Nobody could have expected Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer to finish No. 1 and No. 2 in the rankings, respectively, at the end of 2017–and with plenty of room to spare. After all, the two all-time greats went into the season ninth (Nadal) and 16th (Federer) in the world, seemingly on the way down instead of on the way up given that they were already into their 30s. Expecting them to combine for one of the four Grand Slam titles would have seemed fair, if not generous. But all four? Absolutely not.
At the other end of the spectrum, no one could have anticipated the brutal injury luck suffered by other top players–namely Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, Stan Wawrinka, Kei Nishikori, and Milos Raonic. All five of those men easily played their way into the 2016 World Tour Finals; not one of them appeared at the O2 Arena this time around.
It’s safe to say this past season was full of surprises on the ATP Tour. If it can be taken as a harbinger of things to come, we should expect the unexpected in 2018. As we learned from 2017, nothing–and no one–is certain. Nadal is 31 and Federer is 36; at what point will injury issues finally turn their nibble into a bite, as they did for younger competitors in 2017? How will Murray, Djokovic, and the rest of the infirmary patients bounce back in 2018? Will Grigor Dimitrov, Alexander Zverev, Dominic Thiem, and David Goffin continue to rise? Is Juan Martin Del Potro ready for a return to the upper echelons of the sport? Can Nick Kyrgios live up to his incredible but currently untapped potential?
Those questions will begin to be answered at next month’s Australian Open. Check out the Online Tennis odds for the Australian Open.
Federer is the oddsmakers’ current title favorite. And why not? The Swiss is the defending champion and coming off a season in which he compiled a 52-5 record with seven titles (two majors: Aussie and Wimbledon). Federer also finished it in good health, despite losing to Goffin at the Nitto ATP Finals.
“Roger has won five titles from the last nine tournaments he’s played and he can’t wait to come back, step out on Rod Laver Arena again,and begin his title defense,” tournament director Craig Tiley commented. “He loves playing here, loves the Aussie fans, and has said his Australian Open win this year was one of the most meaningful of his career.
Djokovic and Nadal are the next two favorites, followed not too far behind by Murray before a big gap separates those four from the likes of Wawrinka, Zverev, Dimitrov, and Kyrgios.
Nadal, who finished runner-up to Federer in Melbourne this past year, has won three of the four slams at least twice. The one exception is the Australian Open, where he triumphed in 2009. The Spaniard played only one match last month in London before withdrawing due to a knee injury. Djokovic (a six-time champion) and Murray (who has never won the Aussie Open but has reached the final on five occasions) are obvious question marks. Kyrgios has already played his fair share of late-night Melbourne classics, but never in the latter rounds.
And with so many top contenders to be seeded lower than usual, we could be in for an especially wild ride Down Under. Fasten your seatbelts.
[polldaddy poll=9885985]
[polldaddy poll=9895204]
Rafa’s mental strength is great. But I don’t think it’s his main weapon. It’s important but if he wasn’t so damn fast and strong he couldn’t bully guys around the court with that forehand. Tennis is a mental game and Rafa has that part down obviously. But I wouldn’t consider it his main weapon/advantage. Just my opinion though.
The main weapon is his consistency in maintaining a good level throughout a match, supported by both his mental and physical strength. It’s the overall package! He can’t do that without mental focus and also physical power, we’ve already seen that – without physical fitness, ie when he’s injured, he couldn’t play his best even when he’s mentally strong (like during 2009 for example); without mental strength he couldn’t play his best either, losing when he’s leading, eg during 2015/2016.
Rafa has the weapons to be an attacking player, and with his physical gifts, he’ll be a good one even without the need to think too much on court. Toni has/had made him into a thinking player, a counterpuncher, and I feel that’s because he knows Rafa, that Rafa relishes the challenge from competition, rather than just using one two punch to win comfortably.
I think I’d mentioned this before in some earlier threads, that in order to sustain Rafa’s interest in the game of tennis, Toni made him think on court, be the counterpuncher rather than the attacker. Ive seen it many times that Rafa could’ve executed some one two punch readily to finish off players, yet he chose to think and played a few more shots before delivering the killer blow. I guess Rafa is always in counterpuncher mode, thinks a few steps ahead, and more often than not, chooses the more difficult approach in his match, the competitor mode comes into play.
Rafa’s two main weapons:
1. Foot-speed/ability to make the opponent hit another ball.
2. Forehand
Joe, aren’t those Fed’s main weapons too, besides his serve?? What separates Rafa from the other top players is, as I said earlier, his ability to maintain his consistent high level of play throughout a match, hence he’s able to ride out the storm, when his opponent couldn’t sustain his even when playing at a higher level than Rafa’s. Murray made that remark about Rafa after playing against him.
Lucky is right – riding out that storm is having mental fortitude and the ability to wait for the opponent to falter (mentally usually) and/or “find solutions” to borrow from Rafa’s own words, a great tactician and adapter whether between matches or during.
Fed’s main weapon is his serve. (Which, incidentally, is probably better than ever with the bigger racquet). Then his forehand. He’s the most talented tennis player ever, so he has an embarrassment of riches in terms of weapons.
However, before 2017 I rate Fed below both Novak and Rafa in terms of mental strength. Compared to his other gifts, his mental fortitude is pretty average. The main test is against Rafa and Novak, since he doesn’t usually need to dig deep to beat lesser players.
In 2017 Fed flipped the script against Rafa. As I’ve said before, I think he overcame a huge mental hurdle at the AO, to the point that he’s now in Nadal’s head a bit. Rafa said a few times that he’s prefer not to play Federer in the final of a tournament, and I think he meant it. Roger, on the other hand, was open in wanting to play Rafa.
“before 2017 I rate Fed below both Novak and Rafa in terms of mental strength. ”
Most ridiculous statement – shows just how little you know about tennis.
Rafa lost his confidence in 2014-16 and has still not fully recovered from pre-2014.
Nole lost his completely after winning 2016 French Open.
Quite the revisionism to fit your preformed conclusions.
Nothing new.
Nah, like I said, Rafa’s biggest weapon is his mental fortitude, without which, FH or foot speed or not, it doesn’t matter.
Rafa is getting that back after his successful 2017 at the slams. He was doing well at Beijing, and Shanghai before knee injury set him back again. If he’s physically back to fitness, I’m sure his mental fortitude would be there to complement that.
