What is the worst thing that can happen to Nadal and his legacy?

[namelessone]

Not necessarily true.

Exactly.

What is it with people obsessed with age?

Nadal has been a pro since 2001. This is his 11th season on tour, overall seventh in the top 2. If anyone thinks motivation is still as strong as when he was fighting for recognition they must be out of their minds.

Nadal has basically checked everything off the list except:

-match Borg for RG's. Needs one more.
-a win at WTF. It would be cool if he can get one but he won't kill himself over it.
-Cincy,the fifth slam.

I mean Nadal has already achieved 9 GS wins, Career Slam, 18 masters titles, Olympics Gold, done RG-WB double twice, has the longest streak on a particular surface(81 on clay) etc. etc.

You can't be as hungry after achieving all that.

 

[TMF]

Not necessarily true.

I went by their reaction after a win/loss in all of their majors. Nadal seem to wanted more than Fed. Bot hate losing, but I think Nadal hates losing more than Fed. One MAJOR reason is Nadal always had an excuse(s) when he loses. Why? to ease the pain.

In my opinion, if Fed had the same level of determination, work as hard as Nadal, I think he would have won more than 16 slams.


EDIT: I think Nadal terrify of losing is one of the reason he's so successful. Some athletes don't focus much on the outcome of winning in the end, but the consequence of losing.

 

[DeShaun]

So what, in 2009, Federer re-primed? And the same for the second half of the 2010?

Just cause players go out of their prime doesn't mean that they are klutzes, just that they aren't as good as before. This goes for Rafa as well.

If you wanna go the clowns route, I can also say that, in his "primiest" year, 2010,Nadal lost to Ljubicic(past prime), Roddick(past prime), Baghdatis(who hadn't won a match against Rafa in like nine meetings), Lopez(spanish lapdog, no?), Garcia Lopez(ha ha) and Melzer.

Oh, and in 2011, still in his "prime" mind you, was bageled by Lacko(who?), was down a double break to freaking tomic, lost a set to nr.148 in the world ON CLAY.

I'm trying to have a serious discussion but unfortunately many here are still in their fed vs nadal mode from years past.

Think about it LOGICALLY:

One of the most talented players of all time, with a fluid style, has FIVE YEARS of PRIME tennis(2003-2007) yet Nadal, a GRINDER first and foremost, has SIX(2005-2010) and shows no signs of slowing down in his seventh?

Apparently it's easier to last longer while playing harder.

Give me a freaking break.

Because A is a grinder and B is a glider, therefore, A's physique is under more stress than B's?
This may be true but it does not seem to square with my experiences.

When I go jogging sometimes I will focus on taking very smooth strides. Other times I will cut loose and, as it were, flail or start pounding the pavement harder. Smoothing out my stride takes as much exertion as flailing, but utilizes different body parts. The workload in either case feels the same overall, only being distributed differently.

 

[RoddickAce]

Exactly what I was talking about before. People unwilling to listen to reason because they fear it will tamper with something on their fed vs nadal list.

Number of years doesn't matter? Are you listening to yourself?

Federer has ****ing five prime years(2003-2007) with the easiest style on the body ever and even he slows down after 2007, even while winning slams(he won four after 2007). I don't think anyone here can argue that Fed is still in his prime after 2007.

Are you telling me, that a guy like Nadal, with a extreme style, winning slams since 2005 is IN HIS PRIME in his SEVENTH year as a top player?

Woah, too good this Nadal.

This is just arguing semantincs. Not being in your prime doesn't mean you are ****(fed won a couple of MS, 4 slams and TMC post prime), just that you can't be expected to have the same level as before.

I think you're confusing my point of view. I actually agree that time and energy spent dominating will take it's toll on players. The paragraph you bolded is the argument I saw being used by Nadal fans when they said that Nadal is better than Fed because at the same age Nadal achieved more.

I'm pointing out the contradiction in the two arguments.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Maybe we have different views of what prime and peak means.

2008 Fed was prime? How?

Maybe it's overreaching but I'm just doing the math here.

