Nadal´s legacy

I must say here clearly that this player can not be taken seriously anymore. Since he lost AO final with Nole and IW final with Roger his court behaviour got to the unprecedented level and not only in tennis. He lost the rest of respect of tennis players. If he is not able to handle with defeats then it is better to run out from courts. It is very sad to say, but his legacy will only show how poor he was. A sad story! He should stop playing until his mind cleans out of such frustrations in order not to lose an ability to control himself. Here it stops to be a fun anymore.

I didn't get the article. What are you trying to imply paulcz?

I think he's trying to say Nadal's lost it a bit due to not being able to cope with recent losses from Nole and Fed

Come on 1 loss to Fed and suddenly Nadal not able to cope with it right? stop kidding.

Nadal knows a loss to Murray awaits in the semi's, he is not 100% fit mentally nor physically, so he decided a pull out is better than loss and did it.

This doesnt mean he will not have a strong clay court season, he might indeed have the poorest clay court season as well, but he will still come back stronger.

Nadal plays better when there is no expectation or pressure on him, he having raised his level and stature he is unable to meet the fan expectations and pressure and thats taking his toll.

Aye thnik the posetr is sying thit e nowt likens Nadle.

Ridiculous article. Problem is the majority of the members on these boards, including certain moderators, think such an article is "fair comment"

If an article does not break site rules its stays up. So not its not an issue with 'some moderators' its the stance of the Admin team who run this place!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I didn't get the article. What are you trying to imply paulcz?

Once again, perhaps all can understand. Nadal´s behaviour is a shame of tennis. I have not seen such a poor character of tennis player nor a sportman and probably will never see it. For fears of losing he is not able to control himself. Who do not want to hear it, then does not understand. Open your eyes, that will do.

I don't think he's done himself any favours with his recent conduct, but lets not go over the top here. Gamesmanship is not a new thing in sport, or in tennis.

I don't think he's ruined his legacy. He's a 10 time slam winner who took the game to new levels in terms of physical endurance and will to win, and he's still the main pin up for the more casual tennis fan.

He'd need to go way further than delaying tactics, pulling out of matches and MTO's to ruin his legacy, in my opinion. And no, I'm not a Nadal fan so I'm not being biased here.

paulcz wrote:
Once again, perhaps all can understand. Nadal´s behaviour is a shame of tennis. I have not seen such a poor character of tennis player nor a sportman and probably will never see it. For fears of losing he is not able to control himself. Who do not want to hear it, then does not understand. Open your eyes, that will do.

Okay got it this time.

Danny_1982 wrote:I don't think he's done himself any favours with his recent conduct, but lets not go over the top here. Gamesmanship is not a new thing in sport, or in tennis.

I don't think he's ruined his legacy. He's a 10 time slam winner who took the game to new levels in terms of physical endurance and will to win, and he's still the main pin up for the more casual tennis fan.

He'd need to go way further than delaying tactics, pulling out of matches and MTO's to ruin his legacy, in my opinion. And no, I'm not a Nadal fan so I'm not being biased here.

There is no doubt about his 10 slams, he is still a top tennis player. But what he has done on courts since lost AO final has no analogy in tennis history in sport of gentlemen. There were aggresive players like Mac, Becker or Connors, but nobody ot them did what Nadal has done. I am sure that these MTOs and delaying tactics and all kind of excuses ruin his great achievements, unfortunately.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

paulcz wrote:
Once again, perhaps all can understand. Nadal´s behaviour is a shame of tennis. I have not seen such a poor character of tennis player nor a sportman and probably will never see it. For fears of losing he is not able to control himself. Who do not want to hear it, then does not understand. Open your eyes, that will do.

Okay got it this time.

I need to be more clear as my Germany co-workers say

This is a reminder for those who have yet to decide on the greatest evil in tennis debate: https://www.606v2.com/t26136-the-greatest-evil-in-tennis-you-decide

Nore Staat wrote:This is a reminder for those who have yet to decide on the greatest evil in tennis debate: https://www.606v2.com/t26136-the-greatest-evil-in-tennis-you-decide

NS, thanks for this thread, I remember it. I need to say that I do not mind Nadal as a player, but what he does or say looks like as really serious disease of his nerves. I do not know how much it comes from him or from his wise uncle, but it exceeds all limits of tennis conduct.

I am sure that these MTOs and delaying tactics and all kind of excuses ruin his great achievements, unfortunately.

His fans don't like hearing this perspective on his character, but saying that we don't really what he feels in his legs and knees so his fans will always use this to defend him.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

I am sure that these MTOs and delaying tactics and all kind of excuses ruin his great achievements, unfortunately.

His fans don't like hearing this perspective on his character, but saying that we don't really what he feels in his legs and knees so his fans will always use this to defend him.

Hey Josiah, I do not care about his fans. If they do not want to see it, then there is nothing to say them. What is obvious that his behaviour is a matter of his head not ligaments.