Wrong.
It’s mental strength. Same as Federer or Sampras.
Without it, they are just among or slightly above the rest of the pack.
But the other greats will feed on any mental weakness.
#BetweenTheEars
#WhatSeparatesTheBestFromTheRest
No doubt that Rafa generally has incredible mental strength, or did until 2014. Even then, I think there’s some truth to what Al says, with the caveat that it applies a bit to the other top players as well. Specifically:
1. All of the big four enjoy a significant mental edge over the rest (except Stan at slams).
2. They really hate losing to lesser players, and will employ gamesmanship when they’re behind against such players. IMO, they all have a bit of the bully in them.
If there’s a difference between Rafa and the rest, it’s that he’s more vulnerable (based on his track record) of losing at slams to players ranked much lower than him. If he has a mental weakness, I think it shows up in such losses. Especially against weaker but big hitting players, he seems to lose a bit of self belief.
Nah, only on grass after 2011; and during 2015-2016 not unlike Fed after 2012 (where Fed lost in R2 at Wimbledon and R4 at USO2013; lost in R4 at FO2014, R3 at AO2015).
Lucky, I’ve already shown, in detail, that of the big three Rafa has been the most vulnerable to weaker players at slams, throughout his career. It wasn’t just something that happened on grass after 2011.
On the other hand, he has the best record at slams when playing against the big four.
Those are both facts. There’s no reason (and no ground) for trying to dispute the former.
Regarding Federer, yes, he has been vulnerable to losing to weaker players since 2010, the year he turned 29. For the previous six year period, he did not lose at a slam to a player who was not himself a slam champion (counting del Potro in that category).
At 22.5, Fed lost to Horna (who???) in the first round of the FO!!!
No. 2 ranked Federer lost to No. 13 Nalbandian at the USO!!!
He lost to Berdych TWICE at Wimbly. Good thing in 2010. Rafa would have crushed him. Just another example of Rafa waiting on non-clay but Fed not good enough to get there again.
He lost to Stakhovsky in the second round at Wimbledon in 2013.
He lost to Robredo in the 4th round when Rafa was waiting to beat him in the next round in 2013.
He lost to No 18 Gulbis at the FO in 2014 and Seppi at the AO in 2015 3rd round.
So the six years means three during the Weak Era and three when Rafa and Nole consistently beat his ass post Weak Era proving the Weak Era was real.
Correction: when Rafa beat him consistently in slams from 2008-present (7-1) and Nole from 2010-present
Joe Smith hasn’t shown anything.
Federer hasn’t had injuries like Rafa or a 2.5 yr anxiety disorder.
Once Rafa hit his peak in 2008 until his confidence suffered in 2014 and Nole peaked in mid 2010, federer has a horrible slam record vs both of them. Rafa and Nole just beat him consistently.
Fed had no answer and had to wait for someone else to beat them or wait until they weren’t at their best in 2017, a mini weak era if you will.
Joe, you’ve shown nothing, but Ive shown you that Rafa only lost in R4 once, at FO in 2009 when he’s carrying a knee injury and had to skip Wimbledon that year! From 2008 AO to 2014 Wimbledon, Rafa had lost in R4 once (FO2009) besides losing early at Wimbledon from 2012 onwards.
The earliest he lost (other than those mentioned above) was at QF (twice at AO when he had injured himself during the matches, losing to Murray and Ferrer who were top ten players). He lost to Tsonga (AO2008) and Delpo (USO2009) at the SF stages but they’re in the upward trajectory in their career and Tsonga was in top ten soon whilst Delpo won his USO after beating Rafa. It’s unlike Fed at world no.1 losing in R3 to Kuerten at the FO in 2004 when Kuerten was already on the downward slope of his career. I don’t think losing to Kuerten was any better than losing to Tsonga (who reached the final at that AO after beating both Murray and Rafa, only losing to Djoko in the final).
Fed also lost to Sod and Berdych at QF stage at FO and Wimbledon respectively in 2010 but you preferred not to talk about them but just wanted to talk about Rafa losing to non top four guys.
Wooly logic, this sort of comparison of different players against different players at different stages of their careers.
Yes, Al, “wooly logic” sums it up nicely. I’ve precisely defined a concept (“lesser player”) and shown that roughly 70% of Nadal’s slam losses have occurred to such players.
Lucky and Hawkeye say I’ve shown nothing, but they refuse to offer an alternative definition of lesser player (it’s quite obvious they don’t have one). Instead, they make bold but extremely wooly claims based on their obviously biased intuitions about which players are strong and which weak.
Joe Smith biased BS. nothing new and showing nothing as usual.
Feds losses to many low ranked players throughout his career is conveniently ignored by selective lapses in memory.
What a joke.
Maybe Joe Smith can tell us what male player has won the highest percentage of slams entered. Hint: he’s the only player to have won multiple slams on all three surfaces.
Federazzi are hilarious.
I’ll remind you that the whole debate started because of the article you posted that tried to devalue Federer’s slam count by claiming that he enjoyed years of beating “lesser lights.”
I defined the term, and showed that Nadal has never been able to beat lesser lights consistently at slams. There is no reason to think he would have been able to do so had he been prime age from 2004-07, and thus no reason to think that Rafa’s slam count would be any higher had he been of prime playing age during that era.
“ defined the term, and showed that Nadal has never been able to beat lesser lights consistently at slams. ”
No. You didn’t. And this is why you fail. You’re welcome
Fail again. Fail better Joe Smith.
Joe, why had Rafa consistently not being able to beat ‘lesser’ lights at the slams? Other than at Wimbledon from 2012 onwards, when his knee injuries had prevented him from bending low enough on grass, hence he’s losing ongrass, he had beaten many many lesser lights, that’s why he made 23 slams finals out of 50 slams played so far, almost 50% of the time that he played. Other than at Wimbledon from 2012-2017 on grass ( ie 5 times at Wimbledon), Rafa had lost 12 times to players ranked outside top ten. So, he had lost 17 times to non top ten opponents at the slams ( and that included his Wimbledon losses from 2012 onwards). Rafa made 23 finals, winning 16 of them, out of 50 slams played.
