Nadal the last one standing!

Amazing for the many us who thought his game would see his career decline if not stop at 27! Today he has survided his strongest rivas and looks in his best shape....in spite of his gruelling game. 

Murray, Djoko, et Federer are clearly suffering showing sign of wear and tear beyond repair (for Murray at least) but not Nadal. 

What is amazing is that his rivals all became better than him. Murray was even inflicting him humiliating defeats on clay before turning number 1, Djokovic can beat him closed eyes, and Federer can now even afford to lesson him on one leg at the end of gruelling tournaments at 38 or so.

But...does that matter? not today. Nadal can still run and hit his unimaginative FHs ad nausea. 

It does not matter how good one is at tennis ....one needs to run longer than his opponents nowadays and Nadal with his bad knees still can.

I agree that Nole and Federer are better than Nadal, but Murray? Ok he beat him a couple of times no Clay... But in 2015-2016
I Don't think a fit Murray would have beaten Rafa 2017-2018 on Clay

Tenez wrote:Amazing for the many us who thought his game would see his career decline if not stop at 27! Today he has survided his strongest rivas and looks in his best shape....in spite of his gruelling game. 

Murray, Djoko, et Federer are clearly suffering showing sign of wear and tear beyond repair (for Murray at least) but not Nadal. 

What is amazing is that his rivals all became better than him. Murray was even inflicting him humiliating defeats on clay before turning number 1, Djokovic can beat him closed eyes, and Federer can now even afford to lesson him on one leg at the end of gruelling tournaments at 38 or so.

But...does that matter? not today. Nadal can still run and hit his unimaginative FHs ad nausea. 

It does not matter how good one is at tennis ....one needs to run longer than his opponents nowadays and Nadal with his bad knees still can.

Just sit back, relax and appreciate what an amazing athlete Nadal is. Longevity in sports is just as important as skill. Fed's own records have a lot to do with the longevity of his career. He started winning so early and its amazing he still hasn't stopped.

Fed doesn't have to be statistically better than Nadal in everything. He anyway already isn't. The greatness of athletes do not reduce when a stat is overtaken.  There will never be a universally accepted GOAT formula. So we don't need to stress on it.

If you look closely, you realise that if it was Murray and the ground was a clay court, he would have saved the child with more skill.

Federer doesnt have to worry, we all think he is the best ever

shall nadal or novak overtake him on slams, I will still see federer as the best I saw 

I agree that slam count is only part of the cocktail
weeks in number 1, world tour finals... but specially, how he dominated 2004-2009 (those 23 slam semifinals in a row, 22 finals our of 27 slams between 2003 and 2010)  how he came back in 2017-2018 and more importantly... how he played, how he plays...

@naxroy, quite.  I don't know who the best ever is, but in the Open Era the slam tally is the most important marker and if Fed loses that to Nadal or Djoko then their fans have a big shout on that score.

I do know for certain who I have enjoyed watching the most, and who has played the best and most elegant tennis I have ever seen.  I've been lucky to watch it, and Fed has been lucky to enjoy playing for more than half of his career as the record holder.  He can't ever have that taken away from him.

Doom and gloom here already.  Rafa is still at 18, and even if he wins on Sunday, will be at 19.  So let's leave the mourning for later.

That said, while I agree that there is more to tennis than slam count, it is also true that the slam count is the metric in which the three of them very consciously compete, and if Rafa does manage to get in front of the other two, he will have earned serious bragging rights.

Really this all comes from fan rivalry. It's got very little to do with the players true standing. I mean, how does one particular measure suddenly become the rule for GOAT? What about big tournament wins (where Fed is already not top), and weeks at #1 which Djokovic might overtake him but Rafa won't? Or total wins (Jimmy Connors!?).

It's really all about forum madness. Happily this place has got the balance about perfect; by being free to express harsh opinions nothing gets bottled up, and by the standard of poster knowledge being high it's not attractive to mrons so we just get generally more mature insight.

