Why can't Rafa follow up a great season? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Why can't Rafa follow up a great season?

Mjau!
06-06-2012, 07:10 PM
2008 - His first great season. Won the channel slam and the olympics. Reached #1 for the first time in his career.
2009 - Started the season really well, but could barely win sets against top 10 players after Rome. Failed to remain top of the rankings.
2010 - Sweeped the clay season and won 3/4 slams.
2011 - Consistently :smash: by Djokovic, even on clay. Barely beat Federer :o @ Roland Garros. Reached, but lost, some big non-clay finals because of favourable draws and weak competition.
2012 - Is playing much better and looks likely to win his 3rd channel-slam, defend his olympic gold medal and return to number 1.

This year-2-year inconsistency is unbecoming for a supposed all-time great. :no:

Dmitry Verdasco
06-06-2012, 07:16 PM
This year-2-year inconsistency is unbecoming for a supposed all-time great. :no:

So is a 10/18 W/L record to your nearest rival.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Qg6J04XZhR4/SYW3YV-I-0I/AAAAAAAAFrY/smwmmXIR5iE/s400/6d0c29bb0e2b190735fb679b534c582e-getty-tennis-open-aus-nadal-federer.jpg

Mjau!
06-06-2012, 07:24 PM
So is a 10/18 W/L record to your nearest rival.

Not if your 8-6 on 2/3 surfaces. You don't have to be the greatest on every surface, because no one is.

Mjau!
06-06-2012, 07:28 PM
And this thread is about Nadal, not Federer. Quit deflecting! :no:

GSMnadal
06-06-2012, 07:39 PM
2009, injury?! Would've been a 3 slam season otherwise.

rafa_maniac
06-06-2012, 07:39 PM
:stupid:

He barely lost for the first 5 months of 2009, then knee problems struck, and he took a while to get back on track. Last year he was amazingly consistent but Djokovic 2.0 showed up. Those years might not have been AS good as the ones before/after but he still won Slams in them and finished #2, so saying he "didn't follow them up" is stupid. As for this year, he hasn't even won the French yet so discussing it is meaningless.

Looner
06-06-2012, 07:41 PM
Because he's just not good enough. He has to grind out wins and he cannot sustain it physically and mentally.

Federer in 2
06-06-2012, 07:41 PM
2009, injury?! Would've been a 3 slam season otherwise.

Sorry, but you are in absolutely no position to make that call.

superslam77
06-06-2012, 07:43 PM
injury? PRP injection :o

takes time to recover the body :o

Dmitry Verdasco
06-06-2012, 07:43 PM
Sorry, but you are in absolutely no position to make that call.

Fun police is here.

sweetkit
06-06-2012, 07:46 PM
2008 - His first great season. Won the channel slam and the olympics. Reached #1 for the first time in his career.
2009 - Started the season really well, but could barely win sets against top 10 players after Rome. Failed to remain top of the rankings.
2010 - Sweeped the clay season and won 3/4 slams.
2011 - Consistently :smash: by Djokovic, even on clay. Barely beat Federer :o @ Roland Garros. Reached, but lost, some big non-clay finals because of favourable draws and weak competition.
2012 - Is playing much better and looks likely to win his 3rd channel-slam, defend his olympic gold medal and return to number 1.

This year-2-year inconsistency is unbecoming for a supposed all-time great. :no:

You make a lot of sense.
Prolly an easy explanation though: one year playing like a beast, another one "preparing" the body and all ova and ova again.

Tennis-Life
06-06-2012, 07:47 PM
2009, injury?! Would've been a 3 slam season otherwise.

:superlol: stop clowning, injury just another excuse. Nadal never defended any of his Slams except RG

delpiero7
06-06-2012, 07:48 PM
fair enough question.

Clearly 2009 was disrupted by injury. Up to the point where he got injured, he was the best player that season. Won Australian Open, Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Barcelona and Rome before injury struck. It would be hard to imagine that he wouldn't have been in contention to win the big events in '09 had he not got injured (especially Roland Garros, given his otherwise exemplary record there).

