Nadal

[Total Power]

Indeed. That pesky seven year transitional period just goes n and on and on.

As for nadal's being clay court king....he almost certainly is and he might be remembered for that if his fans could get over their obsession with his clay built H2H V the GOAT.

I'm sure in deepest Argentina there are old forgotten TP clones saying "oh but McEnroe the yankee gringo didn't beat Vilas on clay so Vilas is better than him." That'll be TP in future sitting in a lonely AAMI with the other 4,000 Port faithful ranting about Fed.

LOL funny a richmond supporter bagging other AFL clubs....arent you sick of being the townbike of the competition already????? how long before you sack your current coach and your feral mob start dumping manure at punt road? whats wrong with this world, richmond fans having a go at other clubs???

Anyway, obsession, what obsession? Nadal has been extraordinarly consistent more than any other player on tour in this decade except Federer and he is still young and will win more slams.He doesnt need to win 16 slams to win a place in history books.8-9 slams are still extraordinary, or you think guys like Agassi, Becker, Lendl, Connors and co dont deserve a place in history books cause they dont have double digit slam figures???

Your comment about Rafa will only be remembered for being the GOAT shows why i call you a ****wit and thats no name calling, you deserve it.

 

[gaelictiogar]

TP I have no intention of bowing to the level of referring to you in nasty terms.

If you read my recent posts I have referred to Nadal as a player of integrity and honesty who is arguably the greatest clay courter we have seen. I have referred to his as arguably in the all time elite not far behind the likes of Connors. You of course choose not to see those comments.

Besides until he shows that he can regain his bull like strength or else finesse his game to make up for physical limits he won't be a factor. He may come back. If he does then good for him. The evidence however is that without the endlessly energetic running he is limited and rather easy pickings for the top players. Frankly TP I don't expect you to accept this but literally everyone on the forum except you sees the logic of it...a clay courter with a brutal, imposing, in your face all energy style struggles without the engine. Without the engine he is reduced to stroke play and well we see the results.

Insult me personally if you like.

 

[Total Power]

TP I have no intention of bowing to the level of referring to you in nasty terms.

If you read my recent posts I have referred to Nadal as a player of integrity and honesty who is arguably the greatest clay courter we have seen. I have referred to his as arguably in the all time elite not far behind the likes of Connors. You of course choose not to see those comments.

Besides until he shows that he can regain his bull like strength or else finesse his game to make up for physical limits he won't be a factor. He may come back. If he does then good for him. The evidence however is that without the endlessly energetic running he is limited and rather easy pickings for the top players. Frankly TP I don't expect you to accept this but literally everyone on the forum except you sees the logic of it...a clay courter with a brutal, imposing, in your face all energy style struggles without the engine. Without the engine he is reduced to stroke play and well we see the results.

Insult me personally if you like.

That said he did trouble Fed and his place is tennis history is assured as the man who troubled the GOAT.

you said in clear terms that nadals place in history books is assured cause of his head to head record against the GOAT...are you trying to backpeddle now ?????? that was disrespectful of you and maybe you think you must win 12 grandslams to have a place in history books??? so agassi is not a legend according to you?

Anyway i dont dispute that he needs to get his fitness back, however his game has changed since 2009 and he is being more agressive...which good... however i still agree with you.

 

[gaelictiogar]

I'm not backpeddling at all but his record V Federer is an important part of his legacy.

Agassi is a tennis legend. Borg, Sampras, Laver etc who have slam numbers in the double digits and longer periods at number one are greater legends and greater players but that does not deny Agassi's place.

I hope Rafa does modify his game and try to play more cavalierly. I hope he does cme back. The difficulties may actualy improve his game but franky it is difficult for him. We will see.

 

[Total Power]

I'm not backpeddling at all but his record V Federer is an important part of his legacy.

Agassi is a tennis legend. Borg, Sampras, Laver etc who have slam numbers in the double digits and longer periods at number one are greater legends and greater players but that does not deny Agassi's place.

I hope Rafa does modify his game and try to play more cavalierly. I hope he does cme back. The difficulties may actualy improve his game but franky it is difficult for him. We will see.

They are all legends, its difficult to compare eras, many people would tell you laver is greater than everyone, its debatable.Quantity is just one of the factors, however for example, rafas victory against roger at wimbledon carries lot more points than say Rogers victory against rafa at wimbledon.