Djokovic destroyed Nadal's legacy.

Nadal's legacy is assured, it's just a question of whether or not he can add to it.

Nadal's legacy: equalled Borgs FO record, career slam, ten slams, Federer's "nemesis", however he needs to do more to be considered in the very top rung of the tennis greats.

Nore Staat wrote:Nadal's legacy is assured, it's just a question of whether or not he can add to it.

Nadal's legacy: equalled Borgs FO record, career slam, ten slams, Federer's "nemesis", however he needs to do more to be considered in the very top rung of the tennis greats.

Who is in this "top rung" and what do you think Nadal needs to do to be admitted?

Well, Hawkeye, I reckon you would put - of the Open era guys - Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer in the "top rung". I know Borg only achieved one more slam than Rafa has at present, but I'd still put him up there.
Rafa, if he never won another match, would be considered one of the greatest players, as he has already won 10 GS and been top for more than 100 weeks.
I suppose to go even higher in the list of immortals he would have to win four or five more slams and have more weeks at number one. However, some might argue that he's already there.

Nore Staat wrote:Nadal's legacy is assured, it's just a question of whether or not he can add to it.

Nadal's legacy: equalled Borgs FO record, career slam, ten slams, Federer's "nemesis", however he needs to do more to be considered in the very top rung of the tennis greats.

I agree with this. I think the strong clay bias of Nadal's achievements stops him currently being in the very top tier of greats.

- The career slam features six at one slam (RG) and two 'lone' wins (AO and US).
- Never defended a slam outside of RG.
- 102 weeks at number 1 vs 200+ weeks at number 2 (behind two different players). If he can't be the very best of his era, I don't think he can be considered among the very best ever.

The caveat to all this of course is that he is only 26 and all of the above may change before he retires!

HMM. Interesting bit about the many weeks (years) at number two. Obviously in this respect Rafa had to play second fiddle to, first, Federer, and now Djoko.
First it was said that Fed could not be GOAT as he wasn't even the best player of his era. Now something of the same is being said about Rafa. Truth is I'm not sure just how many times you've had two players competing AT THE SAME TIME who are in double figures for slam wins.
Chuck into the mix a guy - Nole - who's able to beat them both and it's really a remarkable time.

sirfredperry wrote:...Truth is I'm not sure just how many times you've had two players competing AT THE SAME TIME who are in double figures for slam wins.

Not since they slowed all slams down to clay pace or below. That is what really gave Nadal the chance to conqueer more slams than he should have done. Nadal would not have been close to beating Federer on 1990s grass. returning 3m begind the base line was simply not an option back then.

We can look at the details and draw conclusions cause it's "our" era. the future generation might overlook those simple facts.

I think currently Nadal is in the very top tier of the best CLAY COURT players alongside Borg.

To be considered in the very top tier of the TENNIS GREATS he needs:
a) several more finals and a few more titles at slam tournaments. (Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Federer have all been in more slam finals. He is equal with Connors and Agassi in terms of final appearances)
b) to be seen as a repetitive major winner in a slam other than RG. He is getting there with his Wimbledon results five finals and two titles.
c) greater longevity (his semi-final count at slams tournaments is about half that of Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Federer).
d) greater longevity on the tour (more non-slam tournament wins).

I think Roger Federer is out in the very top tier.
Below him I would put Pete Sampras and Borg.
Below them I would put Lendl, and Connors.
Just below them I would put Nadal, Agassi.

This is all in the "post Laver" era. Nadal is only 26 so there is still time for him to increase his impact in the game.

Nore Staat wrote:I think currently Nadal is in the very top tier of the best CLAY COURT players alongside Borg.

To be considered in the very top tier of the TENNIS GREATS he needs:
a) several more finals and a few more titles at slam tournaments. (Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Federer have all been in more slam finals. He is equal with Connors and Agassi in terms of final appearances)
b) to be seen as a repetitive major winner in a slam other than RG. He is getting there with his Wimbledon results five finals and two titles.
c) greater longevity (his semi-final count at slams tournaments is about half that of Connors, Lendl, Agassi, Federer).
d) greater longevity on the tour (more non-slam tournament wins).

I think Roger Federer is out in the very top tier.
Below him I would put Pete Sampras and Borg.
Below them I would put Lendl, and Connors.
Just below them I would put Nadal, Agassi.

This is all in the "post Laver" era. Nadal is only 26 so there is still time for him to increase his impact in the game.

Completely agree.

Nore Staat wrote:I think Roger Federer is out in the very top tier.
Below him I would put Pete Sampras and Borg.
Below them I would put Lendl, and Connors.
Just below them I would put Nadal, Agassi.

I must say I agree very much with that though I would probably put Mcenroe and Lendl at the same level and Connors down one with Agassi and Nadal as neither of those 3 dominated their era.