Fed from 1999 (FO) onwards to USO2011 had lost 15 slam matches to non top ten players (‘lesser’ lights), ie 15/50 slams played (ie 30%). He won 16 slams playing in 22 finals ( from Wimbledon 2003 to AO2010) and made 23 slam finals from 1999 FO to USO2011( ie 23 out of 50 slams played).
We can see that Rafa isn’t much worse off than Fed where losing to so called ‘lesser’ lights (non top ten players) is concerned; both played 23 slam finals in 50 slams played and both won 16 slams.
In terms of ranking points earned, Fed had 48,020 vs Rafa’s 46,595, in 50 slams played. Not foregetting Rafa started young, barely 17 in 2003 Wimbledon and USO, and he was plagued by injuries throughout his career. Also, three out of four slams were played on non clay surfaces, so Rafa having the results he had at the slams were remarkable to say the least.
I really don’t think Joe is getting it right, when he said Rafa has/had the tendency to lose to ‘lesser’ lights, when Fed is/was also losing to lesser lights many times during his career. In the first place, classifying players according to top ten and non top ten seemed more viable, than Joe’s arbitrary ‘slam winners’ criterion when the said ‘slam winners’ might be already in the decline and were out of top ten!
Lucky gets it.
Joe Smith MO:
– generalize
– strawman arguments
– ignore context
– claim h2h doesn’t matter then claim it does but only for 2017
– believe a bigger racquet is the main.difference for a 37 yr old to almost finish No. 1
– rinse
– repeat
Hawktard, I don’t mean to be unkind but you are a Moron.
Stop posting trash, if you disagree with Joe that’s OK but stop being an idiot in your disagreement.
I know Christmas is kinda over but Merry Christmas my friend and Sweet new year, have a blessed day.
Luckystar, sometimes I disagree with your comments and views but most times I don’t post my disagreements but I have to say you love tennis and in a way you are really good, I thought I should let you know.
I like your passion even though I disagree with some of your views.
I wish you the very best, take care.
Happy New Year!
Lucky: First, let me thank you for trying to engage in a serious conversation without insults.
Second, let’s see if we can make progress by finding out where we agree. I defined the term “lesser lights,” and showed that according to that definition, about 70% of Nadal’s slam losses have come to such players.
Simply yes/no question: Do you agree that I’ve shown this?
Please note that by saying “yes,” you do not show that you believe the definition is interesting. No doubt you have something else in mind when you think of a “lesser” player.
Also note that it is not in question that Nadal has beaten far more “lesser lights” (however defined) than he has lost to. If that were not true, he would not be one of the all time greats. Nevertheless, *when* Nadal has lost at slams, it has most often been to a player who has not previously won a slam himself (my definition of “lesser lights”).
If we could, for now I’d like to leave Federer’s record aside. I agree that he has lost many times to lesser lights since 2011, and (of course) many times before he himself became a slam champion in 2003.
You can’t on one hand dismiss Delpo’s defeat of Federer as a lesser than because he later won a slam. It was up to federer to stop him while he was a lesser light by your own definition.
If you don’t include Delpo as a lesser light loss (LLL), then you can’t include any loss to a player who is still active because they might win a slam at some point.
That would be biased and inconsistent.
Oh wait…
#Reusable
#NothingNew
#MeetTheNewJoeSameAsTheOldJoe
Nope, Joe, I thought I’ve already said my piece? Your definition of ‘lesser’ lights is at best ambiguous whilst mine is definitely straightforward and nothing to dispute about – ie either you’re non top ten player or you’re a top ten player.
In any era, a top ten player is someone who has played well to be one of the ten best players in the world at that point of time. Who cares whether he has won a slam, say ten years ago, or not? A former slam winner may not play well enough to be top ten, when he’s over the hill, so anyone beaten by this over the hill former slam winner doesn’t make that person any better than someone beaten by a current top ten player, simple as that!
Lucky’s definition is far more objective but doesn’t lend itself to being bent and twisted subjectively to fit preformed conclusions,
Joe can’t GO for that – ohh waah – no can do!
Lucky gets it. (Joe Smith doesn’t want to.)
Take the red pill Joe Smith. The truth shall set you free.
Lucky, I have no problem with using your definition. It’s no less arbitrary than mine (e.g. why is the #11 player a lesser light but not the #10 player?), but never mind. Let’s use it for now.
The main problem with your definition, in the context in which the whole question of “lesser lights” arose, is that it can’t make sense of Sackman’s original quote, which sums up the “weak era’ hypothesis:
“…Mr Federer padded his statistics in the weak era of 2003-07, before Mr Djokovic and Mr Murray reached their primes, and when a young Mr Nadal was primarily a threat on clay courts. The Swiss maestro enjoyed years swatting away lesser lights, whereas Mr Nadal has spent much of his career doing battle with Mr Djokovic and Mr Murray.”
Whatever else Sackman and other “weak era” proponents believe, it’s certainly not that Federer enjoyed the years 2004-07 beating players outside the top 10. Which is good for them, because of course Fed beat plenty of top 10 players during that era, including many in slam finals. So your definition can’t make sense of their claim.
A further problems is this. If Nadal was losing in slams to good top 10 players like Tsonga, Soderling, Murray (before he won a slam), and Ferrer, then why think his results wouldn’t have been the same had he faced top 10 players during 2004-07? Again, we need a reason for thinking that the players during that era were systematically weaker than they were, say 5-6 years later.
Joe, why are you throwing that question at me?? Why don’t you ask the writer of that article??
And, if you’re no.11, then you’re simply not one of the ten best players in the world, simple as that! What’s so ambiguous about that? It’s unlike a former slam winner who’s now ranked say in the 50s for example, who’s obviously not playing well to earn a top ten ranking and so he’s less formidable than a top ten player.
It has been explained a thousand times already! Rafa was injured when he lost to Sod, Murray (AO) and Ferrer! Why can’t you just accept that? It’s only his loss to Tsonga at AO2008 that’s not injury related but that’s at the start of his rise to his peak later on. So, when he’s not injured, he wasn’t losing to non top ten players from FO2008 to FO2012. If he wasn’t injured during those mentioned matches, it’s highly likely that he would win them, perhaps with the exception of that AO match vs Murray in 2010.