Sure H2H is important but rafa deserves a place even without that.First spaniard in how many years to win a slam? one of the few people to win french and wimbledon back to back? beating the best ever player? 83 straght wins on clay etc etc.....i think you underesitmate his other records.

I would still like to her why you think rafa is inconsistent...can you name anyone other than rafa who is remotely as consistent as him in slams?? other than roger ofcourse (in this decade)

 

[gaelictiogar]

TP you see the proble is there is so much vitriol on this board we rarely actually debate.

Rafa is not inconsistent. He has spent literally years in the top 2. Superb. His critics point to his relative inconsistency compared to Federer to point to his relative inconsistency in reaching finals on surfaces where he is less at home. That is all.

Nadal is the best exponent of the two fisted hard running court covering game we have seen. He has been number one. he has 6 slams. No one can crab that record. Many of us, myself included find that particular style unappealing and functional compared to Federer but I am on record as saying I thingk Rafa is a sportsman of honour nd integrity, of application and diligence.

its all a matter of taste. Federer pleases the cavalier aesthetes. Rafa perhaps he more functional roundheads but he is, or perhaps was we have yet to see, a superb indeed the superb, player of his type.

 

[Total Power]

TP you see the proble is there is so much vitriol on this board we rarely actually debate.

Rafa is not inconsistent. He has spent literally years in the top 2. Superb. His critics point to his relative inconsistency compared to Federer to point to his relative inconsistency in reaching finals on surfaces where he is less at home. That is all.

Nadal is the best exponent of the two fisted hard running court covering game we have seen. He has been number one. he has 6 slams. No one can crab that record. Many of us, myself included find that particular style unappealing and functional compared to Federer but I am on record as saying I thingk Rafa is a sportsman of honour nd integrity, of application and diligence.

its all a matter of taste. Federer pleases the cavalier aesthetes. Rafa perhaps he more functional roundheads but he is, or perhaps was we have yet to see, a superb indeed the superb, player of his type.

Fair eough,I am sometimes amazed with your statement like what you made above and then reading your hateful statements saying he will never beat murray, nole etc etc....doesnt make any sense.But here i can agree with you

However manytimes in the past u were on saying calling rafa inconsistent cause of his failure to make the finals.Fed has incredible consistency, i dont deny that, consistency never seen before in the world of tennis...u cannot compare it with rafa really.However this injury is not seriously this time and only will take 2 weeks, i am quite relieved

 

[gaelictiogar]

As a matter of fact I think Federer's greatest achievement is not all the slams won or all the weeks at No.1. I think his 23 successive slam semis is his greatest achievement. It is literally true that for 6 years in Melb, Paris, London, NY on different surfaces, in form or out of form, he always brings his game to the big event. He may not win. He may be lucky or whatever but come the business end of the events where reputations are made and lost he is quite literally always there.

Conside that Lendl with 10 succesive semis was the previous record holder. the feat is utterly exceptional. It actually is more impressive than the 16 big wins.

 

[Total Power]

i agree with you on that.Not much to disagree with

 

[CanonNo1]

An amicable peace seems to be drawn and we are in agreement that Fed is GOAT and Rafa a clay court bully ... lol.

Close thread?

 

[Hodgepodge]

Rafa can't be compared to the Fed until he wins his 16 slam titles.

Yes, he has an impressive head to head record, but so does Murray. Federer's got him when it counts though.

Nadal would've won a few of those matches against Federer on clay, and there is no argument he's the best clay courter in the world.

On a neutral surface, it's a different story, and Federer leads on non-clay surfaces, although it's still very close.

 

[raff23]

I'm not backpeddling at all but his record V Federer is an important part of his legacy.

Agassi is a tennis legend. Borg, Sampras, Laver etc who have slam numbers in the double digits and longer periods at number one are greater legends and greater players but that does not deny Agassi's place.

I hope Rafa does modify his game and try to play more cavalierly. I hope he does cme back. The difficulties may actualy improve his game but franky it is difficult for him. We will see.

