Would another French Open really add to Nadal's Resume

[McEnroeisanartist]

Would another French Open championship really add to Nadal's resume? It seems it would even further make him seem like a claycourt specialist. Granted the undisputed greatest claycourt specialist of all time.

Consider: it would mean 66.7% of his Majors came at just one Major. Of the 17 male players in the open era with 4 or more majors, this would tie the highest percentage of total Majors won at just one major.

Nadal has not won a Major other than the French Open since the 2010 U.S. Open - a span of 9 Majors (7 played). By comparison, Federer's longest streak between winning two different Majors during his prime was 3 Majors.

 

[MichaelNadal]

^^All the extra stuff is irrelevant. A major adds to anyone's resume. It sounds bad that he hasn't won a slam besides the French since 2010, but he reached every major final from the 2011 FO to the 2012 FO and would have won those slams if he played anyone on earth besides Novak in the peak form of his life.

 

[mightyrick]

I think it would cement him as not only the greatest clay court specialist of all time, but also the greatest surface specialist of all time.

At this point, I think he is more dominant on clay than the grass specialists of times past were on grass.

 

[jg153040]

I think it would cement him as not only the greatest clay court specialist of all time, but also the greatest surface specialist of all time.

At this point, I think he is more dominant on clay than the grass specialists of times past were on grass.

Well some people might say the same as for all too dominant players. Weak competition. He never defeated multiple RG winners on his way to his titles.

 

[TMF]

Of course it does, but it would be much better if he win another slam outside of clay, preferably Wimbledon. In fact, it would be better if he win the WTF, which would make his resume more complete.

 

[Semi-Pro]

it would further enhance his resume as a clay court specialist

 

[NatF]

Yes and no, a slam win is always a good thing but he's already the clay GOAT. So it won't advance him much further in terms of all time great status IMO.

 

[Mustard]

8 wins at the same major. That's only been done by Pancho Gonzales at the US Pro and Ken Rosewall at the French Pro.

 

[mightyrick]

Well some people might say the same as for all too dominant players. Weak competition. He never defeated multiple RG winners on his way to his titles.

I don't disagree with that. I said in another post that I thought Nadal would have probably split with Borg. Given that, he still might be the greatest surface specialist ever.

The disparity of his win rate on clay versus non-clay is pretty sickening. There's no question he's a clay specialist. The win rate on clay is indicative of him being an excellent clay player. His margins of victory on clay against his opponents points to the weakness of the clay field during his prime.

When it comes to a players results... a weak field doesn't discount a player's results. It just "weights" them accordingly.

 

[jg153040]

I don't disagree with that. I said in another post that I thought Nadal would have probably split with Borg. Given that, he still might be the greatest surface specialist ever.

The disparity of his win rate on clay versus non-clay is pretty sickening. There's no question he's a clay specialist. The win rate on clay is indicative of him being an excellent clay player. His margins of victory on clay against his opponents points to the weakness of the clay field during his prime.

When it comes to a players results... a weak field doesn't discount a player's results. It just "weights" them accordingly.

Well in a perfect world they split 50,50. But we don't know how would they match up together. Nadal is a bad matchup for all righties so I guess that could tip the scale.

 

[Gandalf]

It seems it would even further make him seem like a claycourt specialist.

Further make him 'seem'?

You'd have to be an idiot not to see that he is a cc specialist. But he is extremely good on other surfaces too. Otherwise he wouldn't be a part of the endless boring goat debates now wouldn't he?

 

[Incognito]

Of course it does, but it would be much better if he win another slam outside of clay, preferably Wimbledon. In fact, it would be better if he win the WTF, which would make his resume more complete.

Better than winning a slam? I don't agree.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Nadal's 2nd FO didn't add to his resume. There is no need for more than 1.

 

[Roddick85]

Adding another french open would only add to his already extraordinary record on Clay. But then again, we already know clay is his favorite/best surface, nothing new there, adding a slam is always a great achievement no matter which one it is.

However, does it really add to his "GOAT" resume? I don't think so. Of course the GOAT thing has always been a controversial debate on these boards. To me, at this point in his career, I want to see Rafa add more hard court slams to his resume, more weeks at #1, and win a WTF. That would be a lot more signifcant for me when there's GOAT discussion.