In 2011, Djokovic just had the edge over him (and everyone else on tour). Difficult to explain why that was, but in every tight situation, every big final, Djokovic came out on top.

dencod16
06-06-2012, 07:50 PM
One reason, the way he plays. It beats him down that he really cant play a full season.

ahadabans
06-06-2012, 08:07 PM
I agree his game is very physical and that takes a heavy toll on his body. And because he relies so much on his movement, he is very vulnerable when that is impaired (either through injury or like what we saw this year on blue clay).

I've always said Nadal would have a shorter career than most because his game is so reliant on endurance and physicality. You can only play that way for so long.

uxyzapenje
06-06-2012, 08:43 PM
2008 - His first great season. Won the channel slam and the olympics. Reached #1 for the first time in his career.
2009 - Started the season really well, but could barely win sets against top 10 players after Rome. Failed to remain top of the rankings.
2010 - Sweeped the clay season and won 3/4 slams.
2011 - Consistently :smash: by Djokovic, even on clay. Barely beat Federer :o @ Roland Garros. Reached, but lost, some big non-clay finals because of favourable draws and weak competition.
2012 - Is playing much better and looks likely to win his 3rd channel-slam, defend his olympic gold medal and return to number 1.

This year-2-year inconsistency is unbecoming for a supposed all-time great. :no:

Where was he the 1st 3 moths of the year? How does he look likely to go back to the no1, win the olympics etc? Bcs he is dominating clay? He was doing that for past 7-8 years, and Fed was still the no1 most of the time. I don't say he can't come back to no1, but this is serious case of bandwagoning. 'Oh he won 3 tournaments on his favourite surface, he is the best.' What about the rest 7 months of the year?

Mountaindewslave
06-06-2012, 10:12 PM
Where was he the 1st 3 moths of the year? How does he look likely to go back to the no1, win the olympics etc? Bcs he is dominating clay? He was doing that for past 7-8 years, and Fed was still the no1 most of the time. I don't say he can't come back to no1, but this is serious case of bandwagoning. 'Oh he won 3 tournaments on his favourite surface, he is the best.' What about the rest 7 months of the year?

he almost won Australia, and yes he always dominates on clay, but winning the majority of clay events alone propels him to top of race. he will be big favorite at Wimbledon, assuming he wins Roland Garros and Wimbledon and a few other events here and there he will probably be #1.

you must recall that Djokovic and Federer are sort of splitting the other events too so if Nadal wins the next 2 huge events/grand slams then he will probably propel to #1... the point difference is growing less and less

as for the OP's question, it is a bit strange but it is definitely possible that the forementioned theory about his physical style of play might be the determining factor. like others have said, Nadal might be in his prime health one year and then the next struggle on and off with his knees and body. sort of like one year hibernation the next he peaks, or at least that is a fair assumption to make if he has a great 2012 season

TigerTim
06-06-2012, 10:14 PM
If only my fav's had the average 2011 season Rafa had. :o, one slam and 2 finals, yes please!

Mountaindewslave
06-06-2012, 10:19 PM
If only my fav's had the average 2011 season Rafa had. :o, one slam and 2 finals, yes please!

you make a good point, it's astounding how close Nadal's 2011 season was to being an amazing one. I mean a few points here and there in a few matches and it would have been awesome, it's nuts how such small things drastically change the outcomes of the sport

TigerTim
06-06-2012, 10:23 PM
you make a good point, it's astounding how close Nadal's 2011 season was to being an amazing one. I mean a few points here and there in a few matches and it would have been awesome, it's nuts how such small things drastically change the outcomes of the sport

You can't blame Nadal too much for last season. Novak's level was so high. It wasn't just Nadal he owned. Perhaps the only down side of last season was he was average outside the slams. Then again - aside for ranking points does he care about Masters outside clay anymore? It's all about slams and maybe WTF if he feels good.

Edit: I say average outside of slams but he reached Indian wells, Miami, Madrid and Rome finals as well as winning Monte Carlo and Barcelona. Okay :lol: maybe not. Rafa 2011 was a great season.