There not necessarily better players than agassi, they were more consistently good over a long period of time, Agassi's peak form rivals the all time greats without a doubt. Had he not had so many ups and downs in his career he would be up there with federer, emerson, laver and sampras. 1999 he was untouchable and it took a ridiculous performance from sampras at wimbledon to beat him. He also had to contend with serve and volley tennis which was the norm when he first started. To be critical of federer, he hasnt faced a world class serve volleyer during his time at the top. Pat Rafter and Pete Sampras were the last great serve volleyers. Sure fed beat sampras but both players were not at their peak (fed hadnt reached his yet) so it still leaves it up in the air who would win between the 2 imo.

 

[Total Power]

An amicable peace seems to be drawn and we are in agreement that Fed is GOAT and Rafa a clay court bully ... lol.

Close thread?

really? winning french and wimbledon back to back beating the GOAT in both of em suggests a claycourt bully? also winning slams on ALL surfaces suggests a claycourt bully?? hmm and he is still 23...next.

Surely claycourt is his strength, no doubt however rafa is more consistent than anyone on tour in this decade on non clay surfaces too...unless you can prove otherwise (except fed ofcourse).

 

[Total Power]

There not necessarily better players than agassi, they were more consistently good over a long period of time, Agassi's peak form rivals the all time greats without a doubt. Had he not had so many ups and downs in his career he would be up there with federer, emerson, laver and sampras. 1999 he was untouchable and it took a ridiculous performance from sampras at wimbledon to beat him. He also had to contend with serve and volley tennis which was the norm when he first started. To be critical of federer, he hasnt faced a world class serve volleyer during his time at the top. Pat Rafter and Pete Sampras were the last great serve volleyers. Sure fed beat sampras but both players were not at their peak (fed hadnt reached his yet) so it still leaves it up in the air who would win between the 2 imo.

exactly my point.Seriously no one can argue with a straight face that playing becker, edberg, mcenrore lendl and co on a fast low bouncing surface is easier than the flat track slow ***** grass at the moment.Anyone with little or no idea of tennis can confirm this. Playing wreckless serve and volleyers in 80s and early to mid 90s was much more difficult than playing flat track bullies like we see today.Agassis 92 wimbldon carries more points IMO, cause he did the unthinkable.I remember Rod Laver coming out and saying it on live tv.

 

[maxrm]

i dont understand how rafa's slipped to #4 in the world?

He and Djokovic were both knocked out in the quarters (nadal by a higher ranked player) yet djokovic has overtaken him in rankings?

 

[Caesar]

Nadal was defending his ranking points from last year, when he won. Djokovic only made it to the QFs in 2009.

Points drop off after 12 months, so at the conclusion of each tournament players lose the benefit of the previous year's edition.

 

[Kaan]

i dont understand how rafa's slipped to #4 in the world?

He and Djokovic were both knocked out in the quarters (nadal by a higher ranked player) yet djokovic has overtaken him in rankings?

Djokovic made the quarters last year, Nadal won the slam. Djokovic doesn't lose or gain but I'm guessing Nadal loses heaps since he couldn't defend it.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Djokovic made the quarters last year, Nadal won the slam. Djokovic doesn't lose or gain but I'm guessing Nadal loses heaps since he couldn't defend it.

Djokovic is No.2 because during the past year he has been a sort of Davydenko....going deep into tournaments without actually finalling or winning the ones that matter but racking up points as he goes.

He deserves the No.2 because the tennis ranking system is I think quite good at ranking the true performances over 12 months but its not the most glorious run to the top 2 we have ever had.

Rafa is going to have to step up now to defend his ranking. He has a heap of points to defend between now and Paris. Indian Wells and Miami have become big tournaments for Rafa and also for Murray who will clearly believe he can push on past Djokovic. Federer has the luxury of not having a heap of points to defend pre Madrid in May and the door is open for Murray and or Rafa to drive on past Djokovic unless djokovic starts playing like a No.2.

 

[matt_897]

1 Masters 1000 title, 4 Masters 1000 finals, a few Masters 1000 semis, a few 500 titles as well, outside the slams, Djokovic has done quite well. His record at the slam is well not so great for the world's no.2, again it shows his mental fragility.

 

[gaelictiogar]

1 Masters 1000 title, 4 Masters 1000 finals, a few Masters 1000 semis, a few 500 titles as well, outside the slams, Djokovic has done quite well. His record at the slam is well not so great for the world's no.2, again it shows his mental fragility.

