Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by cluckcluck, Feb 17, 2013.
makes more sense to play Miami if he does skip one of them I guess. Federer is not playing Miami, meaning Nadal would be 4th seed instead of 5. Imagine the crap he will get if he plays an exhibition match though? But it is only one match, not a whole tournament, and it would be a little warm up on HC, so maybe not a bad idea.
This is reminiscent of Muster. He avoided hard courts because they were so hard on his bad knee and racked up most of his points on clay.
He should miss Miami as well, but he only has one free pass.
He's only allowed to skip one Masters but he's already alluded to the fact that he might skip both so if he does, what kind of penalty will he face? I've never heard of a player actually being penalised for skipping a mandatory tournament without a valid excuse. It seems they say they're injured and that's all it takes.
As far as penalty for skipping one, or two in this case for Rafa, it just means that rather than 19 tournaments counting to your ranking, only 18 can. So if rafa played 19 tournaments this year for say 11500 points in total, then the win last week, as a non mandatory, may be the one that wouldnt count. so 11250 instead.
is that right?
Might as well skip IW and try to win Miami since he hasn't won there before.
Good. The last thing he needs to do is grind his knees down even further running around on those slow as molasses hard courts.
I think if you claim illness or injury you still have to turn up to the event for the promotional activity and then you go home???
Moo-point until we're actually at the event. We all know he's going to flip flop like 20x before committing to a decision.
To rest his knees, he should avoid those slippery surfaces. Like in Brazil. lol
He already skipped a slam. Might as well go all out.
"He is also scheduled to play a one-day exhibition on hardcourts at Madison Square Garden just before heading to California."
An exhibition match on hardcourt?
Strange move by Nadal.
Rightly so. He is only just starting to feel comfortable on the tennis court. It would be a mistake, medically speaking, to expose it to hardcourts so soon after returning. He's not doing anything questionable by skipping the hardcourt events.
This was scheduled a long time ago, at a time when he expected to play the Australian Open. Not sure what you mean by strange. He can always back out. But if he does play, its not like he has to do much running. These events are always very light-hearted hit-and-miss deals.
Exhibition match = Light practice session, with less intense movement.
He could do what many do, what Sampras did at times, show up and lose in the first or second round, then go home early and rest for the majors.
If his knee still hurts he won't want to play too many hardcourt events due to the stress they will put on it.
I am a big Rafa fan but I worry a bit about the knee talk for months to come. He has just come back so it will be a focus at the moment but I wouldn't like to be going into RG with the talk still about his knee.
Hopefully he has turned a corner and will get back to his best over the coming months but if not it will be unfair to always focus on his knee problems if he loses.
Until Nadal actually plays on hard courts, or face against the top players on clay, his 'amazing' 'the impossible' comeback as *******s suggest still needs a huge asterisk next to it.
Obviously not a shocker at all, and it might be a good idea to skip both tournaments.
It is a pity though to skip a tournament he always does so well at (IW)... I would prefer him to skip Miami in that sense, but I guess it makes more sense skipping the former.
But the only tournament that matters is Roland Garros. The other slams are almost irrelevant. It is a mere bonus if Nadal wins the others. Roland Garros is all that matters. And Roland Garros is Djokovic's top priority too. And by the way, if Nadal's parents didn't split up in 2009, Federer would also deem Roland Garros as the top priority. Its all about Roland Garros. In other words, hardcourts are meaningless.
If Nadal only wins RG, and clay events in general, his CV will become sorely lacking.
Bingo! Agassi was also famous for that.
However, he can't 'tank' as they'll fine him for that. So he would have to go out and put on a good show, but just not play smart.
Or, he can start losing matches, because he is getting old, and, as he loses speed, more and more players will be able to beat him.
I thought Rafa's excuse for losing to Soderling was his knees?
No, it won't. He's still won the 4 slams, something that very few players have achieved. And winning slams for 9 consecutive years would be a unique record.
If at all he wins FO and sucks at others, even if he gets up to 15 majors, it will be a huge gap with respect to Fed, who has such a diverse beautiful resume. But he can be at the level of Sampras.