GSMnadal
06-06-2012, 10:30 PM
You can't blame Nadal too much for last season. Novak's level was so high. It wasn't just Nadal he owned. Perhaps the only down side of last season was he was average outside the slams. Then again - aside for ranking points does he care about Masters outside clay anymore? It's all about slams and maybe WTF if he feels good.

Edit: I say average outside of slams but he reached Indian wells, Miami, Madrid and Rome finals as well as winning Monte Carlo and Barcelona. Okay :lol: maybe not. Rafa 2011 was a great season.

That IW match is where it went bad for him, outplaying Novak for 1,5 sets. And then just wetting the bed, couldn't hit a first serve or keep the ball in play. Add a tight loss in the deciding tiebreak to that (miami), and there you have the reason Novak is going for the Nole slam instead of Rafa already having achieved it in Australia.

TigerTim
06-06-2012, 10:35 PM
That IW match is where it went bad for him, outplaying Novak for 1,5 sets. And then just wetting the bed, couldn't hit a first serve or keep the ball in play. Add a tight loss in the deciding tiebreak to that (miami), and there you have the reason Novak is going for the Nole slam instead of Rafa already having achieved it in Australia.

This shows I think why people on here are stupid for saying "why doesn't player X tank this" and "Why bother taking this tourney seriously", of course I am not suggesting Nadal did those things, but the above shows that results in the smaller torliaments of the tour (relative to the slam) can have a effect. That why is Masters pre Shanghai are important and should be taken and watched carefully.

Ben.
06-06-2012, 10:53 PM
That IW match is where it went bad for him, outplaying Novak for 1,5 sets. And then just wetting the bed, couldn't hit a first serve or keep the ball in play. Add a tight loss in the deciding tiebreak to that (miami), and there you have the reason Novak is going for the Nole slam instead of Rafa already having achieved it in Australia.

Where did his serve go in that IW final :facepalm: Was winning comfortably until that point.

It was almost as if he bought into the hype about Djokovic being undefeated, even though that was only his third tournament of the year.

In Miami, he was lucky to get to the tiebreak, to be honest. Djokovic was all over him in that third set.

These two matches had a remarkable effect on the rest of the season.

ossie
06-07-2012, 12:24 AM
2008 - His first great season. Won the channel slam and the olympics. Reached #1 for the first time in his career.
2009 - Started the season really well, but could barely win sets against top 10 players after Rome. Failed to remain top of the rankings.
2010 - Sweeped the clay season and won 3/4 slams.
2011 - Consistently :smash: by Djokovic, even on clay. Barely beat Federer :o @ Roland Garros. Reached, but lost, some big non-clay finals because of favourable draws and weak competition.
2012 - Is playing much better and looks likely to win his 3rd channel-slam, defend his olympic gold medal and return to number 1.

This year-2-year inconsistency is unbecoming for a supposed all-time great. :no:because it is incredibly hard to do and we don't live in the mug eras any more.

rocketassist
06-07-2012, 12:37 AM
because it is incredibly hard to do and we don't live in the mug eras any more.

The only time a dominant season (3 slams) been followed up to now was 2006 and then 2007 by Federer. More faeces talk from you.

Sri
06-07-2012, 12:54 AM
The only time a dominant season (3 slams) been followed up to now was 2006 and then 2007 by Federer. More faeces talk from you.
Actually Federer was beginning to fade in 2007 (despite the three slams). He did follow up 2004 with a great 2005 (despite only the two slams) and a great 2006.

Sri
06-07-2012, 12:55 AM
For Nadal, as many have pointed out, its the physicality of his game. But I agree that he was remarkably consistent in 2011 (as MonoFed was in 2008), just losing to Jesusovic.

ossie
06-07-2012, 01:32 AM
The only time a dominant season (3 slams) been followed up to now was 2006 and then 2007 by Federer. More faeces talk from you.thats why i said we dont live in the mug eras anymore.

rocketassist
06-07-2012, 01:37 AM
thats why i said we dont live in the mug eras anymore.

Well it never happened before that so they're not mug eras either.

Topspindoctor
06-07-2012, 01:41 AM
Nadal didn't have the luxury of facing Hewitts, Roddicks and random mugs in slam finals.

BauerAlmeida
06-07-2012, 02:29 AM
Nadal didn't have the luxury of facing Hewitts, Roddicks and random mugs in slam finals.