No way can a grinder like Nadal still be in his ****ing prime in his SEVENTH year in the top 3 when every other grinder before him started going down by the fourth-fifth year on top.

1 slam, 3 slam finals and a Semi. His results were down from his peak, but still very strong. He had bad losses, but he also had bad losses in 03 and you still count that as a 'prime' year for him. Your defintinons of prime and peak are skewed and IMO inaccurate. That's where I think we disagree on.

2009 was still Fed's prime. 2 slams, 4 finals, and 2 sets from winning all 4 slams. If that isn't prime I don't know what is. Sure he wasn't as strong as 04-07, but that was a godlike peak level and hard to replicate. 08-09 were still very strong years, and ironically better than most of Nadal's supposed 'prime' years.

I still think it's premature to say Nadal's not in his prime now. Ultimately he's still only losing to a guy who's playing the best tennis of his career in Djokovic. Davydenko he always loses to on HC and Rafa was ill. Ferrer match he was hurt, but Ferrer has taken Nadal out on HC in the past. Again, you are skewing things to make them worse than they really are and IMO taking credit away from Djokovic's run in doing so. So I guess if Nadal wins Wimbledon, RG, and USO his prime magically will begin again? Let the slams play out before declaring Rafa's prime as over, is what I say.

As far as Nadal outliving the grinder style - look, I don't need to mention how many things Nadal has done already in his career that haven't been done before. He's still out there and still playing good tennis. So to predict he's breaking down when the results don't match up to that is ludicrous. Novak has just stepped up his game, and it's going to be a test for Rafa to step up should the two meet at RG.

To sum up - my belief is that Federer had 7 years of prime results (03-09) w/ blips at AO 10 and WTF 10. Nadal's now in the midst of his 7th year of prime form, though his prime hasn't been as strong as Fed's. We'll see if he holds up or if he is indeed 'past his prime' - but as of now it's hard for me to declare his prime as over, without first letting RG/Wimbledon play out.

 

[NaturalGuts70]

If in 2012, Nadal, Murray and Djoker all get sick/injured and out for the year and Fed ends up winning all 4 slams, does that mean Fed is in his prime?

 

[DeShaun]

(I tell you what matters most, HEAD2HEAD in slams. Rafa leads Federer 6-2, and Rafa leads Djokovic 1-0. And Rafa is 2-0 against them in hardcourt slams)

Some would only argue for success against the field. While player A was busily reaching 23 consecutive slam semis, player B averaged 2 slam semis reached per year. Even while B owned A in their H2H--and arguing from transitivity is dicey--yet, A was (arguably) the better player for owning common opponents (the field) twice more regularly.

 

[BULLZ1LLA]

What about Murray?

(Murray isn't really a factor because nobody will argue that he is the best tennis player in the world, so things like H2Hs aren't required to distinguish him from Rafa. But Rafa does lead Murray 3-2 head2head in slams, and Murray leads Rafa 2-1 in hardcourt slams. Rafa leads Murray 10-4 in all meetings. Incidentally, Rafa leads Djokovic 16-11)

 

[Sentinel]

If in 2012, Nadal, Murray and Djoker all get sick/injured and out for the year and Fed ends up winning all 4 slams, does that mean Fed is in his prime?

All that means is the Senti will be a happy man !!! I mean the bolded part, not the part of others being love-sick (Nole) or injured (Rafa).

 

[Sid_Vicious]

End his career with a losing h2h against Djokovic, if this happens it would completely negate any consideration as the GOAT on clay.

Luckily for Rafa? He had lots of early wins over Novak so his current downfall is being buffered by those early wins.

 

[Sentinel]

Luckily for Rafa? He had lots of early wins over Novak so his current downfall is being buffered by those early wins.

But those wins were over "baby novak"

Noel will do to Ralph's legacy what Ralph did to Fred's. Which depends on whether you are a Rafa fan or not. Federer fans believe that the legacy remains for both. Ralph fans believe it is erased or weakened or whatever ... for both. :shock:

 

[Agassifan]

at age 24 Nadal accomplished far more than what Roger ever did.

WAT????????????