Nadal is the only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar Year. It is the most difficult feat a player has ever achieved in a Calendar Year. Also, Nadal has dominated one slam event more than any man has ever dominated a slam event, and that slam event is Roland Garros - Nadal has won it 7 times from 8 attempts. To give you an idea of how special that is, Federer needed 14 attempts to win 7 Wimbledons. Additionally, Nadal is currently tied for the most Masters Shields Titles, and is also tied for the most consecutive slam-winning years. He can take both of those outright. Also, Nadal has spent 102 weeks with the number one ranking, just for good measure, and has finished the year ranked number one in 2008 and 2010. Nadal has won 81 straight matches on clay, the single-surface record. Yet you call all this "a CV sorely lacking" :lol:
Federer is not the king of any of the slams. None. The Australian Open leadership is shared by Agassi, Djokovic and Federer. Roland Garros is owned by Nadal, outright. Wimbledon is shared by Sampras and Federer. US Open is shared by several. The only GOAT of a slam event is Nadal. The others are shared. That's a big hole in Federer's CV, the fact he doesn't own a slam event. Also, Nadal has won at least 2 slams on clay, grass and hardcourt. Federer hasn't. Another big hole in the Federer CV. Federer almost doesn't even have the Career Grand Slam. Nadal gifted him that in 2009, as we know Federer would never have beaten Nadal at Roland Garros.
Change the thread title to "wild speculation".
I said that if Nadal is now only going to excel on clay that 'his CV will become sorely lacking", so you've just invented a quotation from me that is entirely false.
The other way of looking at this is that Nadal is a brilliant clay courter who couldn't achieve the same level on other surfaces in slams.
Borg's six FOs and five Ws is better than seven FOs and two Ws.
He already has 2 IW titles (2007 & 2009) so he may be thinking that if he has to skip one of them it may as well be the one he has already won twice and play the one he is yet to win ie. Miami (3 losing finals in 2005, 2008 & 2011).
The real Question is...
If you dont have knees to play a master on hard court, do you have enough to win a major on Clay?
clay is much less stressful on the knees...
That does not answer the question. You still have to have knees.
That's an odd way of putting it. Currently, Federer is the king of 2 of the Slams ( Wimbledon 7 titles & USO 5 titles) and joint king of one other (AO 4 titles). No other active player can match him in that regard. That makes him the present day king of three quarters of the Slams. Of the other multi-Slam winners, Nadal is only king of one (RG) while Djokovic is only joint-king of one (AO)!
Well, Nadal wasn't good enough to get past Soderling that year and Soderling was comfortably taken out by Federer in the final so if Soderling had choked away his match with Nadal (lesser players have been known to do that) and Nadal had struggled through to the final, he may not have had enough in the tank to beat Federer on that occasion. Soderling may actually have done Nadal a favour that year and inadvertently helped him preserve his unbroken record in RG finals!
For Nadal's fans now there is more to look into in the past than there is in the future.
RAFA2005RG banned? shocker!!!!
He could easily still rack up 4K points on clay alone. Add another 1K on other surfaces and that is enough to be in the top 8 for wtf and a better season than most.
Now this is a new one......trying to define who is the GOAT of various slams......Mildly amusing if it was not so silly.....
Anyways as for Nadal how is it a shocker when he is on record recently saying that hard courts are a killer for his knees?
As for the various surfaces....I think there is no argument......
The only reason is the favorable matchup of nadals vs fed otherwise he would not have a winning record against him nor won a couple of slam finals against him such as the aussie open and wimby.....
Basically he would have retired with like one wimby, no aussie opens and like 12 french opens.......history will regard him as the ultimate competitor, battle hardened with a never say die attitude.
the only problem for him and the fall of him was the rise of another slugger who had the same attributes only tenfold more in Lance.
I would not have purchased tickets and booked a room if I had known this.
Tweet him for a refund.
it was always a big chance he wouldnt play indian wells on HC..playing 3 tourneys in 4 weeks after 7months off is plenty..he needs to give his body a rest.
Here's yet another way of looking at it: The guy has won everything. He has a Career Golden Slam. Nadal is only one of two players, I believe, with at least two slams on all three surfaces. I would say that is well-rounded enough. Nadal is so dominant on clay that people forget these things. In an odd way, by some(mainly Americans with their anti-clay mentality), he is penalized for his dominance.
World history, man, I love it. World history...
Considering he wins all tournaments he enters. He's also got points to defend from 2012. So adding new points might not be as easy as one thinks.
Winning the career Grand Slam is not enough?
Okay, but he's still won 2 Wimbledons, an Australian Open, a US Open, 2 Canadian Opens, 2 Indian Wells, and a Madrid Indoor. And his dominance on clay is extraordinary, with 7 French Opens, 8 Monte Carlos, 6 Italian Opens, a Hamburg, a Madrid, many other clay-court titles etc. He also has an Olympic gold medal, and 3 Davis Cup triumphs (4 if you count 2008, when he missed the final).
Yes, but the one negative with Borg's career is no US Open title.
Nadal would effectively be protesting hard courts if he skips both events. Coming back and playing three clay mug events and skipping two mandatory hard masters the next month would show where his priorities are.
Separate names with a comma.