Hewitt and Roddick are both better than Soderling, Berdych or Puerta.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-07-2012, 02:32 AM
lets stop the bullshit revisionist history

soderling beat nadal fair and sq

his game csn click and do that

anyway- on topic
nadals 2005/2006 were great years

paseo
06-07-2012, 02:33 AM
What a mug, this Nadal.

Topspindoctor
06-07-2012, 02:40 AM
Hewitt and Roddick are both better than Soderling, Berdych or Puerta.

Not really.

BauerAlmeida
06-07-2012, 02:47 AM
lets stop the bullshit revisionist history

soderling beat nadal fair and sq

his game csn click and do that

anyway- on topic
nadals 2005/2006 were great years

2007 too. And well, 2009 and 2011 actually were great years too. The fact that he won a slam in every year since 2005 it's impressive.

rocketassist
06-07-2012, 03:01 AM
Not really.

3 slams > 0 slams :shrug: And I like Soderking.

ahadabans
06-07-2012, 04:37 AM
lets stop the bullshit revisionist history

soderling beat nadal fair and sq

his game csn click and do that

anyway- on topic
nadals 2005/2006 were great years

It's not revisionist history. Nadal was nowhere near 100%.

Before the first round, Nadal played in an exhibition tournament at the French and lost. He was clearly having issues before the tournament even started. He played because he thought 60% would be enough. It wasn't and he got beat. And he opted not to defend Wimbledon because he knew 60% would not get it done there either and clearly he wasn't going to recover without rest. He was out for almost two months. You think he faked all that? Seriously man. That's borderline delusional.

Next year, Nadal demolished Soderling in the final. Fact of the matter is, 100% Nadal is virtually unbeatable in a 5 set clay match. And the history books show this pretty clearly.

Kat_YYZ
06-07-2012, 05:17 AM
no wonder he wants a 2-year ranking system :eek:

Federer in 2
06-07-2012, 08:19 AM
Fun police is here.

Followed by the captain of the Olympic Bullshiting team.

TigerTim
06-07-2012, 10:12 AM
Why do people not think Hewitt and Roddick were good players at their time :shrug: Hewitt was great, 2 slams many finals and if it wasn't for Federer Roddick would have much more than one slam, he's probably the best player ever to have won just one slam. Getting destroyed by the GOAT is nothing to be ashamed of.

buzz
06-07-2012, 10:37 AM
Next year, Nadal demolished Soderling in the final. Fact of the matter is, 100% Nadal is virtually unbeatable in a 5 set clay match. And the history books show this pretty clearly.

In 2011 he didn't look unbeatable to me :shrug: Lucky he didn't have to play Novak that year. A healthy Nadal will always be great on clay but the conditions are also important. He didn't like the 2011 balls I think , and when its a little wet and heavy I suspect he can be troubled by players like Del Potro, Berdych and Soderling who have more power than him. Especially Soderling because he also uses quite some spin on his forehand so he can also be quite consistent with it, too bad the guy is injured this years conditions would be good for him I think.

r3d_d3v1l_
06-07-2012, 12:09 PM
You live by the sword and you die by the sword.

Litotes
10-19-2012, 12:42 PM
Where was he the 1st 3 moths of the year? How does he look likely to go back to the no1, win the olympics etc? Bcs he is dominating clay? He was doing that for past 7-8 years, and Fed was still the no1 most of the time. I don't say he can't come back to no1, but this is serious case of bandwagoning. 'Oh he won 3 tournaments on his favourite surface, he is the best.' What about the rest 7 months of the year?

Good to see someone kept their cool back then :yeah:

Andy1402
10-19-2012, 02:13 PM
Because other top players get wise to his ridiculous gamesmanship and start adjusting their game.
Nadal then takes 1 year to adjust his own game and invent fresh methods if gamesmanship to their disturb adjusted games.
These players then adjust their already adjusted game to nadal's adjusted game..
You see...the cycle never ends.

Sanya
10-19-2012, 02:17 PM
People are overrating amazingly. Nadal had a lot great seasons back-to-back. Actually he had great achievements every year after 2005. Sometimes better, sometimes worse, but he always was on the top of tennis world with huge victories, new records and so on.

