Why did Nadal not play Roland Garros until 2005?

Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
He made his Grand Slam debut at 2003 Wimbledon and then his next 3 Grand Slam appearances were at 2003 USO, 2004 AO and 2004 USO.

He did not make his debut at Roland Garros until 2005, a full 2 years after his Wimbledon debut! This is very surprising for a rising young claycourter. Why the delay for RG? Did he not want to play it until he knew he could win it? :confused:
 
A

Arafel

Professional
Well, according to that timeline, he only missed one after he started playing Slams, and I know he was hurt in 2004 and couldn't play it. Maybe he didn't qualify in 2003.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
So the consensus is that he was injured at the time of 2003 and 2004 RG which meant he could not play there until 2005? Interesting!

Since then, he has missed at least 1 of each of the other 3 Slams due to illness or injury (2009 Wimbledon, 2012 USO, 2013 AO) but he has never again skipped RG for any reason at all, physical or otherwise!
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
In 2003, he was mucking around with his mates when he fell over the net and fractured his elbow. As a result, he was forced to miss the 2003 French Open and 2003 Queen's Club, but he was back in action for 2003 Wimbledon.

In 2004, he got an ankle stress fracture during a match against Gasquet in Estoril. Nadal carried on playing and beat Gasquet, but was then out of action for 3 months, missing the 2004 French Open and 2004 Wimbledon.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Mustard said:
In 2003, he was mucking around with his mates when he fell over the net and fractured his elbow. As a result, he was forced to miss the 2003 French Open and 2003 Queen's Club, but he was back in action for 2003 Wimbledon.

In 2004, he got an ankle stress fracture during a match against Gasquet in Estoril. Nadal carried on playing and beat Gasquet, but was then out of action for 3 months, missing the 2004 French Open and 2004 Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

Comprehensive as ever. Thanks Mustard!
 
U

ultradr

Legend
We are talking about the time when he was 16 or 17.

Amazing how he could do things like beating then #1 prime Federer or
winning a slam in his rookie years (more or less).

And continue top class tennis for a decade. Freaking amazing talent.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
It was an odd situation going into the 2005 French Open, where Nadal was clearly one of the tournament favourites, having just won Monte Carlo, Barcelona and Rome, not to mention Costa Do Sauipe and Acapulco earlier in the year, yet Nadal was making his debut at the French Open.

Mats Wilander won the French Open on his debut in 1982, but he had won the Junior French Open title in 1981. Apart from getting to the semi finals of 2002 Junior Wimbledon and helping Spain to victory in 2002 Junior Davis Cup, Nadal didn't play in junior events, instead turning professional at the age of 14 and playing against grown up men in satellites, futures and later in challengers, before getting to the main ATP Tour.
 
Last edited:
NADALRECORD

NADALRECORD

Banned
Nadal's career is the most interesting of all the players in history, and best suited to having a cinematic biopic made. Agassi also interesting career, but I think Nadal's has become more epic and Nadal a bit more unique (despite Agassi's controversies).
 
H

helloworld

Hall of Fame
It was the spanish ploy to launch Nadal at the right time. They kept Nadal in perfect condition until he was physically mature enough, then BAM! The beginning of the clay god era for decades to come!
 
Fiero425

Fiero425

Legend
Mainad said:
He made his Grand Slam debut at 2003 Wimbledon and then his next 3 Grand Slam appearances were at 2003 USO, 2004 AO and 2004 USO.

He did not make his debut at Roland Garros until 2005, a full 2 years after his Wimbledon debut! This is very surprising for a rising young claycourter. Why the delay for RG? Did he not want to play it until he knew he could win it? :confused:
Click to expand...

Sounds like a team that knew his limitations! He wanted to keep that future French Open resume as clean as possible with his only real hiccup in '09! He's been a BULL; not my cup of tea, but done one good job framing his narrative for future generations! Borg only lost to 1 person in Paris; twice (A. Panatta)! Rafa's never had a bad loss, but it happened nonetheless against Soderling! Most Rafa fans will fall back on injury and personal BS otherwise; esp. 2015 when he fell to Djokovic! ;)
 
clayqueen

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Rafa was a child prodigy. He turned pro in 2001 at the age of 15 but wasn't ranked high enough to play in a slam until 2003.

In 2004 he missed most of the clay court season, including the French Open, because of a stress fracture in his left ankle. In 2005 he suffered a foot injury that prevented him from competing in the year-ending Tennis Masters Cup (now called the World Tour Finals), but still went on to win the French Open beating Roger Federer on the way.
 