As mentioned a thousand times already, from 2012 onwards he wasn’t doing well on grass because of his knee issues, so he was losing to any Tom, Dick or Harry on grass, while he was winning or at least reached the finals at the other three slams! Quoting the results here one more time:
2012 AO – finalist; FO – Winner; USO – DNP
2013 AO – DNP; FO – Winner; USO – Winner.
2014 AO – finalist; FO – Winner; USO – DNP.
So, it’s only on grass that he was vulnerable from 2012 onwards; some of his losses at the other slams were injury related, whilst he lost mostly to top ten players during his peak years.
We also can’t assume that Rafa would surely get his injuries at AO/FO etc the same way he did in 2009-2011, if he’s playing in 2004-2007; moreover there’s no Djoko there to ‘damage’ his knees at Madrid SF one year and at AO in another, so Rafa might not even lose early at Wimbledon when having a good pair of knees (like during his 2006-2011).
Lucky gets it (except for feeding the troll Joe Smith who systematically ignores context and uses strawman arguments to support his preformed conclusions).
Joe Smith just can’t let go of the well laid out Sackmann piece.
I’m beginning to question mental strength as a standalone factor in sportspeople.Theres a connection with talent,fitness,and everything else that affects them.Please explain Nadals 2014-16 and his miraculous recovery ?
Look it up yourself.
Look at Fed as well, btw.
Such hypocrisy willing to overlook a 37 yr old playing at least as well as he did in 2005.
Better living through chemistry.
#TennisHasAPeRFectDopingProblem
So you’re now accusing Federer of doping?
Just being the federazzi reflecting pool. It’s for their own good.
“Please explain Nadals 2014-16 and his miraculous recovery ?”
#RememberRoselyneBachelot
Are you incapable of answering a direct question?
it wasn’t a direct question. It was innuendo.
Are you capable of having anything new to say that isn’t a preformed conclusion or a straw man argument Joe smith?
Yeah,Fed hardly ever got injured,Nadal has been a lot.Sign of the big difference in their games,physically.
And it’s bound to affect a players confidence,esp retrievers/counterpunchers.
So you see how tough Rafa is, that he keeps coming back from injuries and doing well enough to keep winning. Sometimes I can’t help but blame Toni for turning Rafa into a counterpuncher, when Rafa has the making of a great attacking player (not difficult to see that during his younger days with the way he hit his FH and his willingness to move to the net to attack). He might then cut down on risk of injuries though his congenital foot issue would always be a problem for him.
I saw him first time RG 2005,and for the next few years wondered why he couldn’t play more aggressively with all his power.
People used to say his best weapons were his legs,and he would burn out physically ,if he didn’t change his style.
Because he learned to play on clay.
He then learned he needed to be more aggressive to win on grass. Which he did.
You are sleeping “Big” Al. You don’t want to believe. You are sleeping.
Just swallow the blue pill. You’re happier that way.
How wrong they are, when Rafa at 31 is still going strong and is no.1 in the world.
Same people said the same about Federer in 2013. Thought he was washed up. I even heard it as early as 2008 from fed fans looking for excuses after Rafa beat Fed at Wimpy in 2008.
They don’t understand what champions are made of and underestimate what they are capable of.
And that shows Rafa’s greatness, that he keeps coming back from injuries during his career but never gave up! Which counterpuncher could last that long and win so much esp at the slams?
He has the best W/L rate at the slams among the current players; his detractors would always talk about him winning mainly at the FO but 1) what’s wrong with winning at the FO, when Borg also won a lot of FOs and nobody criticized him for that, and Rafa had won 6 other slams (HC+grass) vs Borg’s remaining all five on grass? 2) he had won multiple slams on each surface when other current players couldn’t; 3) with 6 non clay slams, he’s same as Becker and Edberg off clay, one better than Lendl and two better than Wilander off clay!
Yup, highest percentage of slams won in slams entered and ONLY male player in tennis with multiple slams on all three surfaces.
#RafaGOAT
All sportspeople have these confidence issues often but not always linked to injury.Tiger Woods.
Do note that Rafa lost quite a few matches when he’s leading but just couldn’t sustain that and allowed his opponents back into the match and then lost them in the end. He said it himself, he was anxious when he’s reaching the finishing line, to me that’s a sign of lacking in confidence.
Toni said Rafa had doubts (about his body) after coming back from multiple injuries (in 2014) and that had led to Rafa getting tense when he’s about to win and so he made mistakes and his opponents took advantage.
It took him about a year and a half to rebuild his confidence but he’s unfortunate to have that left wrist injury during clay season of 2016. He was playing very well to win at MC and Barcelona in 2016. It’s not surprising that he didn’t finish well in 2016 as he came back prematurely in order to play at the Olympics.
The rest from Oct 2016 onwards did help him, at least he reached the final again at the AO, continuing the trend of reaching finals at the AO (in 2012, 2014, and now in 2017; not difficult to see why he didn’t in 2015/2016). Rafa is 31, not unlike Fed in 2012, so whatever Fed could do in 2012, Rafa can too, in 2017, again not surprising.
Federer wasn’t born with a foot defect.
“Big” Al preformed narrative causing false conclusions again.
(But I love that he can’t answer what male players in modern era have won multiple slams on all three surfaces. Or who of top 10 slam winners has won highest percentage of slams entered.
#NoAnswerIsPeRFect
Anxiety exacerbated with change in time violation rule by design by Federer and ATP lackies to address the threat that Rafa posed. It worked for a while but Rafa persisted and Rafa is now the greatest player of all time for anyone who can look beyond slam count. Like great players both past and present.
Fed’s 2017 was more miraculous for a 35/36 year old, don’t you think? Try explaining that, after his 2016, and he going five setters at AO winning all of them.
Someone should tell Roselyn Bachelot that maybe she was looking in the wrong direction.
What sites are good to bet for AO2018? I am in USA
Bet365.
Nobody could have expected Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer to finish No. 1 and No. 2 in the rankings,……………?
I certainly expected an injury free Nadal to finish the year as #1.
“At the other end of the spectrum, no one could have anticipated the brutal injury luck suffered by other top players–namely Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, Stan Wawrinka, Kei Nishikori, and Milos Raonic. All five of those men easily played their way into the 2016 World Tour Finals; not one of them appeared at the O2 Arena this time around.”
*******************************************
Brutal injury luck suffered by Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, Stan Wawrinka, Kei Nishikori, and Milos Raonic?
Since 2012, Rafa has hardly played a full season with injury and no one ever mentions that, they just went on about how his best days were behind him.
