Options
Rafael Nadal wins record 13th French Open crown ties Federer for most Grand Slams
coolstanley
Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Rafael Nadal destroys #1 player in the World Novak Djokovic 6-0, 6-2, 7-5 for his 20th Grand Slam title. It was the first time Djokovic lost a match this year, excluding his U.S. Open banning for hitting a lines woman with a tennis ball.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
0
Comments
That guy is unbeatable on clay, it's just ridiculous. I had no idea he tied Federer for most grand slams, so he could overthrow Federer and become the GOAT if he wins one more grand slam?
Rafa has been tremendous for a very long time. probably the greatest of all time
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The next man with the most French Opens after Nadal is Bjorn Borg with six titles. Hard to imagine he now has more than double the titles Borg had.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
He owns the clay court for sure.
I would say Federer is still the best because he spread out his titles. He's got 5+ wins at the other three Slams, where Nadal has 1, 2 & 4 respectively.
It's nitpicking for sure. But truly staggering to think of how many titles either guy would have if the other guy didn't exist. Probably 30+.
it's not nitpicking at all. In addition to the head to head debate, and the age gap (Fed is 39, Nadal 34) that's the other argument...at least between those two...though many would still put Rod Laver above Fed/Nadal as well, but then you get into the era and differences in equipment, courts, amateur vs pro status, a lot of players didn't even travel to Australia to compete in the Australian Open back then etc. So the whole rivalry thing, really shouldn't be...it's only because of Fed's longevity that it's even a thing. A 5 year gap in age in men's tennis is massive. Nadal and Djoker and Murray are separated by a less than year. Those should have been the real rivalries. Fed's generation is like Roddick and those guys who are long gone.
That's where the head to head record can be called into question (in addition to the lop-sided record on clay). The reason that it's not better is because when Fed was in his ultra-prime (2004-2009), Nadal simply wasn't getting through the draws on the faster surface tourneys so Fed never really got to beat up on him. Even aside from the majors, go look at Nadal's finishes in the 1000 level tourneys like Indian Wells He was getting bounced before the semi's so Fed never got to pound him. In 2004 & 2005 Nadal was bounced in the Round of 32, bounced by James Blake in the quarters in 2006. He won in 2007, but Fed was injured so... Also of note, over the last 7 or so years scheduling is a major factor in this too. You'll notice a trend that either right after the Aussie Open or after Indian Wells, Ralph starts taking mega breaks in his scheduling resting up for the French. He might come back to play Indian Wells or Miami because those are 1000 level tourneys and players are required to play at a certain number of them barring injury every year. So when the clay court season rolls around, he's well rested and it's by design.
The funny thing about clay is that since Nadal is so good on dirt, no one has paid any attention to the fact that Federer is an all-time top 5 player on clay and so is Djoker. The toilet-brush-shape-headed-Serb is easily #3 by any measure behind just Ralph and Borg. Then you can make the argument whether Fed or Lendl belong at #4 and 5 respectively. So there's that argument. Fed is top 5 all-time on every surface. The best on grass and indoor hard court, probably the best on hard courts in general. Nadal isn't. Nadal has one Aussie Open (the second fastest surface). It's no surprise that he's not as good on the faster surfaces because the faster surfaces favor shot-makers. He's great, but he's not elite. He's not a great server either. He's spent half of his career being average in the box. I suppose it's like the Floyd Mayweather Jr boxing debate. He's a counterpuncher, plays defense all the time, doesn't knock anyone out kind of thing.
But imagine where Fed would be if there were more tourneys on grass (his best surface - Sampras' too)? There are only really two. Wimbledon and the one in Germany (there is that Queens Club thing in London the week before Wimbledon but no top players show up to it since they're all resting up for Wimbledon. His next top surface is indoor hard court. Yes indoor hard courts are different than outdoor. Outdoor hard courts are grittier. The ATP has that year end tourney (the World Tour Finals) - often called the "Fifth Major" in London where the top 8 ranked players each year play a week of round-robin every year. Nadal has never won it. The surface is too fast so he can't run everything down. That's his thing. He's faster than most every other player so he can run everything down. That's why he dominates clay...the slowest surface...where he can run everything down. Ralph is an elite returner, Djoker is the best I've ever seen, then either Ralph or Agassi at #2.
