Rafael Nadal has not lost more than four games in any set through four matches at the French Open. He has dropped only 20 total games in those 12 sets. Doing some simple math, that means opponents are taking a mere 1.67 games per set off Nadal so far.
So should we just wave the white flag? Call it a day–or a fortnight–in Paris? Get to the grass?
According to Nick Kyrgios, for one, it may have been time to do that before this tournament even started.
“Nadal, I don’t think he’s worried at all about anyone in this tournament, to be fair,” Kyrgios quipped in his opening press conference. “Best of five–it suits him. He knows he’s not gonna lose. Let’s be realistic.”
Realistically, none of his first four opponents had any chance. Nadal entered this event with a 72-2 lifetime record at Roland Garros and nine titles. Only two men have defeated him. One (Novak Djokovic) is the defending champion and 12-time Grand Slam winner. The other (Robin Soderling) went on to finish runner-up in 2009 and did the same in 2010…to Nadal. As those results indicate, it is going to take a herculean effort by one of the best players in the world in order to down Nadal.
“I don’t think it was mission impossible, but it [was] very tough,” Roberto Bautista Agut said after getting blasted by Nadal 6-1, 6-2, 6-2 during fourth-round action on Sunday afternoon. “I think in the first set I was playing good tennis, but as you saw I lost 6-1.”
That’s right; Bautista Agut played well and still lost 6-1. And 6-2 after that. And another 6-2 after that.
“I am healthy and I am playing well,” Nadal said after firing 31 winners past his fellow Spaniard and breaking serve seven times. “That’s the only important thing for me. (I’m) very happy about the first week of competition, obviously.”
He sure should be. The world No. 4 has spent a grand total of seven hours and one minute on court in four matches. More simple math shows that opponents are keeping him at his office–or more like on his stomping grounds–for just over one hour 45 minutes per contest. By Nadal standards, that is faster than Jimmy John’s delivers subs.
Will anything change toward the business end of the tournament? Djokovic is still alive and could meet Nadal in the semis. Dominic Thiem is another potential semifinal foe. World No. 1 Andy Murray has raised his level to book a spot in the top-half quarterfinals, as has 2015 champion Stan Wawrinka. The remaining competition–which begins with first-time major quarterfinalist Pablo Carreno Busta on Tuesday–could be tough.
But tough enough to have a realistic chance of upsetting Nadal, who–as he said–is healthy and has used up no excess reserves in his physical tank?
“If I think that I don’t have chances, I will not play,” Carreno Busta said. “So for sure I think I have chances. It is really difficult, because Rafa is maybe the best player on this surface [in] history, and he’s playing really [well].”
All of that is bad news for the rest of the field–but maybe not so bad that we must go ahead and stop the tournament right now and hand Nadal the Coupe des Mousquetaires. That, after all, would deprive of us of three more opportunities to watch the King of Clay at work.
[polldaddy poll=9761641]
All very true, Ricky. And yet in the poll Roger Federer is up to 29 votes. Five more than Andy Murray?!?!
Rafa, losing 8 to 10 games.
I’m not the closest follower of Rafa over the years but this does seem like the most efficient run through of opponents in a GS, or close to it.
PCB is right, he can’t walk on court already defeated but I still can only see him getting 4-6 games max.
Rafa mowed down the opposition except Nole in both 2008 and 2012. It was Nole who gave him a tough fight and I expect the same in this year’s edition. Nole is Rafa’s toughest rival on clay.
It must be stressful for Rafa to be getting so much attention and so much praise. I hope he is blocking out all the hyperbole.
Looks like it is Wawa or Muzz who will be the finalist from the top half.
Mary, Djoko may not get to meet Rafa in the SF, judging from how well Thiem plays this FO so far. Thiem has also spent not much time on court, beating all his opponents comfortably so far without losing a set. Djoko had to spend more energy beating his opponents esp vs Schwartzman and ARV. I feel Thiem may beat Djoko in the QF, going five sets perhaps, Thiem being the fresher of the two.
Ricky also made a mistake, Murray and Stan aren’t in the QF yet, they still have to beat Khachanov and Monfils respectively, to get to the QF.
ha ha, Ricky is very sure of his predictions for Monday!!!
I hope Thiem beats Nole but I think Nole will beat him.
Agree with u Lucky!