 

[Agassifan]

But those wins were over "baby novak"

Noel will do to Ralph's legacy what Ralph did to Fred's. Which depends on whether you are a Rafa fan or not. Federer fans believe that the legacy remains for both. Ralph fans believe it is erased or weakened or whatever ... for both. :shock:

Fed won 16 slams. That, 237 weeks at No. 1, 23 straight semis and 10 straight finals is his legacy.

 

[tusharlovesrafa]

nadal is deliberately lowering the xpectation and then he will suddenly explode in RG....and will streamroll everyone including djoker...u hear it 1st here...Mind it!!!

 

[fednad]

the worst thing that can happen to Nadal's legacy is having his fan base in TTW, the most deluded bunch i have ever seen

hmmm...that is a very good point.

 

[Sentinel]

nadal is deliberately lowering the xpectation and then he will suddenly explode in RG....and will streamroll everyone including djoker...u hear it 1st here...Mind it!!!

No no , I've already said that Nadal has a great plan to demolish Nole. He's just got it all wrapped up for the RG final.

Noel just wont know what hit him. It will be ugly, the final. And the high bouncing balls will really make a win easy as pie.

 

[DRII]

No,transitional slump was 2008-2010(although 2009 was still reasonably strong).2004-2007 and 2011+ are extremely strong eras.



It definitely would,with the difference that he would have won more of those finals.

Delusional much? Or... Revisionist history much?

Pick one!

 

[DRII]

So then Nadal has never lost at Roland Garros?

Of course... he lost once. He just happened to be injured at the time. He basically proved it the following year by relatively easily dispatching Soderling in the finals.

 

[NamRanger]

So what, in 2009, Federer re-primed? And the same for the second half of the 2010?

Just cause players go out of their prime doesn't mean that they are klutzes, just that they aren't as good as before. This goes for Rafa as well.

If you wanna go the clowns route, I can also say that, in his "primiest" year, 2010,Nadal lost to Ljubicic(past prime), Roddick(past prime), Baghdatis(who hadn't won a match against Rafa in like nine meetings), Lopez(spanish lapdog, no?), Garcia Lopez(ha ha) and Melzer.

Oh, and in 2011, still in his "prime" mind you, was bageled by Lacko(who?), was down a double break to freaking tomic, lost a set to nr.148 in the world ON CLAY.

I'm trying to have a serious discussion but unfortunately many here are still in their fed vs nadal mode from years past.

Think about it LOGICALLY:

One of the most talented players of all time, with a fluid style, has FIVE YEARS of PRIME tennis(2003-2007) yet Nadal, a GRINDER first and foremost, has SIX(2005-2010) and shows no signs of slowing down in his seventh?

Apparently it's easier to last longer while playing harder.

Give me a freaking break.

Facts are facts. Nadal has lost to 2 players. Ferrer and Djokovic, and really probably only to Ferrer because he was injured (I highly doubt Ferrer would have beaten him on such a slow surface, but who knows).


Nadal has won EVERY tournament that Djokovic has not been in the final against him. Every single one. The times he meets Djokovic, he loses. This is not the same case with Federer in 2008 who was losing to the likes of Wawrinka in the 2nd round of Master Tournaments.


In fact, the only reason why Federer's 2008 slam record looks decent is because he had relatively easy draws against a bunch of clowns in one of the weakest years in recent tennis history.

 

[DRII]

Of course he can! Just b/c only one player(nole) is playing god mode tennis is stopping him in the finals doesn't mean he couldn't have done it in previous years.


It amazes me that you think your opinion is fact !
Keep saying that if it helps you sleep well at night !

Try using logic!

Nadal has never made it to 5 consecutive master's finals in a row. As a matter of fact he is the fisrt player ever to do so! Do you really think this is a result of him playing the best tennis of his life, or the field just happens to be somewhat diminished right now.

Of course its the latter! Nadal is not at 2010 form, his serve is way off, his ground strokes lacking! He's not playing horribly, but he is certainly not peaking right now!

 

[TMF]

Try using logic!