But what that should tell you is that Nadal is a player of speed and endurance, not so much of a shot maker, and not a great serve. Although he's still very good. Djoker too. How many 5 setters have you seen these two play, barely look tired, come back the next day and look completely fresh? That's EPO kids...and they're both on it (in addition to other things, undoubtedly). Fed may be too, but I've at least seen him get tired. I've never seen the other two tire. So there's that.
Finally the head to head thing. I've pointed out largely why it favors Nadal above. But if that is one's sole debate, the head to head, then what about where Djoker comes into this? Toilet-brush-head leads Nadal in head to head at 29–27. Not a huge difference right now, but that gap should widen over time assuming Nadal's knees don't disintegrate. Nadal isn't going to beat Djoker on any surface other than clay from here on out unless Djoker has to retire due to injury or clocking women in the face with his balls. Personally, I think it's probably pointless to debate this because unless someone like Dominik Thiem or Zherev or someone else suddenly becomes an elite player on multiple surfaces, Djoker is going to catch and pass both Fed and Ralph in majors. I don't think Fed has another one in him after missing a year to knee and back issues, and Nadal is only going to win the French. Thus barring injury, Djoker is the favorite in 3 of the 4 every year from here on out. Then you'll have the real debate, since no one outside of Serbia likes Djoker (for good reason). So it will become why Djoker isn't the GOAT (because no one likes him, the PEDs, he used to retire in matches early all the time when he was losing before 2009 etc.)
There is no way Federer is top 5 all time player on clay. He only has one french open title. I wouldnt even put him in the top ten. And lets not forget that Nadal won two Wimbledons during Feds prime.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
so you're basing that on just the French? I mean, he's made it to 5 French Open finals....and you're aware that there are other clay court tourneys, correct? There are 3 1000-level clay tournaments (Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid) let alone the 500-level or even the 250-level tourneys. Those tourneys count too. Fed has 11 clay titles, and he's made it to 26 clay tourney finals. Fed's clay winning% is 81.1 (Nadal is 92.9%) so a difference of roughly 10% worse than Ralph on clay seems pretty good, if not great, to me...and of those 15 finals losses, 11 of those were to Ralph. So if there was no Ralph, who grew up playing on dirt, who would have reasonably been able to beat Fed on the regular? Not Djoker until at least 2009. Maybe Murray would take a title here and there when he wasn't injured. So that would have been a 5-ish year run of dominance on clay for Fed if Ralph didn't exist. So if you don't think he's "even top 10" on dirt, well, sorry, he is. At worst, he's #5 behind Lendl. And we're talking about the most trash of surfaces which is clay where skill is less important than patience. If you want to advanced stat this argument, this is how it goes as a sort of the tennis equivalent to win shares in baseball.
Ralph - 3550
Borg - 2475
Djoker - 2120
Lendl and Fed are within a few points of one another - at around 2040
if you want to bring just the peak into it, Wilander is a little ahead of Fed but only by around 20 points.
And bear in mind, Fed is only playing the major European clay tourneys. I'm guessing it's been over 10 years since he's played a clay tourney other than the French, Rome or Monte Carlo. His schedule was almost always Monte Carlo, then took the Madrid tourney off, then played Rome, took the week off before the French, then played the French. So for most of his career he was only playing 3 clay tourneys (not counting Davis Cup). He's not down in Mexico and South America like Ralph is playing the 500 and 250 level tourneys to spike his point totals for the year.
Courier, Wilander, Borg, Bruguera, Lendl, and Kuerten would've destroyed Federer on clay in their prime.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Federer only won one French
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
well, case closed then.
Yes, he did. But he won 5+ at the other three Slams. And, if Nadal doesn't exist, Fed wins at least 5 French Opens.
Same deal with Nadal & Joker - if any two of the three didn't exist, the third guy would have 25-30 (or more) Slams.
If Borg didnt exist, Connors would've won 5 Wimbledons.
If Sampras didn't exist, Agassi would've won 5 U.S. Opens.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
And they'd still be well behind Federer, who would dominate all those guys except maybe Sampras.
Disagree. All depending on the surface and tournament.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21