I have noticed you don’t monetize your site, don’t waste your traffic,
you can earn additional cash every month because you’ve got hi quality content.
If you want to know how to make extra bucks, search for: Boorfe’s tips best adsense
alternative
I Dont personally buy into all things GOAT, i much prefer greats instead, as much as im a Nadal fan, i dont think he can be regarded as GOAT anyway as he doesnt have a WTF title, as its regarded as the next best thing to a GS, in a players resume, however i do think hes more than a 1 dimensional clay court player, posters seem to side step the fact, and dont seem to notice that he is actually the only player on tour with multiple GS on all 3 surfaces, hmmm wonder why that is ?
H’mmm, could that be because Rafa is nearly impossible to beat on clay over 5 sets?
This.
Though in my opinion it would have been different had Federer played with a larger racquet in 2007.
Maybe Fed should go with even a BIGGER racquet next year.
(If he doesn’t, 12 months from now, Joe Smith will say Fed could have won the calendar grand slam in 2018.)
Well said, Alison. Certainly Rafa deserves credit for his unique status as the only multiple slam winner on three surfaces.
However, as Ramara points out, that fact probably says more about Nadal’s prowess on clay than anything else.
And yes, the lack of a WTF title is a significant gap in his resume.
“probably says more about Nadal’s prowess on clay than anything else.”
Actually, it says more about your preformed conclusions and selective bias than anything else.
It says that Rafa is a great on ALL surfaces with FIVE consecutive Wimbly finals he entered. Rafa has beaten Federer on ALL three slam surfaces spread throughout his career.
Federer has only beaten Rafa on grass and hardcourt slams. And, after Rafa turned 22, Federer has only beaten Rafa ONCE at a slam in five sets (this year).
Don’t blame Rafa for Fed’s losses in Paris while Fed at ages 22-34 was busy losing to Horna, Kuerten Gulbis, Soderling, and Wawrinka.
And he can play with the BIGGEST racquet of all time but it won’t help in Paris if he’s afraid to even play there.
He’s had plenty of opportunity to win more than one French but he wasn’t good enough.
Hawkeye, 👍
HC slams: Fed 10; Rafa 4
Wimby: Fed 8, Rafa 2
WTF: Fed 6; Rafa 0
HC Masters 1000s: Fed 24; Rafa 8
There is literally no comparison off clay, which is doubtless why Rafa fans bring up his memorable victories against Fed ad nauseum.
Once again: tennis is about winning major tournaments, not individual victories. Nadal gets it; you seem to have a hard time learning it.
Joe Smith. Strawman GOAT.
Fed slams on clay – 1.
Losing record vs TWO of his main rivals.
YOU brought up Raferer h2h regarding feds lone French win and then blame it on others.
YOU claim Rafa is average among the greats on other surfaces and use Raferer h2h to justify it.
Freudian slips are federazzi Achilles heel when claiming to be objective saying h2h doesn’t matter in one post and then using h2h in 2017 to claim Fed had the better year.
Sad and hilarious at the same time LOL.
Joe Smith. Consistently inconsistent. Like any extreme fedfan.
What about:
Clay slam; Fed 1 Rafa 10
Clay Masters: Fed 6 Rafa 22
Btw Fed has 21 HC Masters, not 24. Djoko has 22 HC Masters, one more than Fed.
Rafa with 6 non clay slams, ranked in top ten among the greats whilst Fed with one FO won’t be inside the top ten among the greats on clay.
Does Federer really have 6 masters titles on clay? If so, my mistake, Lucky. I didn’t do a careful count, and obviously I was well off.
I’ve posted the Rafa clay numbers before. They are indeed impressive, indeed, astonishing. Not unrelated, I’ll post more in the new year on why Federer is easily in the top 10 open era players on clay, but I’ll do it on the Fed page.
In the meantime, happy holidays to all!
Its been said that Federer was in the top three of all time best players on clay, that’s how good he is.
Said by who?? Fed fans?? Only Fed fans are capable of such talk!! Fed is not even top ten on clay!
Debatable. Depends whether you’re talking about actual titles won, or how good he actually was, since he had the clay GOAT as a rival.
I forgot: only in the Weak Era did Fed really get to any clay court finals. (apart from 2009 winner, 2011 beat in-form Djokovic)
To be fair,that comment was a few years ago,before Djokovic and now Murray got really good on clay.
Big Al, you’re full of nonsense! You want to say Fed is better than Lendl, Wilander, Borg, Nastase, Connors and even Djoko on clay?????
Yeah, Fed did win 3 of his clay Masters during the weak era – Hamburg 2002, 2004 and even 2005 (when Rafa didn’t play at Hamburg), if that pleases you!
I heard a tennis commentator say it,that’s all. Quite possibly he is better than most of those players.Wilander,Lendl?
You’re full of confidence about things that can only be speculated.
Let me fill in for you. Fed only won 2009 Madrid because Nadal was injured from his semi ?
Big Al, you’re so full of yourself as usual! You filling in things for me? Who give you the permission to do so??
I don’t know.You sound pretty definite he wasn’t as good. Go back and watch matches from that era eg Borg Lendl 1981 .Different game.
Big Al, I’m confident those I mentioned were better than Fed on clay, because they played a lot on clay and won many tournaments on clay; even Connors played so much on clay and won a USO on clay!
They had each other to deal with – Lendl with Wilander, Borg with Vilas for eg – and all of them won many events on clay, big and small events. They didn’t have Fed’s luxury of seeded in top two with Rafa most of the time hence Fed was able to avoid Rafa until the finals. Even when Djoko was seeded no.3, he had always ended up in Rafa’s half of the draw at the FO, and many of the clay Masters events. So, Rafa effectively had to beat Djoko and Fed B2B at the FO from 2006 (Djoko wasn’t no.3 yet) to 2008; and was supposed to meet them in SF and F in 2010 but both of them failed to meet Rafa at the FO that year.
It was when Djoko became no.1 in 2011, that he and Fed were in the same half at the FO more often – 2011/2012 and 2014, but Fed after 2012 wasn’t able to go far at the FO anymore hence he wasn’t meeting Djoko (and Rafa).