Nadal has never made it to 5 consecutive master's finals in a row. As a matter of fact he is the fisrt player ever to do so! Do you really think this is a result of him playing the best tennis of his life, or the field just happens to be somewhat diminished right now.

Nadal 5 straight finals is a testament of him playing great.
The field is playing at the same level including Nadal. The only player that have improved is Novak. Everyone from expert, fans, pro players have agree that Novak has improved dramatically is the reason why Nadal is not winning. Stop being in denial !

Of course its the latter! Nadal is not at 2010 form, his serve is way off, his ground strokes lacking! He's not playing horribly, but he is certainly not peaking right now!

That's YOUR opinion !
Without the improvement of Novak, Nadal would have swept the floor like no other previous years, and no one including you would make rediculous excuse about his declining.

 

[Sentinel]

I completely mistitled this thread. Should never have mentioned the word legacy. Actually I put it in as an afterthought, stupidly trying to capture your attention. Now this has turned into a Nadal/Federer debate, while I had simply envisioned a discussion about Nadal's current battle with Djokovic for supremacy. Anyway, it's too late now. My apologies. Please carry on.

No no, mixie. This is way better than all the other threads. There's a lot of healthy debate going on. And some very healthy gluten-free trolling, too.

Please start one or two more, and don't worry or ponder over wordings. Words are just words.

 

[zagor]

Delusional much? Or... Revisionist history much?

Pick one!

I'm just stating facts,I didn't know the truth would upset you so much.It ain't Nadal's fault that he dominated a weak era(if 2 years can be considered an era though)but it's just the way it is.

 

[kishnabe]

Of course... he lost once. He just happened to be injured at the time. He basically proved it the following year by relatively easily dispatching Soderling in the finals.

That loss was legit....the fact that Soderling reached the finals to face Nadal...proved that his wins weren't some one ina bluemoon win. Nadal lost fair and square....Even if he was injured.....he steped on court and lost.

Nadal isn't invincible and he will have a fwe losses at RG in his career!

 

[TMF]

Of course... he lost once. He just happened to be injured at the time. He basically proved it the following year by relatively easily dispatching Soderling in the finals.

You’re suggesting Nadal is unbeatable, but no one is.

Solderling made both FO finals in two straight years, a testament of him playing well on clay. They are 1-1 during those 2 years, so don’t give credit to Nadal and take away Robin. Be objective, okay ?

 

[DRII]

That loss was legit....the fact that Soderling reached the finals to face Nadal...proved that his wins weren't some one ina bluemoon win. Nadal lost fair and square....Even if he was injured.....he steped on court and lost.

Nadal isn't invincible and he will have a fwe losses at RG in his career!

Of course, I completely agree with you. Why would you think otherwise?

 

[MixieP]

No no, mixie. This is way better than all the other threads. There's a lot of healthy debate going on. And some very healthy gluten-free trolling, too.

Please start one or two more, and don't worry or ponder over wordings. Words are just words.

Thank you, Senti, you are very kind indeed. Yes, the gluten-free diet is a wondrous thing; it has so many unexpected and quite exhilarating side-effects.

 

[DRII]

You’re suggesting Nadal is unbeatable, but no one is.

Solderling made both FO finals in two straight years, a testament of him playing well on clay. They are 1-1 during those 2 years, so don’t give credit to Nadal and take away Robin. Be objective, okay ?

I never said Nadal was unbeatable, as a matter of fact I have mentioned that in the hypothetical players playing their best threads that Nadal is very vulnerable in that regard - way more so than Federer! I've also said that Nadal is one of the most vulnerable #1's if he's having a bad day or not moving well and that there were players claiming they had the biggest win of their career because they beat Nadal while he was #1 and it was happening a little too often in 08...

Objectively, it was clear that Nadal was not physically well and or injured during much of 2009 including at the French Open!

 

[kishnabe]

Of course, I completely agree with you. Why would you think otherwise?

Sorry, You sounded like a ******* who thinks that RG2009 never happened....Just heard it that way,

 

[DRII]

I'm just stating facts,I didn't know the truth would upset you so much.It ain't Nadal's fault that he dominated a weak era(if 2 years can be considered an era though)but it's just the way it is.

