitt did, he could have racked up 20+ slams, and would undoubtedly be the GOAT.
And Djoker still has a way to go to be mentioned along side Nadal, much less above him.
namelessone
Legend
What the hell is a transitional all time great?
You are either a all time great or you're not.
If Djoko ends up with more slams than Rafa and goes on a Fed-esque dominant run(2-3 years as nr.1) then I suppose you could say that Rafa was a intermitent nr.1 and then we would have one hell of a strong era if, with 10 slams in your pocket, you were the "in between" champ.
C
celoft
Guest
Djoko needs 14-16 slams to be a GOAT contender these days.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
12 ou ot 35 of Spadeas raps are about fat bottomed ball girls & gangsta tennis life...
Nadal cures the Ebola eith his sweat!!!!
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
What the hell is a transitional all time great?
You are either a all time great or you're not.
If Djoko ends up with more slams than Rafa and goes on a Fed-esque dominant run(2-3 years as nr.1) then I suppose you could say that Rafa was a intermitent nr.1 and then we would have one hell of a strong era if, with 10 slams in your pocket, you were the "in between" champ.
he was a all time great within transitions... or a all transitional great timer... i dont know... i'm confused...
i rather discuss the class act of challenging your own serve!!!
reversef
Hall of Fame
A baby Djokovic who is 11 months younger than Nadal, was already 23 years old, had already won a Slam and had been ranked number 3 in the world for a few years. Certainly not a rookie. He reached his absolute prime in 2011, but he had been a real contender for years. And the declining Federer won the USO 2008, and then the FO and Wimbledon 2009.
Even talking about the peak years of a player is something that's not so easy in that kind of discussion. Federer, for example, played one of his best matches on clay this year. Is he in his prime in 2011? No, but he can still play as well as he used to. If not for Nadal, he would have won the FO, while he was not able to do that in 2004. He can't play consistently as great as he used to. That's the difference. He was also playing great during the AO 2009 and would have won it against any other player than Nadal.
While you can call Hewitt a transitional champion, you can't call one of the best players of the history that way. Most of his slams on clay? Yes, and then? Can't players have a best surface? We are talking about a player who has won all the slams at least once. Very few players have done that. Nadal is an all time great (currently somewhere between tier II and tier I). Impossible to be a transitional champion in these conditions. One of the best players of all time who happens to play in one of the strongest eras ever seen, that's what he is.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
^^ it's funny how the same coaches, the same technology and the same surfaces, the same nutrition etc etc etc have produced one of the strongest eras in male tennis and probably the worst in females..
just sayin...
just sayin...
Apun94
Hall of Fame
Baby Jokovic had just beaten an in form Fed, just 2 days ago
dominikk1985
Legend
nadal beat prime federer at age 17. he went on beating him numerous times. if nadal is a transitional champion while winning 10 majors and dominating the GOAT h2h I don't know what a real champion ist.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
First, he could be the greatest transitional champion or a transitional great.
Second, didn't someone else challenge his own serve once. I think Roddick, or even Fred. Could someone with a sharp memory tell us.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
Yes. It was Federer, but that was a whole different story. Federer did it because he is arrogant and has a fat wife. Nadal because he is so humble that he didnt even want to see that serve in!!!!
lol omg lol.. ****s... so dense!
lol omg lol.. ****s... so dense!
reversef
Hall of Fame
At some point, the trend will be reversed. There will always be transitional eras, ups and downs in men and women tennis. In those moments, most people lose interest.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
my point was that this era is extremely overrated due to the short number of dominant players. it's not the number of slam winning players that measures the quality of an era!!!
all i saw thus far in this era replicates at some other point in history years back (given the natural evolution differences)...
Leelord337
Hall of Fame
reversef
Hall of Fame
I agree with the way you see it till some extend. But I don't think that this era is overrated at all. There are dangerous floaters in the draws, but the best players are simply too strong most of the time. I don't know what is the best era you have seen during your years of watching tennis, but for me this one is the most impressive since the eighties. I started watching tennis as a very young child mid-eighties, so I know that I didn't have the keys to understand how strong that era was. I don't see anything comparable in the nineties though. Or until the very end of the noughties. They were many great players in the nineties for example, but they were erratic for some of them, very limited on some surfaces for other ones, others burned out pretty quickly. I always thought that the eighties had been much better than the nineties, even if as I said, I only saw the second part and with very few keys at that age.