‘I’m confident those players were better than Fed on clay ,(possibly) even Connors ‘
At least we’ve been having a relatively polite discussion , but sorry,that’s nonsense. Fed reached four RG finals in a row, lost only to Nadal, then beat in-form Djokovic on 2011 to reach the final yet again.
2009 he deserved his win, what about the classic 5 -setter against Del Potro ?
What about the classic 5-setter in Rome, 2006 , where he has two match points against Nadal?
No disrespect to those great Seventies /Eighties players, but they never had to play Nadal, did they?
The only player who deserves to be put above Fed on clay IMO from that group is Borg ,who was unbeaten at RG.
I don’t know where you get this idea that people played more on a surface than others from ? Some were brought up on a particular surface, but it wasn’t automatically their most successful one. Grass, for example.No-one plays much on that, because the season is so short.
Just have to respond again to your incredibly subjective nonsense, discrediting Federer!
Quote :
‘They didn’t have Feds luxury in being seeded two and avoiding Rafa until the final. ‘
Attempted comparison between Seventies/Eighties players with Fed/Nadal.
I just have to respond to efew on his/her nonsense:
Can you dispute the fact that Fed and Rafa were seeded top two from 2006-2010, and so they avoided each other until the finals, on any surfaces, including clay? The time they met in the SF, Fed lost to Rafa, on clay – FO2005 SF, Madrid 2011 SF. Had they not been seeded one and two, chances of them meeting before the finals increased and chances of Fed not reaching the finals on clay also increased. I thought that’s simple logic?
The 70s/80s players were more specialists, and so their rankings didn’t reflect their prowess on their respective favorite surfaces; and so the clay specialists might meet each other in the earlier rounds on clay, due to their rankings ( unless the non clay specialists chose to skip clay totally). It’s someone like Lendl, who’s no.1 for a long time and was great on HCs and clay that it didn’t matter to him playing on any surface (though he failed to win at Wimbledon).
Nope Big Al, they did play more on clay (and carpet and grass) during the 80s/90s and that’s precisely why they were better than Fed on clay! As I’ve mentioned, they had tough opponents to deal with too, it’s not like one was more dominant than the other fellow rival.
You talked as if we have to transport Fed back to 80s/90s to play them! In fact, that won’t be the case! Rafa OTOH, didn’t play as much on clay each year as those in the 80s/90s, yet he won the most clay titles, more than anyone else! He’s way ahead of the rest of the current field, hence he’s able to win so many titles and dominated on clay for more than a decade.
And Big Al, how do you know Lendl or Wilander or Connors would fare worse than Fed when playing against Rafa? They didn’t play him did they?
By that same logic,how do you know Rafa would have beaten Connors etc on clay?
I only mentioned it because I heard it discussed on TV and Fed is one of the few to win sets against Rafa.
By same logic, Rafa was seeded one or two and didn’t have to meet the other dirtballers until later rounds.He played less on clay , but how do you know he was better than those 80s/90s players who had it so tough? You’re willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but not Fed, who would have won a lot of clay titles if it wasn’t for Rafa.
Another point was , Federer was far more interesting to watch than many of those guys who were mostly baseline grinders.He played attacking tennis on clay, not many could.For that reason alone he could be said to be better.
Big Al, Rafa was a 20 year old back then in 2006 and Fed was playing his best tennis that year. The match vs Delpo in FO2009, not exactly a classic as Delpo ran out of steam when the match went the distance. Fed deserved his FO title that year as there’s no Rafa or Djoko (who beat him at Rome that year) to stop him, and he struggled all the way to the final and had an easier opponent in the final than having his usual nemesis in the final.
Fed did beat an in form Djoko at FO2011, credit to him, but Djoko wasn’t Rafa; and Djoko duly beat Fed the following year, twice on clay, at Rome and the FO, relatively easily in straight sets.
Actually Rafa was still just 19, another little deet fedfans love to leave out.
Context is not their forte.
Also FU says “and Fed is one of the few to win sets against Rafa.”
Joe Efew should look up the word “few”.
Big Al, not too difficult to know:
1) Rafa is way ahead of his rivals on clay; Connors had to fight tooth and nail to beat his. If you can assume that Fed is top three on clay, how do you rate Rafa then?
2) if Connors and Co couldn’t handle Borg’s topspin FH, how could they handle Rafa’s? Even though lefties like Connors and Vilas would be hitting FH to Rafa’s lefty FH, but their FH won’t be as lethal as Rafa’s on clay.
At the end of the day, it’s still Borg vs Rafa on clay, for the top spot.
Big Al, you really ran out of ideas huh?
What’s Rafa’s winning % on clay? Whether he met the dirt ballers in early rounds or in later rounds, the results were the same, ie he beat all of them, so it didn’t matter to him when he met them. And, it didn’t matter when he met Fed on clay, as he’s beating Fed all the time, except once or twice! But it did matter to Fed when he met Rafa on clay, as he might not reach any final on clay had they met earlier than in the final!
How I know Rafa would and could handle Connors and Co? Please refer to my post of Dec 28 at 6.31PM!
Whether Fed is more interesting or exciting to watch or not is totally subjective, one man’s meat is another man’s poison, you’re talking to the wrong person, about how interesting Fed is, blah blah blah!
Welk,not running out of ideas as you put it. I never delved this deeply into the could’ve ,shouldves and tenuous comparisons like how much relative adapting players do between clay to grass.
But it’s been a good excercise for the off season,thank you .I still prefer Federer,even though Borg and Agassi are my all time favourites.
I found an article on bleacher report about Feds clay legacy,some good points .
That quote about Fed being top 5 on clay was actually by Wilander IIRC,but some time ago.
I do agree about Borg,I wouldn’t put Federer above him because of his clay- Grass achievement.
But,end of the day,Fed still has three more Slams than anyone else .
Ok Big Al, I’ve said enough. No more from me on this topic. The new year is round the corner, so let’s just look forward to the new tennis season, hopefully it’s exciting and interesting. Peace. Enjoy your holidays!
Err…for now i don’t think i care much about GOAT or COW or CHICKEN…what i care & worried sick is Rafa still not recover from his knee injury..To think back,this is what we feared when he chose to play at WTF last month & risk his health even more…Now..the main question,can he recover & have enough match play under his belt before AO?
He already pulled out of the Abu Dhabi exhibition,being replaced by Bautista Agut,who shared that on his social media account.