Think the doom and gloom comes from Federer losing Wimbledon and seemingly having a draw here that opened up and health got in the way of that. So I sense for more passionate Federer fans it's difficult to stomach that more so with the USO the luck comes at the wrong time for Fed. 

Nadal may be left standing in the USO, however not to say that he'll be completely injury free next season. 

I do have a sense of resignation accepting that Feds Slam winning days are gone (more so with how Wimbledon unfolded).

barrystar wrote:@naxroy, quite.  I don't know who the best ever is, but in the Open Era the slam tally is the most important marker and if Fed loses that to Nadal or Djoko then their fans have a big shout on that score.

I do know for certain who I have enjoyed watching the most, and who has played the best and most elegant tennis I have ever seen.  I've been lucky to watch it, and Fed has been lucky to enjoy playing for more than half of his career as the record holder.  He can't ever have that taken away from him.

Before 1995-96, there wasn't anyone who would talk about slam count. It became a stat for measuring greatness only after Pete's 14. 

Before Nadal won Olympics  Gold in 2008, this was not even considered worth entering for most top tennis athletes.

Earlier Davis Cup was seen more imp than some of the Slams. Is it now?

Times change and the media drives these markers.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

barrystar wrote:@naxroy, quite.  I don't know who the best ever is, but in the Open Era the slam tally is the most important marker and if Fed loses that to Nadal or Djoko then their fans have a big shout on that score.

I do know for certain who I have enjoyed watching the most, and who has played the best and most elegant tennis I have ever seen.  I've been lucky to watch it, and Fed has been lucky to enjoy playing for more than half of his career as the record holder.  He can't ever have that taken away from him.

Before 1995-96, there wasn't anyone who would talk about slam count. It became a stat for measuring greatness only after Pete's 14. 

Before Nadal won Olympics  Gold in 2008, this was not even considered worth entering for most top tennis athletes.

Earlier Davis Cup was seen more imp than some of the Slams. Is it now?

Times change and the media drives these markers.

Think a large part of that was past greats achieved a lot of success in the amateur era. Borg at that time held the most Slams achieved in the Open Era, however that was at both the FO and Wimbledon respectively. Factor in at the time Roy Emerson had won the most singles slams in the mens game with 12, but all achieved in the amateur era. Laver was by many (still is in some quarters) regarded as the greatest. 

The 1990's saw most players playing a full calendar (importantly all 4 Slams). Once Sampras had hung up the racquet, as you say was regarded as the GOAT by some for a very small period of time. Given now what the Big 3 have achieved, has made everyone rethink what a GOAT profile truly encompasses.

The other thing was that old subject we love talking about, surface variation. You just couldn't clean up across them all with the same game. Even Laver thrived when 3 / 4 were on grass. Borg had to change his game to do his amazing FO / W doubles.

Pete did incredibly well to get his total when really he only had 3 Slams a year to play in.

Now any top player has a viable chance at all 4 because his one style of play will suit them all. That changes things.

The other thing is medical treatment. Rafa has access to techniques without which we'd have been talking about how he could have done great if he'd not retired 6 years ago. All this kind of diminishes past greats records somewhat unfairly.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

barrystar wrote:@naxroy, quite.  I don't know who the best ever is, but in the Open Era the slam tally is the most important marker and if Fed loses that to Nadal or Djoko then their fans have a big shout on that score.

I do know for certain who I have enjoyed watching the most, and who has played the best and most elegant tennis I have ever seen.  I've been lucky to watch it, and Fed has been lucky to enjoy playing for more than half of his career as the record holder.  He can't ever have that taken away from him.

Before 1995-96, there wasn't anyone who would talk about slam count. It became a stat for measuring greatness only after Pete's 14. 

Before Nadal won Olympics  Gold in 2008, this was not even considered worth entering for most top tennis athletes.

Earlier Davis Cup was seen more imp than some of the Slams. Is it now?

Times change and the media drives these markers.

