How Many Slam Titles Do 606v2 Posters Think Nadal Deserves

Have just been reading through a few threads here on 606v2 and it appears that some posters feel that Rafa may have a few more slam titles than his tennis skills and talents deserve.

Of course Nadal has 10 of these prescious trophies tucked up safely at home in Majorca. But I am curious to know how many my fellow posters here on 606v2 consider that he should by rights own. Of course if he shouldn't have them someone else should... or would. So if you consider Rafa shouldn't have them who should?

he's won ten, and deserves each and every one of them. To win a slam you have to win 7 best of five set matches, you just can't win one without deserving it. Equally, if you're knowked out of a slam, it's because some guy you were playing against won three sets before you could, or because your physical condition didn't enable you to complete the match, hence you don't deserve to win the slam.

Therefore ten is my answer

Ten for me too.

10, so far

Good article Hawky!

Difficult to say. I have gone for 2-5 although I rekon I would substantially change the above opinion depending on various variables, the depth of the field, and in particular, on the quality the clay court specialists playing in his time. Nadal imo is in the same breath as the likes of Vilas and Courier, consequenly he would have amassed a remarkable record of 4 to 5 slams, had he played in their eras.

Since he's got positive H2H with every slam winning player of this generation, i.e. according to Nadal fans he's better than them, he then by default must deserve all their slams, too....which brings it to the grand tally of.....36 (Fed's 16, his own 10, Nole's 5, Hewitt's 2, Roddick's 1, Ferrero's 1 and Delpo's 1)

Zero

legendkillarV2 wrote:Zero

Could be argued as he has won none within the tennis rules.

HE... I guess you love defending Nadal, hence this article.

And I expect the usual 'bickering' regarding talent or lack thereof, and the endless stream of oft-repeated cliches.

He only deserves the French Opens.

Clay courters should not win Wimbledon, Uso or Ao.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Zero

Could be argued as he has won none within the tennis rules.

Well I don't buy this whole who 'deserves' what. 10 Slams and yet some debate should be less and some debate should be more. For me deserving in sport plays more on fortune than the ability of the individual.

jersey wrote:Clay courters should not win Wimbledon

Ever heard of Borg, one of the original clay-courters (even though he wasnt spanish)?
No, didnt think so...

Nadal....Nadal...Nadal...deserve....deserve....fitness...fitness....no talent....no talent....round and round the mulberry bush this forum goes...

hawkeye wrote:How Many Slam Titles Do 606v2 Posters Think Nadal Deserves

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer this question. It is a question I have oft wondered on whilst eating toasted crumpets at my breakfast table.

Having thought long and hard on this matter, I can honestly say, that it is my personal belief, that Nadal, yes he of the big biceps, is truly deserving of ten, yes ten I say, Grand Slam runner-up awards.

Clearly, the one who truly is deserving of the ten Grand Slam titles, is he of the Lendl shorts, yes indeed, the one known as Andreas Murray. That for the fact there are better players than he in this world, this sweet boy would be in possession of what he truly deserves.

So when you are next in the supermarket and reaching over for that large bottle of Scotch whisky or the two for the price of one Murphy's six pack, please reflect on this cruel injustice.

Rafael Nadal deserves what he has in 10 grand slams. Respect should be shown for the fight and concentration Rafa has shown to snatch 10 majors from the grasp of more talented opponents.

Nadal has achieved a lot for being a carthorse.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Nadal has achieved a lot for being a carthorse.

That's a little unkind. Had him down as more of a mule myself.

He was easily the best player in 08 and 10 just don't
think he will able to have a season like those two again.

lydian wrote:

jersey wrote:Clay courters should not win Wimbledon

Ever heard of Borg, one of the original clay-courters (even though he wasnt spanish)?
No, didnt think so...

Nadal....Nadal...Nadal...deserve....deserve....fitness...fitness....no talent....no talent....round and round the mulberry bush this forum goes...

Borg won the channel slams/wimbledon/fo doubles when Wimbledon was fast slick grass by s&v and FO was slow like mud clay by grinding. He adapted to opposite surfaces at the time.