 

[cc0509]

Oh Lord, how many of these silly threads do we have to endure? Of course winning another FO slam will add to Nadal's resume! Sheesh!

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal's 2nd FO didn't add to his resume. There is no need for more than 1.

Federer's second Wimbledon didn't add to his resume. There is no need for more than 1.

 

[Clarky21]

Oh Lord, how many of these silly threads do we have to endure? Of course winning another FO slam will add to Nadal's resume! Sheesh!

Tell me about it. It's like asking if another Wimby title added to Fed's resume last year. It's very significant to win a slam no matter how many times you've won it. The op has really trolled and spammed the mess out of this forum today. He's either bored or just pathetic.

 

[Clarky21]

Federer's second Wimbledon didn't add to his resume. There is no need for more than 1.

WhiskeyEE thinks clay is a "peasants" surface so he would never say that about Wimby.

 

[cc0509]

Tell me about it. It's like asking if another Wimby title added to Fed's resume last year. It's very significant to win a slam no matter how many times you've won it. The op has really trolled and spammed the mess out of this forum today. He's either bored or just pathetic.

I swear I don't know what is wrong with some people!

 

[cc0509]

Nadal's 2nd FO didn't add to his resume. There is no need for more than 1.

If he wins an 8th FO, he will be the only player to win 8 of one slam. That is not significant to you? You must be trolling.

 

[TheTruth]

Would another French Open championship really add to Nadal's resume? It seems it would even further make him seem like a claycourt specialist. Granted the undisputed greatest claycourt specialist of all time.

Consider: it would mean 66.7% of his Majors came at just one Major. Of the 17 male players in the open era with 4 or more majors, this would tie the highest percentage of total Majors won at just one major.

Nadal has not won a Major other than the French Open since the 2010 U.S. Open - a span of 9 Majors (7 played). By comparison, Federer's longest streak between winning two different Majors during his prime was 3 Majors.

Seven of Sampras's majors were at W. The other 7 were over his career.

Nadal's career isn't over yet, so we have no idea how many majors he will have, nor where he will get them from.

Do you know the distribution of Rosewall's, Tilden's, or Emerson's majors were. If you do, you're good because I don't think people care about a stat like that.

 

[kishnabe]

Same worth as winning any slam.

Would prefer if he won some other Slam this year than RG.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Better than winning a slam? I don't agree.

You are right; winning at the majors are main reason tennis is played, not the other events. What is more impressive: winning one major--perhaps two, with a shelf full of other events, or a shelf full of majors and a few other events? The answer is clear, and plainly states the value system of events in the sport.

 

[jg153040]

You are right; winning at the majors are main reason tennis is played, not the other events. What is more impressive: winning one major--perhaps two, with a shelf full of other events, or a shelf full of majors and a few other events? The answer is clear, and plainly states the value system of events in the sport.

Number 1 ranking is also the reason tennis is played. Not just the majors.

 

[TMF]

Better than winning a slam? I don't agree.

Obviously the slam is better than WTF, but for Nadal it's a different situation. He's already has 7 RG but no WTF. Since he's already a clay goat, winning another RG doesn't change anything. However winning the WTF will get the monkey of his back. I can assure you he's going to get a lot of praise when finally win the WTF.

 

[TMF]

Seven of Sampras's majors were at W. The other 7 were over his career.

Nadal's career isn't over yet, so we have no idea how many majors he will have, nor where he will get them from.

Do you know the distribution of Rosewall's, Tilden's, or Emerson's majors were. If you do, you're good because I don't think people care about a stat like that.

Yes they do. The more evenly distributed across all 4 slams makes you a more of a complete player.

 

[TMF]

You are right; winning at the majors are main reason tennis is played, not the other events. What is more impressive: winning one major--perhaps two, with a shelf full of other events, or a shelf full of majors and a few other events? The answer is clear, and plainly states the value system of events in the sport.

The 4 slams are the biggest of all, but the WTF is right behind. But since Nadal has 7 RG, it's nice if he win the elusive WTF to complete his resume.