The record holder was Roy Emerson whose 12 wins were all Amateur.  Laver and Borg were on 11 each, but half of Laver's were amateur.  Even in the 1970's there were disputes between tours and circuits which caused slam boycotts, and greats like Connors, Borg, Mac, and Evert hardly ever went down to Australia.  The slam tally was not seen as a valuable measure of greatness. However, as the Open Era settled down the focus on slams increased.  Mac wanted that French Open in 1984 desperately, and in 1988 Aus got its act together with a proper venue and draws of 128.  Whether or not a player had won a slam started being the key measure of their status during the 1970's & 1980's, and the more slams the better.  I well remember Edberg having the status of a 'slam winner' from his two Aus Opens before he first won Wimbledon in 1988 and Lendl's change in status when he won his first slam after losing 4 finals.  As time wore on and there were a handful of players with half a dozen or so slams and Sampras neared overtaking Emerson the relative importance of lots of slams as a measure of greatness increased.  I'd say it was a gradual process, people did talk about them well before 1995-1996.  It is now settled that the most significant judge in the Open Era is the slam tally.

even if it is the slam tally... I dont think that 4-4-4-4 is the same as 1-13-1-1

bogbrush wrote:The other thing was that old subject we love talking about, surface variation. You just couldn't clean up across them all with the same game. Even Laver thrived when 3 / 4 were on grass. Borg had to change his game to do his amazing FO / W doubles.

Pete did incredibly well to get his total when really he only had 3 Slams a year to play in.

Now any top player has a viable chance at all 4 because his one style of play will suit them all. That changes things.

The other thing is medical treatment. Rafa has access to techniques without which we'd have been talking about how he could have done great if he'd not retired 6 years ago. All this kind of diminishes past greats records somewhat unfairly.

I think it's why Agassi's Career Slam was lauded. Achieved when surfaces were true and proper. 

Nowadays absolutely many can achieve it.

legendkillar wrote:


Nowadays absolutely many can achieve it.

and thats why we have so many players winning slams everywhere

naxroy wrote:

legendkillar wrote:


Nowadays absolutely many can achieve it.

and thats why we have so many players winning slams everywhere

Yeah because 1 doing it in 30 years and then 3 in the last 10 is normal 

Which says a lot about those 3

naxroy wrote:

legendkillar wrote:


Nowadays absolutely many can achieve it.

and thats why we have so many players winning slams everywhere

LOL.  I was going to say the same.  You beat me to it.

naxroy wrote:even if it is the slam tally... I dont think that 4-4-4-4 is the same as 1-13-1-1

Obviously they are very different, but I am not sure which one is "better".  As a Fed fan, I should prefer the former, but I never felt that way.  The total count is what matters to me.  You can get there in many different ways.

Say one gets 5-5-5-5, and the other one is 0-20-0-0.  Yes, the first one is more balanced but on the other hand I would find the second one more astonishing.

Anyway, let's hope Rafa does not get there.  But if he does, well done to him.

BTW, I just heard that this is the first time Rafa has reached seven consecutive slam semifinals.  So not only is he not going away - he is becoming more consistent than ever!

summerblues wrote:

naxroy wrote:

legendkillar wrote:


Nowadays absolutely many can achieve it.

and thats why we have so many players winning slams everywhere

LOL.  I was going to say the same.  You beat me to it.

I bet your really gutted about that.

legendkillar wrote:

summerblues wrote:

naxroy wrote:

legendkillar wrote:


Nowadays absolutely many can achieve it.

and thats why we have so many players winning slams everywhere

LOL.  I was going to say the same.  You beat me to it.

I bet your really gutted about that.

Hah.  Anyway, I did not want to be mean.  I know what you mean, and you do have a point, it is just the way you said it was begging for the response that naxroy provided.

2016 year-end flashback:

ATP rankings:
Murray #1
Djokovic #2
Nadal #9
Federer #16

Nadal and Federer indisputably on the way out.  Federer had not won a slam since 2012.  Rafa's last slam was over two years earlier at 2014 FO and in 10 slams since then he did not make a single SF.