Exactly my point Matt. He has had a year in which he has shown up at many tournaments but only once in a masters actually closed the deal and of course he has been absent from slam finals as well. I'mnot saying he doesn't deserve the ranking. He does. He has earned it. However casual fans who tune in for the second weeks of slams would be disbelieving that he is in the top 2 in the world.

 

[Total Power]

Exactly my point Matt. He has had a year in which he has shown up at many tournaments but only once in a masters actually closed the deal and of course he has been absent from slam finals as well. I'mnot saying he doesn't deserve the ranking. He does. He has earned it. However casual fans who tune in for the second weeks of slams would be disbelieving that he is in the top 2 in the world.

A lot of players in the past had been good masters series player yet had little or no success in grand slams.Michael Chang comes to my mind first.Rafa won masters series titles on fast indoor surface as well as several outdoor tournaments (many on hardcourts).Slams are different.Playing 5 sets is different than playing 3.Djokovics fitness is still a big question mark along with his attitude.

 

[gaelictiogar]

I think Sampras has more slam titles then Masters titles. He was unashamedly slam hunting in his final years. Federer is doing the same and only deference to the interests of sponsors nad the Tour generally prevents him admitting it but to those of us who follow the tour he is clearly in second gear when not in slams.

Fact is slams are where its at. In golf its the same. One US Open or USPGA is worth four or five ordinary tour events in terms of impact and legacy. Pete knew this. Roger knows this. Rafa if he gets back will have to learn this. He needs to stop chasing points in Europe and start to preserve energy. He has been finished in July most years. No US Open finals and No Maxsters Cup ( the 5th major) wins or finals shows a man without energy having blasted everything at the clay season.

If he gets back and if he wants a longer career he needs to radically overhaul his approach to the season and to the game.

 

[Total Power]

If he gets back and if he wants a longer career he needs to radically overhaul his approach to the season and to the game.

He needs to concentrate more on softer surfaces than on hardcourts.Now by soft surfaces i mean grass and clay.He has proven himself on grass and i still think he can win another title at wimbledon where the likes of del potro and muzza and nole arent really that big a factor.

Now you can argue for the rest of your life that french open is the least important slam, but the fact is, it is still a slam.A slam borg won 6 times yet no one says anything about it.Slams are still slams and i can still argue french is the most difficult to win mentally and physcially.

Anyhow, if Rafa has chronic knee troubles he should limit his hard court appearances to masters series and grandslams only.Thats IMO ofcourse.

 

[gaelictiogar]

I don't think the French is the least important TP. I do think it the least attractive but that is another thing.

I think there is a clear historical and prestige hierarchy among the slams however. Wimbledon is by universal consent the premier event. The oldest, the most written about, the most watched. US Open is next. The second oldest, the only slam in the richest country, a winners list every bit as ilustrious as Wimbledon. French is third. Its importance is more recent than the other two and Wimbledon is unarguably the top European summer event. Australia is last. It really has only been comparable with the others since the 1980s and before that the likes of Connors etc regularly ignored it.

I am not saying there is a huge gap and as you say a slam is a slam. There is not a huge gap and AO is miles ahed of the masters Cup in 5th. However I think there is a clear historical hierarchy ranking the events as I have done.

 

[Total Power]

I don't think the French is the least important TP. I do think it the least attractive but that is another thing.

I think there is a clear historical and prestige hierarchy among the slams however. Wimbledon is by universal consent the premier event. The oldest, the most written about, the most watched. US Open is next. The second oldest, the only slam in the richest country, a winners list every bit as ilustrious as Wimbledon. French is third. Its importance is more recent than the other two and Wimbledon is unarguably the top European summer event. Australia is last. It really has only been comparable with the others since the 1980s and before that the likes of Connors etc regularly ignored it.

I am not saying there is a huge gap and as you say a slam is a slam. There is not a huge gap and AO is miles ahed of the masters Cup in 5th. However I think there is a clear historical hierarchy ranking the events as I have done.

well you think f.o is least attractive cause you dislike clay.However french open is the toughest slam to win, as proven in the past by sampras, agassi, federer becker etc etc who found it extremely difficult to win it.Mentally its draining, cause you need to grind it out, but thats another story like you said.



Anyway, more than half of Borgs slam title was won on clay.However it doesnt tarnish his image as a clay court bully does it? like people refer rafa as?? borg is still one of the greatest players in the history of tennis and this is exactly my point that winning a grandlslam is difficult whether its french or wimbledon.