 

[TMF]

Number 1 ranking is also the reason tennis is played. Not just the majors.

Yes, #1 ranking is also very important. Nadal needs to accumulate more weeks at #1 to fill up one of his few holes in his resume.

 

[tacou]

What a subject for a thread. What if he wins another Wimbledon? I mean he's already got 2? Why not just skip it

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Number 1 ranking is also the reason tennis is played. Not just the majors.

Ask former major-less #1 players Wozniacki, Rios or Jankovic if they would trade the ranking for a majors title.

 

[bullfan]

Of course it would. Silly question.

 

[sam_p]

He never defeated multiple RG winners on his way to his titles.

This makes no sense. He's won 7/8, there is only one other active player who has won even 1 (Frderer).

 

[Sorana fan]

Number 1 ranking is also the reason tennis is played. Not just the majors.

Number 1 is NOTHING in comparison to GS

 

[Sorana fan]

Ask former major-less #1 players Wozniacki, Rios or Jankovic if they would trade the ranking for a majors title.

Crystal clear.

 

[NikeWilson]

Another French Open title is another Grand Slam closer to overthrowing Federer.

 

[firepanda]

Nadal is a claycourter the same way Federer is a grasscourter. He prefers one surface, yes, but he performs on all three, as evidenced by at least 2 slams on every surface.

 

[TMF]

Number 1 ranking is also the reason tennis is played. Not just the majors.

Ask former major-less #1 players Wozniacki, Rios or Jankovic if they would trade the ranking for a majors title.

You're missing the point. Winning the slam is the most important and I've always said the most number of slam titles is the holy grail of tennis. However ranking still is an important part of tennis achievements, and part of players legacy(see Fed and Sampras). Serena cries this year after she claimed the #1 ranking. Murray said his goal in 2012 was to reach the #1 ranking. They are important to them. Be serious !

 

[Disgruntled Worker]

Another French Open solidifies Nadal's position as the greatest to ever play on clay and possibly the greatest of all time.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

If Nadal manages an 8th this year I predict he will not stop until he has 10 French Opens. The man is a machine.

He will finish with 16 majors! 10 French, 3 Wimbledon, 2 Australian, and 1 US Open.

 

[monfed]

If Mumbles wins another RG then he would've won 8/12 slams on clay when there's only 1/4 slams on clay, a disproportionate amount on a minority surface which would further indicate the one-dimensional nature of his game and would infact hurt his claim for GOAT. His status as CLAY GOAT would also be dented because his rather video-game like statistics on the surface indicates the weakness of the field/lack of quality claycourters that he's heavily benefitted from aka weak clay era.
Just to further add to what I'm stating, Laver rated Borg above Nadal and even Sampras because when it comes to the GOAT debate, versatility carries more weight which both Sampras(clay dud) and Ralph(fast court dud) heavily lack.

 

[Gandalf]

and Ralph(fast court dud)

lold for real.

 

[NikeWilson]

If Djokovic didn't play out of his mind in 2011, Nadal would be sitting on 14 Slams right now.
(2011 Wimbledon, 2011 US Open, 2012 Australian Open)

Infact, he probably should've won that 2007 Wimbledon Final against Fed too. Nadal would be sitting on 15 Slams right now.

And he'd be going for his 16th Slam at the French Open right now.

 

[firepanda]

If Mumbles wins another RG then he would've won 8/12 slams on clay when there's only 1/4 slams on clay, a disproportionate amount on a minority surface which would further indicate the one-dimensional nature of his game and would infact hurt his claim for GOAT. His status as CLAY GOAT would also be dented because his rather video-game like statistics on the surface indicates the weakness of the field/lack of quality claycourters that he's heavily benefitted from aka weak clay era.
Just to further add to what I'm stating, Laver rated Borg above Nadal and even Sampras because when it comes to the GOAT debate, versatility carries more weight which both Sampras(clay dud) and Ralph(fast court dud) heavily lack.

I... what?

Nadal is brilliant on clay... therefore he is not claygoat.
Nadal is merely competitive on other surfaces... therefore he is not goat.

My head hurts...