Djokovic who looked dominant through the FO started to also have question marks about him.  The last two slams were won by lesser players - Murray at W and Wawrinka at the USO.

The questions were:  with Fed and Nadal no longer major threats in the slams, would Nole recover and continue cleaning everything up, or would Andy use this as an opportunity to load up on his slams, or would new faces finally start winning?

Well, it turns out Nole did recover, and Rafa/Fed were not on their last legs by any means.

11 slams since then:
Rafa/Nole: 4 titles each
Fed: 3 titles
Everyone else: zilch

Rafa is now a big favorite to pick up another one, so the Big 3 streak is likely to continue, but even if he does not, those last three years were a mighty throwback to the period 8-10 years ago.

Surely this time the end has to be right around the corner?

Rafa's 12 slams since 2017 AO:

title: 4 (or 5)
final: 2 (or 3)
sf: 3

He only missed SF twice out of 12 slams.

During this period, he struggled vs Djokovic (0-2) and, more surprisingly, Federer (1-2) but he hardly ever lost to anyone else:

2017 W vs Muller
2018 AO vs Cilic (retired with injury)
2018 USO vs Del Potro (retired with injury)

summerblues wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

summerblues wrote:

naxroy wrote:

legendkillar wrote:


Nowadays absolutely many can achieve it.

and thats why we have so many players winning slams everywhere

LOL.  I was going to say the same.  You beat me to it.

I bet your really gutted about that.

Hah.  Anyway, I did not want to be mean.  I know what you mean, and you do have a point, it is just the way you said it was begging for the response that naxroy provided.

  Indeed. Conditions now as more or less normalised and ripe for further domination from a new "Big 3" and so far no-one aside from the current Big 3 fancy it. A crying shame.

The fact is - the courts have been dumbed down and tailor made for slower players like Nadal.  And that's the only reason why he has any slams outside clay.

Now is probably the first time (other than maybe right after the AO '09?) that I would give Nadal better odds than Fed to finish ahead on the slam count.

I still think Djokovic has a better shot at the record than Nadal


I think, Djokovic is favourite in all slams except for Roland Garros, and even in that one I see he would have his good chance of defeating Nadal.

Nadal is one year older and I feel he is only clear favourite in Roland Garros. Of course he has to be there in the rest of the slams, ready to take his chances if they come, but that could happen in Australia or New York, Wimbledon seems like an impossible task right now.

As for Federer, I only see him winning another Wimbledon... but at almost 39? it would be impressive really, but every year is more and more difficult.

Giving their strengths and weaknesses, their age, and the fact that some other will start to win slams at some point... I think there is a strong possibilty of the three finishing in  20

Djokovic is at 16.  No matter how good he may look, a lot can go wrong between now and when he reaches 20 slams.  Plus, after the AO he has not really looked his best this year - and that includes Wimbledon even though he won it.  So maybe he is on a downward slide already?

Rafa only needs to win one more to tie, and two more to lead outright (assuming Fed is done), plus he has been incredibly consistent the last three years - out of the 12 slams played, he made SF nine times.  Out of those nine, he either won the title (5 times) or lost to Fed or Nole (4 times) - not to anyone else.  He is also getting older, but one would think he definitely has a chance to add a couple of more slams.  Of course, things could go wrong, maybe Djokovic/Medvedev will have a stranglehold on the next few hard court slams, Wimbledon may continue to prove elusive, and if he slips at RG somehow, then he may find that by 2021 he is falling behind too much.

But from where we are, I would give him the best chance to end up on top in the slam count.

and he'll still be behind in 3 of them and atp finals and at wimbledon.  So let him have his cupcake wins.

summerblues wrote:...out of the 12 slams played, he made SF nine times.  Out of those nine, he either won the title (5 times) or lost to Fed or Nole (4 times) - not to anyone else. ...

I agree with the post, but just wanted to note that actually he got to 10 semifinals in 12 slams
delpotro beat him in usopen 2018 semifinal

Ah, of course.  Even better.