MA,
Anything less than 4 or 5 sets of Novak v Thiem will be a disappointment to me! Theim is 0-5 vs Novak. I’m watching Novak vs ARV right now and I like what I’m seeing from Novak. But a big serve weapon is missing. Thiem has a bigger first serve but Novak at his best is able to return big serves like no one else. And Novak is right up on the baseline I see vs ARV. Novak is only one or two sharp tools away from being “back”, imo. He certainly looks no worse for wear after a 5 set match with Schwartzman. Of course 2 of those 5 sets were after Diego had run out of gas.
Novak and Dominic will be a better measure. And I might be cheering for Thiem to win the match. Not sure about why other than I’m feeling like it’s time for Thiem to get a win over Novak on clay – the kid needs it. And just maybe I want to see La Decima. Goffin got his win over Nole but that was weeks ago — and it wasn’t a GS and Novak is sharper now. I think Novak will beat Thiem in the end, but I hope Thiem puts up a good fight. We gonna see and I can’t wait!
ARV was not playing well not helped by his long match (longer than Djoko’s) vs Pouille. ARV isn’t as fit as the top players in BO5 imo; after losing the first set from a leading position, ARV simply lost the belief.
Thiem is a lot fresher than Djoko, and if Thiem came out all guns blazing unlike at the Rome SF, he would cause all sorts of problems for Djoko. The way Thiem is playing now, I doubt he’s that out of steam Thiem at Rome.
Anyway, either one of them could win the QF, it all depends on how they play on that day.
rc!!….U know,one of the reasons why i like/love u is that…your fairness and open minded in assess everything…You’re a fan of Novak but you’re not quick to jump on someone’s head if anyone criticized novak..in fact you’re readiness to accept the results totally opposite from it should be,makes me admire u so much more rc!!…
Now,IMO…Novak really looks a bit different from 1,2 months ago..but,the uncertainty and vulnerability is still there…ARV got plenty of chances to take the 1st set last nite.but couldn’t take it!…But Thiem is more sharper and stronger and certainly have many weapons compared to ARV and Diego…I’m not sure he will survive if he play like he did especially against Diego..
I think thar PCB will be more difficult oponnent than anu other till now, but I gave him max. 9 games..Nadal will win tournament with 1 set lost, and that will come in the SF against Novak..Smthg, that really interests me is how Nadal will perform on grass..If we look back in 08 and 10, we all know what happened when he wins RG in that manner like now..We may see the most interesting Wimbledon in the last 15 yers, with 6-7 title contender – big 4 + Raonic, Zverev, Wawrinka, Cilic.
Do agree with Marko, that if Rafa does well to win this FO convincingly, he will have a good chance on grass, like in 2008 and 2010.
Rafa is healthy now and with a beefed up serve, and a very good BH now, in addition to his great FH and good enough volleying skills and net approaches, he may be more competitive on grass now than in the last five years. What’s most important is first, his healthy body including his knees, plus the confidence he gets from winning at the FO.
Since 2012, Rafa hasn’t been a force on grass. If Muzz has peaked by then, Muzz and Fed would be the favorites followed by Nole.But who knows? If Rafa wins RG this year, he may just ride the euphoria to a famous victory on grass!I think team Nadal wouldn’t be surprised!
But more realistically, if Rafa wins RG, he has a very good chance at USO especially if the roof is not closed in important matches.
Sorry, but Rafa didn’t look at all unbeatable today. He played well, but not nearly as well as in the previous round. The serve in particular is a concern. Against an opponent with a serve and some offensive weapons, Rafa would have had a much harder time today. His lateral movement is looking much better, and he hit some great shots on the stretch, but again against an opponent (think Stan) who could hit with much more pace and angle, he would have struggled, imo.
RBA is not a tough match-up for Rafa. First, he has no real weapons (FH is decent) and a weak serve and BH. He hit many 1st serves in the 160-180 range. I also did not think he played the big points well. Nevertheless, that was the most competitive 1, 2, and 1 match I have ever seen, and RBA had some chances to make it more competitive in the 2nd and 3rd sets.
“he had some chances to make it more competitive” but he DIDN’T! That’s the whole point, isn’t it?
RBA did all he could and throw everything at Nadal, but it made no difference! RBA is No 18 in the rankings, good on clay, not to be underestimated, yet he won only five games today!
Rafa in this mode will beat them all! Nick is right!
Rafa played well enough to ensure that the 18th ranked player only won five games!
Guess what! Rafa did not have to be st his best to beat RBA! Think about what is being said here. Rafa didn’t look that good, yet beat a quality player who only won five games!