If you honestly feel Nadal dominated in a weak era, well then you are tremendously diminishing Federer's acomplishments! Way more than you are Nadal's... I wonder if you actually understand this???

 

[Sentinel]

the worst thing that can happen to Nadal's legacy is having his fan base in TTW, the most deluded bunch i have ever seen

ROFL x Punny Rafole

I am sure ksbh and suresh would be honored to be mentioned as Nadeol's legacy. And to be acknowledged by Sir Gorecki is an honor few Nadeolites can dream of !

 

[Sentinel]

Thank you, Senti, you are very kind indeed. Yes, the gluten-free diet is a wondrous thing; it has so many unexpected and quite exhilarating side-effects.

Not "wondrous thing", the gluten-free diet is a wondrous drug. I expect they'll soon ban it, after they discover the unfair advantages it has over those who are not allergic. It even has an exhilarating effect on those nearby like your coaches and trainer etc who start taking their clothes off and dancing madly in public.

 

[GOAT BAAH!!!]

.....it has to be Fred meeting this man

Good ol Rogi and that crackpot Dr.Emmet Brown could use a Delorean powered by the flux capactitor and plutonium stolen from the Libians to stop Sebastian and Ana Maria from having a romantic explosion 25 years ago.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

I'm just stating facts,I didn't know the truth would upset you so much.It ain't Nadal's fault that he dominated a weak era(if 2 years can be considered an era though)but it's just the way it is.

You are absolutely hilarious, man.

 

[Alexandros]

Try using logic!

Nadal has never made it to 5 consecutive master's finals in a row. As a matter of fact he is the fisrt player ever to do so! Do you really think this is a result of him playing the best tennis of his life, or the field just happens to be somewhat diminished right now.

Of course its the latter! Nadal is not at 2010 form, his serve is way off, his ground strokes lacking! He's not playing horribly, but he is certainly not peaking right now!

What is more logical:

a) The whole field of top tennis professionals has 'diminished'
b) One person happens to be playing well

 

[TheTruth]

Nadal can lose even if he is playing well...anyone can.

Nadal is not playing well, even though he won several tournaments...if happens. Players often win tournaments not at their best. It depends on other factors too. For example, you get a choking opponent on the other side of the net.

Everyone has some losses, never heard of a 743-0 record on the ATP, and never will.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

.....it has to be Fred meeting this man

Good ol Rogi and that crackpot Dr.Emmet Brown could use a Delorean powered by the flux capactitor and plutonium stolen from the Libians to stop Sebastian and Ana Maria from having a romantic explosion 25 years ago.

that's a good idea.
but this guy could do the job too: a slightly different style, but it wouldn't be less efficient.

 

[DRII]

What is more logical:

a) The whole field of top tennis professionals has 'diminished'
b) One person happens to be playing well

Both scenarios are possible and hence are logical as well. Reality is reality.

One does not negate the other! Clearly Novak is playing amazing tennis, however the other top players are not in top form or injured. Its a 'both-and' not an 'either-or'! Also, I don't think Nole is in absolutely top physical shape either, I would put him at about 85% or 89% or so, which is high but not perfect.

Nadal's results bolster this more than Nole's. Nadal's form would not have gotten him to 5 consecutive masters finals in the past - underlying the fact that the field is somewhat weak, relatively speaking, at the moment.

However, it is possible that Nole may have still gone unbeaten given his current form in previous years. But, I doubt it. He probably would have still dominated the first 5 months of the season but an inform Nadal or Federer, perhaps Murray or Delpo might have defeated him in at least one match. Nadal came mighty close in Miami, even with his uneven serving that day...

 

[jackson vile]

It's huge.

why?

1-Because his greatest achievement was establishing KOC. He then stays 1 short of Borg record.

2- Losing 3 straight clay finals to a joker with no great clay history will make Nadal look like a muscle freak who won his clay trophies with his biceps and went away at age of 25

3- This is last year that Nadal is the certain favorite

4- it doesnt matter 3 or 4 or 5, 3 set loss more likely.

Well we can check this one off.

NEXT!​