Right now,I want Rafa to rest as much as possible,really hope he doesn’t go to Brisbane.
He’s been so close of winning the AO for a second time,it would be so sad if he couldn’t be there to fight for it.
However,I fear that playing the AO without being fully recovered can ruin his 2018 season,aggravating his knee injury. Hope he decides for the best.
Get well soon Champion!
I’m sick of all this GOAT talk,as well.
How about the GLOAT, Greatest Loser of all time?
Playing Laver Cup followed by Beijing and Shanghai was a big mistake, and that’s the problem with Rafa, always pushing his body to the limit when he’s fit and healthy until it breaks down again. He will never learn his lessons!
At least he should have ended his season right after Shanghai final,where the knee started to bother him more and was clearly hampering his movement,causing a lot of pain to him.
At this stage of his career,he has to be extremely careful when scheduling,but he keeps making it as he’s on his twenties.
For sure he had a good chance of winning another indoor title,at least at Paris,and given the form of the current field at the time,he also would have a legitimate shot at London. The thing is that right now,he has to think/schedule in order to be healthy in the long term. He should look up at Fed,that’s wise scheduling.
P.S. – I’m praying for Rafa to rest as much his knee until the AO,the media pointed that he’s still committed to play in Brisbane,can’t believe it!
He’s playing Paris because he wanted to secure his YE no.1 ranking. He’s playing at WTF because he didn’t want to lose out on his bonus, after playing a full season, why must he miss the WTF and got zero bonus instead of his $3.16 million?? He just needed to play one match or simply did PR work at the WTF but knowing Rafa, he would want to try playing.
All Rafa needed to do was to skip Beijing and played Shanghai (if he didn’t want to miss the Asian swing), and then played either Basel or Paris followed by WTF. He playing two consecutive weeks during the Asian swing was too much for him with just one week’s break after the Laver Cup.
Fed was surprised that Rafa played at Beijing, so soon after the Laver Cup. Rafa perhaps should just play the events that Fed played plus the Paris Masters, so that he could have some rest after the LC. All these are just thoughts on hindsight.
Rafa is just stubborn as a bull; when asked whether he would cut down on events played like Fed did, he said he’s 31 not 36, so he would do things his way, not following Fed’s way of doing things.
Agreed,it’s a shame he’s not scheduling wisely and keep making the same mistakes,overplaying unnecessarily!
He could also play only 2 Master events on clay before RG.
Yes,he should skip Rome in order to be fully rested/healthy heading to RG,especially if he gets to the finals of the prior events.
Right now,skipping both Indian Wells and Miami doesn’t seem like a complete nonsense for me.
luckystar says AT 12:13 PM: “All Rafa needed to do was to skip Beijing…”
===
I’m happy that Rafa played in Beijing and won the title. It was his second HC title in a row after Fedfans had written (on different websites) 24/7 that Rafa hadn’t won a HC title since the beginning of 2014.
It was such a relief that he took yet another anti-Rafa-weapon away from Fedfans by winning the HC titles! 👍
luckystar says AT 12:13 PM: “Fed was surprised that Rafa played at Beijing…”
“..when asked whether he would cut down on events played like Fed did, he said he’s 31 not 36, so he would do things his way, not following Fed’s way of doing things.”
===
I don’t think it’s Fed’s business what Rafa is doing or not doing. I’m glad Rafa says that the much older guy is not a role model for him.
Augusta, you missed the point. Rafa could play his 18 events by skipping Beijing and played at Basel, that way he would still play 18 events but had more rest after LC. It’s a matter of arranging his schedule to accommodate the LC and at the same time, doing minimal harm to his body.
luckystar AT 4:23 AM,
Rafa played 17 tournaments (plus the Finals).
I don’t think that playing Basel and Paris Masters back-to-back would have been better for his body than playing Beijing & Shanghai.
Laver Cup isn’t a serious event, it’s played for fun.
Augusta: ‘I don’t think it’s Fed’s business what Rafa is doing or not doing. I’m glad Rafa says that the much older guy is not a role model for him’.
So…according to you how should have Roger answered to that question in front of the journalists? Say it’s not his business? Or maybe say he doesn’t care what Rafa is doing? That would be rude. They are both humble and socially intelligent. They can’t afford to be ‘super honest’ every time. At times being diplomatic is just…safe.
Anyway, your comment doesn’t surprise me.
Actually the so called ‘journalists’ are being silly sometimes by asking players uncomfortable and awkward questions about each other, so any answer one gives, can be twisted, misinterpreted and taken out of contest by so called ‘fans’ only to justify their insecurities and childhood frustrations, instead of acknowledging them and doing something about that consciously and sanely.
No Augusta, playing Beijing and Shanghai B2B after only one week rest from playing LC was the cause for his knee issue; don’t forget he injured his knee during Shanghai, not Paris. Had he rested for four weeks after LC, things might be better for him, and I do think it certainly would be better for him. When he’s well rested, he would be fine playing B2B events at Basel and Paris. I doubt his draw at Basel would be as tough as Beijing, likewise Paris compared to Shanghai!
He played two singles and two doubles at LC, two weeks after playing a slam (USO), LC certainly not an exho as each player took the LC seriously. It’s just poor scheduling by Rafa, whichever way you want to put it!
luckystar AT 2:42 PM,
If he had played in Basel instead of Beijing, his knee would have given up before the Paris Maters or during it.
(I must say that Fedfans & some Rafa own fans have always bashed Rafa for “bad schedulig”, no matter what Rafa has been doing.)
luckystar AT 2:42 PM,
According to the Spanish media, Basel is not in Rafa’s 2018 schedule:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DR7V7pVW0AAhW4a.jpg
Nope, it’s not bashing Rafa, but being realistic and reasonable. I doubt Rafa would injure his knee after four weeks of rest, vs one week. Not too difficult to understand that! Also, Rafa is no saint so he can make mistakes, and we call it as we see it, rather than pretending that Rafa can do no wrong.
luckystar AT 4:41 PM,
There was one week between Shanghai & Basel.
Lucky!….Once again i agree with everything u said…And yeah Rafa is only a normal human being…he has weakness & flaws of his own…he make mistakes all the time..like we did..and i think what make us different from other Rafans is that,we see Rafa like it should be..a human being..rather than a Saint or God like some sees him…
I think he may miss the AO again! What poor schedule planning by him, again and again throughout his career.