Rafa was not at his best and he did not have to be in a fourth round match. He has another gear or two in him and that should scare the pants off the other players!
The body language, the focus and concentration from Rafa, has been exceptional. That tells me a lot. Anyone who tries to pick apart his performance today is just trying to rile up Rafa fans.
Even less did Rafa need to be at his best against Balashivilli, who posed zero threat. But he was. Today he wasn’t. And I don’t care about riling up Rafa fans; I can’t help it if so many of you are so easily rileup-able. I’m just responding to Ricky’s article based on what I saw in today’s match. So I see things differently from many of you; so what?
Joe, you want to compare Agut to Balashivilli? Rafa played an almost perfect match vs Balashivilli because he’s just not good enough to counter any of Rafa’s shots; Rafa could do whatever he wished vs him.
Agut is definitely a much better player than Balashivilli, so Rafa not beating Agut with the same score line, or not playing as well against Agut, is to be expected.
You just can’t compare a no. 63 player to a no.18 player and expect to beat them with the same ease. I certainly won’t expect Rafa to beat Djoko or Thiem with relative ease the way he beats Agut, despite what the score line says!
Rafa at his best at FO2008 for example was beating almost everyone at ease. I said almost because he wasn’t perfect in the first three rounds while picking up momentum but he was perfect vs Verdasco and Almagro, and then Fed in the final. Djoko was the one who pushed him to a TB in one set, and that’s about as well as Djoko could play at that time vs Rafa, not that Rafa wasn’t playing well.
? the third set was the only one that was even remotely close.
About as competitive as Fed was in 2008 final.
I love it now when fans of other players discount Rafa because I have a kind of supertitious belief that Rafa will then disprove them with his racket. It is when they say Rafa is a shoo-in for the title that I feel nervous. So thank you Joe Smith.
Rafa won’t disprove any (recent) claim of mine if he wins RG. I’ve said that I think he’s the favourite. But that’s a long ways from being unbeatable.
Does anybody really think that Rafa looked *unbeatable* today? Against Balashavilli, perhaps. But not today. In no way did I “discount” Rafa or his victory. My comments are to be taken against the backdrop of an article questioning -apparently seriously- whether any other player has “a realistic chance” to defeat Nadal at RG. That is, imo, a question appropriate for a contest between two players or teams at different grades/levels (say, a junior vs. the world #1), but a rather silly question to ask at the professional level.
Many top players have a realistic chance to defeat Nadal -or any player, on any surface- which is of course not the same thing as saying they are favoured or even that it is likely. But ‘a realistic chance’ is a pretty low bar to clear. And my point was simply that Nadal didn’t look unbeatable today, when his level was clearly lower than it was in the previous round. No one can play at his best every day, and today was not Nadal’s best; that’s all.
Joe, Rafa looked unbeatable against Agut! Do you expect Agut to beat Rafa??
I’m sure Rafa would raise his level in his next match vs PCB to win, and raise his level even further for the SF against whoever he meets there. As long as he looks unbeatable against his opponent in the match he’s playing, and then wins the match in the end, that’s about good enough!
Lucky, of course I didn’t expect that RBA was going to beat Rafa, but that’s not what “unbeatable” means in the context of Ricky’s article.
It doesn’t matter to me what Ricky meant. As long as Rafa looks and plays unbeatable tennis vs his real opponents to win, I think that’s more meaningful than some arbitrary measures of his level now. All it matters to me is Rafa winning the title here for the 10th time and conserving energy for the later more difficult rounds.
To me Rafa at his best on clay is > anyone else on clay, including Stan or Djoko or whoever at their best. The past retired greats on clay were excluded from this as Rafa didn’t get to play against them when they were at their best.
what does it mean?
Ricky, if by your title you actually meant: “Nadal still looking unbeatable by Roberto Batista-Agut at Roland Garros,” I have nothing to say.
However, if you meant something like: “Based on Nadal’s play against Batista-Agut, he looks unbeatable at Roland Garros this year,” then I disagree. I think he looked good, but not great, and definitely not unbeatable at RG by someone not named Roberto Batista-Agut.
neither!
But Joe, looking at how the others played here, including Thiem, Djoko, Murray, Stan, Cilic, or anyone else, Rafa did look unbeatable!