BVSlam

BVSlam

Professional
I wonder if not showing up before 2005 helped Rafa in the end. He was already in such good clay form before his first slam appearance on the surface that he never needed to "break through" there. It set the tone for him already being nearly invincible at RG from the start, and I feel he really built on that confidence ever since.

Or maybe he is so good it wouldn't have mattered had he played and suffered a RG loss in 2004 before winning his first title.
 
octobrina10

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
Fiero425 said:
Sounds like a team that knew his limitations! He wanted to keep that future French Open resume as clean as possible with his only real hiccup in '09! He's been a BULL; not my cup of tea, but done one good job framing his narrative for future generations! Borg only lost to 1 person in Paris; twice (A. Panatta)! Rafa's never had a bad loss, but it happened nonetheless against Soderling! Most Rafa fans will fall back on injury and personal BS otherwise; esp. 2015 when he fell to Djokovic! ;)
Click to expand...
You created an imaginary story.

Reality:
RAFA: MY STORY: ¤¤ Early in 2003, less than a year after my breakthrough win against Delgado, I played in two of the top ATP World Tour competitions, Monte Carlo and Hamburg. ...I had a badly timed setback, a shoulder injury in training that took two weeks to cure and stopped me from making my debut at the French Open in Roland Garros, but shortly thereafter I played Wimbledon for the first time, making it to the third round. ...
In 2004, my run was cut abruptly short by a tiny crack in a bone of my left foot that kept me out of the game from mid-April to the end of July. That meant no Roland Garros, no Wimbledon. ¤¤
rafa--621x414.jpg
 
Bumbaliceps

Bumbaliceps

Professional
BeatlesFan said:
Rafa won his first slam at age 19, so it's insane to claim he was a "child prodigy." Tell that to Boris, Mats and Chang who all won their first slam at age 17, or Borg, who won his first major at age 18.
Click to expand...
Yeah, almost as insane as thinking a slam will happen in 2020, right ? People who thought the USO or RG will be played are utterly nuts, right ? Insanely utterly astonishingly stupid :sneaky:
 
DSH

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
In the last 30 years, only two teenagers have been able to win tournaments that are part of the Grand Slam:
Pete Sampras, winner of the US Open in 1990 and Rafael Nadal, winner of Roland Garros in 2005.

In all that time, for any player of that age, even reaching the semifinals of a Major tournament has been practically impossible.

To underestimate that is not only stupid but also insensitive since few tennis players in their careers achieve such success.
:mad:
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
DSH said:
In the last 30 years, only two teenagers have been able to win tournaments that are part of the Grand Slam:
Pete Sampras, winner of the US Open in 1990 and Rafael Nadal, winner of Roland Garros in 2005.

In all that time, for any player of that age, even reaching the semifinals of a Major tournament has been practically impossible.

To underestimate that is not only stupid but also insensitive since few tennis players in their careers achieve such success.
:mad:
Click to expand...

Absolutely arbitrary definition (teenager) with absolutely arbitrary time span and still not true.

:cool:
 
beast of mallorca

beast of mallorca

G.O.A.T.
Mustard said:
In 2003, he was mucking around with his mates when he fell over the net and fractured his elbow. As a result, he was forced to miss the 2003 French Open and 2003 Queen's Club, but he was back in action for 2003 Wimbledon.

In 2004, he got an ankle stress fracture during a match against Gasquet in Estoril. Nadal carried on playing and beat Gasquet, but was then out of action for 3 months, missing the 2004 French Open and 2004 Wimbledon.
Click to expand...
Where is Mustard ? I have a catsup for you :-D
 
King No1e

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
He wanted to protect his record, he knew he could've lost in 2003/04 so he didn't want to risk starting off on the wrong foot and having those losses detract from his RG stats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Rafael Nadal moves ahead of Roger Federer on exclusive Grand Slam list
Replies
26
Views
1K
dunlop_fort_knox
dunlop_fort_knox
P
Rafa has been a top 10'er for as long as Murray's career
Replies
24
Views
771
pj80
P
D
Why Did Federer Change his serve?
Replies
3
Views
2K
dirkgnuf
D
veritech
Question about Nadal and Wimbledon Ranking
Replies
2
Views
516
caulcano
C
S
Tougher than beating Nadal @ Roland Garros?
Replies
8
Views
865
Backspin1183
Backspin1183
Top