Yup, he’d have 25 slams by now if only he listened to you.
Lucky!…I very much agree with u!…And you’re absolutely right about his scheduling…I am so pi$%^& now!…he once said that he will pick his schedule wisely this year..and he will think his body more than anything…Urgh!!…I should kick his a@#!…And you’re absolutely right again about not playing a single d@#$ match in Asian Swing…He should just play Basel,Paris & WTF[if he needs to..i don’t care much of the title’s here if he’s not fit]…But,yeah…you’re right again…he’s sooo stubborn & will never learn his lessons!…Urgh!!..My heart’s hurt!
luckystar says AT 1:05 AM:
“What poor schedule planning by him, again and again throughout his career.”
===
Rafa didn’t play more tournaments than it’s normal for an ATP commitment player (according to the ATP Rulebook). The ATP rankings is based on calculating, for a player, his total points from 18 tournaments plus the Finals. Rafa played 17 tournaments plus the Finals.
I’m aware that the ATP rules allow him to skip Masters 1000. But he needs to pay attention to the rankings, too.
Sad news. I hope it wont take away from the achievement of winning this tournament, whoever does that. Don’t need to remind you of the three fives setters he was involved in last year.
I just hope Murray and Djokovic are back to form.
Dimi and Delpo will have good chances of winning the AO imo. Dimi is starting to reach his peak and he’s physically fit to go the distance if necessary. Delpo is getting back to his good level of play of 2012/2013 at least. The quick AO surface will favor Delpo’s style of play better than the slower AO surfaces in the past.
Delpo has a good chance, if he’s up to winning 7 BOF matches.No reason to think he wont be. Another player Federer(and everyone else) struggles against because of his huge power.
If I was a better though, Id put money on Dimitrov.
‘huge forehand’
If R. Federer had the option to become number 1, win 2 GS and lose to Rafa 4 times this year(2017) or end the season ranked number 2, win 2 GS as well as other sweet goodies and defeat R. Nadal 4 times this year(2017) in a crushing manner, it was just disgraceful excluding Australian Open.
I know Roger Federer is satisfied with the latter and I know that R. Nadal would have wanted the season to end differently even though number 1 is tempting.
What do you guy’s think?
Am I wrong?
Merry Christmas!
Hopman cup will soon start it’s always interesting.
Who do you think will win it?
Don’t be shy.
Let’s have fun guy’s.
http://www.tennisexplorer.com/hopman-cup/2018/atp-men/
http://www.tennisexplorer.com/hopman-cup/2018/wta-women/
Suck on Trump coal (if you can find any). It’s mostly figurative.
Happy Krampus.
Hawktard, my one and only Moron, I love U man I really do and I hope one day you will see it despite my honest/sincere criticism.
It’s not Krampus day, it’s Christmas.
You know why we say Merry Christmas at this time of year? Because it’s the CHRISTMAS season.
It’s not the holiday season. It’s not the winter season. It’s the Christmas season.
Christmas is about Christ Jesus, God’s Gift to the world.
Have U received that gift?
I hope you do, because it has eternal consequences.
Merry Christmas my man, my one and only F😂.
Racist supremacist homophobe misogynist stanley.
Not what Jesus would do.
Oh that reminds me. Hypocrite stanley.
Not what I would do.
Just because I believe and know homosexuality is a sin, ungoldly, unnatural etc doesn’t mean I hate the homosexual.
God loves the sinner but hates the sin that destroys their soul.
I love you but I hate your deception, your foolish words, your demonic/wicked views etc.
Oh that reminds me, Merry Christmas my friend😂 and I sincerely wish you a Happy New Year.
Believing it to be a sin makes you a homophobe, light stanley.
Stanley, you’re not wrong. Everyone knows that beating Nadal is the ultimate goal in tennis and for his pigeon, Federer, to manage it 4 times, is a great feat. I am sure Federer would have signed up for that above anything else.
I never get to watch these tournaments .Would love to see Abu Dahbi.Dont see it on Eurosport or Sky.
Most times the full match/ highlights are available on YouTube, you just have to download it/watch it(the full match) fast because sometimes those channels are blocked.
Merry Christmas.
Thanks.
U R welcome Big Al.
Merry Christmas!
It starts on Eurosport 2 HD (411) AT 1.00 pm tomorrow. It’s called World Championships.
So I see,thanks . They’re also showing matches from last years Aussie Open,inc.Nadal-Dimitrov.And the Hopman cup live. Plenty to watch there!
I hope you all enjoy this song-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jofQNawqhho
You will enjoy this song, love you all.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL_-YUzH95wBcmaj3qMuOoTVeC9OKdha8h¶ms=OAFIAVgG&v=hKgBtZru4HA&mode=NORMAL
Rafa has started training again. https://www.instagram.com/p/BdLTbiRhvKG/?taken-by=bylorenarr
Ideally he should have called off the season after Shanghai.
Rafa has pulled out from Brisbane…Yep!…that’s what i feared when he chose to play Paris & WTF…Urgh!!Can’t believe it’s happening!!..And i bet he’s going to pull out from AO too..
We have to believe Mira. In fact he looked very confident and said he will be heading to Melbourne by the 4th January. We’ll see how his knee recovery progresses,it seems like is going on the right way,even because Rafa returned to practice again,which is very good news.
I know Gaviria…and i always believe in him….but,i can’t shake the regret that Rafa very much misjudged the conditions of his knees and very very stubborn to accept advise from the persons that very close to him…
Dr Angel himself very reluctant to let Rafa play in London…And if i remember correctly,just after he made a comeback this year..he said he will think about his health more from now on than anything else…but…
About AO…i’d rather he pull out than play Gaviria…it’s not good to his body to just go & play in the BO5 at slam without play in any warm up tourney..unless he will consider AO is another very high intensity practice session for him…That’ll do..Btw…like u said Gavi..let’s see…
You’re right,he should have called a quit to his season after Shanghai as we know. He really has to start being more careful with his body,otherwise he can aggravate his injuries if he keeps overplaying and that can lead to an ending of his career, which would be a shame,he still has so much to give.
No tournament is about one player, but theres a eal sense of anti-climax if Nadals not at the AO.
Ef-Eu?
Hmmm…
Joe efew ,alias yours truly
I’m as puzzled as you are…