If you’re going to argue that Rafa didn’t look unbeatable, what about the others? They looked more beatable than Rafa here, so making Rafa looked unbeatable (at least in the context of the current field here), that’s my logic. In no way could we compare him accurately with himself of his past heydays, or say a Djoko or Stan at his best when both of them aren’t at their best now!
what hasn’t looked good about Cilic?
Cilic can’t beat Nadal on clay regardless–but not because he’s lacking form so far this week…..
Ok, then I may be confused, and I won’t ask you to re-explain your article! But I took the “still” in the title to mean that you were focusing on Rafa’s latest effort against RBA -even if you clearly (and rightly) are impressed by his overall level through the first four rounds.
Again, my only claim is that I didn’t think Rafa’s performance against RBA in particular supports the idea that he can’t be beaten at Roland Garros.
this is more on target. He has looked unbeatable and his performance against RBA did nothing to change that, even if it didn’t necessarily reinforce it.
Lucky: In my book, “Rafa looks unbeatable at RG” is a much stronger claim than “Rafa is unlikely to be beaten at RG.” I may agree with the latter (though I’m not sure about A+ version of Novak or Stan), but I disagree with the former, at least based on Rafa’s performance against RBA.
but there’s also a big difference between “looks” unbeatable and “is” unbeatable
fair point
Ricky gets it! Rafa looks unbeatable is different from Rafa IS unbeatable!
At this point no one can prove that Rafa is unbeatable, unless he finally wins the title here; whilst he can look unbeatable based on his performance here so far, compared to that of the rest of the field.
So does realistic, according to you, can mean ” not likely”. That sounds absurd.
If “a realistic chance” just means “favoured” (i.e. more than 50% chance), then it’s uninteresting to say that no one has a realistic chance against Rafa, since on clay he is currently the favourite against all others. Clearly, that’s not how Ricky understands the phrase.
So having “a realistic chance at upsetting Nadal” means that although the likelihood has to be above 0%, it needn’t be above 50%. It’s probably somewhere in between, which means it’s not absurd to say that someone has a realistic *chance* to win even if he’s not favoured to win. My point is that any number of top players fit into that category.
I think you are giving realistic your own meaning. Ricky obviously meant likely which means realitic>50% which you concede is correct though “uninteresting”.
In fact it is a no-brainer that everybody has a chance greater than 0 as no one can say it is impossible for any player x to beat Rafa. There is always a chance , no matter how small. So it is possible, but not likely that any player can beat Rafa in his current form. Which is what Ricky said. For instance it is possible for a monkey randomly typing on a typewriter to produce Shakespeare’s complete works but it is highly unlikely. This is just to illustrate that very low probability events also have probability > 0. So they cannot be deemed to have a realistic chance merely because prob >0.
I fear Nadal may have peaked in the last two matches here and is bound to have an off day soon. Wawrinka will take him out if he reaches the final. Here are some other previews http://www.138mph.com/murray-nishikori-wawrinka-and-cilic-wholl-be-left-behind/
Oh Kavita!I think you’re wrong!…If Rafa get through to the final…i think wawa will face a very determined bull..dangerous and very much love to take back his domain!…i hope Rafa still have manners after that and will not pi@# everywhere to claim his territory!LOL!!
Joe Smith JUNE 4, 2017 AT 9:34 PM
“Sorry, but Rafa didn’t look at all unbeatable today. He played well, but not nearly as well as in the previous round.”
********************************
So because Rafa wasn’t as perfect against B-Agut as he was against Basil means that B-Agut could have beaten him? 😉 😉 😉 Rafa still won losing just 5 games in a Bo5 match and at no time did Roberto look close to taking a set. He broke Rafa once in the 1st set and still lost the set 61.
The wait for the tantalising prospect of la Decima is agonising. Just as well the Chatrier court does not have its roof yet otherwise it would be in danger of flying off next Sunday!
All the signs are Rafa is on course to make it happen. The prowl up and down the service line like a hungry panther smelling blood; the penetrating stare at his opponent – daring him to attempt that tactic again; the narrowing of his eyes when he messes up a shot; the fist pump and lifted knee jerk he pulls off an impossible shot: need I go on?
Love Ricky’s eloquent ‘eulogy’ to the King of Clay
I’m sure Joe Smith knows more about tennis than he lets on. A lots of the more crass comments are clearly designed to wind up Rafans. That or he doesn’t actually watch the matches!
let’s eliminate insults just because someone doesn’t have the same favorite as you. Thanks!