Orka_n
10-19-2012, 02:24 PM
His physical playing style makes him subject to injuries.

/thread

Tag
10-19-2012, 02:59 PM
yes, winning one slam a year for 8 years, awful seasons

complete mug this nadal

should be winning 6 slams a year if he wants to be remembered

Roy Emerson
10-19-2012, 03:02 PM
yes, winning one slam a year for 8 years, awful seasons


Can he win one major at least for 9 years in a row? Borg, Sampras and Federer couldn't. The only player to do this was Pancho Gonzalez. It's hard. 2013 will be a very interesting year.

Tag
10-19-2012, 03:07 PM
Can he win one major at least for 9 years in a row? Borg, Sampras and Federer couldn't. The only player to do this was Pancho Gonzalez. It's hard. 2013 will be a very interesting year.

it will have to be the french, which also makes 8 majors at one grand slam, another thing sampras and federer couldn't do.

with respect to gonzalez, who was an originator and great champion of his day, can't be compared with borg, sampras and federer

i don't think he'll do it. too much pressure at it is; RG was his first, and it will be his last

so when that goes, he'll go

Filo V.
10-19-2012, 03:09 PM
Burnout.

duarte_a
10-19-2012, 03:24 PM
it will have to be the french, which also makes 8 majors at one grand slam, another thing sampras couldn't do and federer hasn't done yet.

with respect to gonzalez, who was an originator and great champion of his day, can't be compared with borg, sampras and federer

i don't think he'll do it. too much pressure at it is; RG was his first, and it will be his last

so when that goes, he'll go

Fixed.

Fiberlight1
10-19-2012, 03:37 PM
Fixed.

Wimbledon was a fluke. Murray choked. And he should have lost to Benneteau

duarte_a
10-19-2012, 03:58 PM
Wimbledon was a fluke. Murray choked. And he should have lost to Benneteau

RG 2006, 2007 and especially 2011 were flukes. Roger choked.

Next.

rocketassist
10-19-2012, 04:10 PM
Nadal is not unlucky with injuries. It would be very suspicious given his playing style if he had stayed injury-free.

Pirata.
10-19-2012, 04:37 PM
Hewitt and Roddick are both better than Soderling, Berdych or Puerta.

Not really.

Two guys with 3 slams, 6 finals > Three guys with 5 finals

Whiznot
10-19-2012, 06:07 PM
Rafa is an overachiever. Whenever he wins on a surface other than clay the result is a great surprise. Nadal's amazing results have extracted a heavy toll on his body due to his bouncy and inefficient movement.

Tag
10-19-2012, 06:10 PM
Rafa is an overachiever. Whenever he wins on a surface other than clay the result is a great surprise. Nadal's amazing results have extracted a heavy toll on his body due to his bouncy and inefficient movement.

wait, what?

Cereal Killer
10-19-2012, 06:14 PM
Rafa is an overachiever. Whenever he wins on a surface other than clay the result is a great surprise. Nadal's amazing results have extracted a heavy toll on his body due to his bouncy and inefficient movement.

Inefficient movement? Absolutely, if only he moved better he would have won 30 slams by now. What a mug.

Tag
10-19-2012, 06:16 PM
Inefficient movement? Absolutely, if only he moved better he would have won 30 slams by now. What a mug.

no doubt, he's lucky to have won 2 slams, never mind 11 slams, with this atrocious movement of his

if nadal has horrific movement, everyone else on the ATP must be a snail

Everko
10-19-2012, 06:16 PM
Rafa is an overachiever. Whenever he wins on a surface other than clay the result is a great surprise. Nadal's amazing results have extracted a heavy toll on his body due to his bouncy and inefficient movement.

The best mover the game has ever or will see

Honestly
10-19-2012, 06:32 PM
Not if your 8-6 on 2/3 surfaces. You don't have to be the greatest on every surface, because no one is.

Owned.

He can't follow up a great season because he sucks. A true great player like the GOAT can play 4 consecutive amazing seasons like 2004-2007.

Burrow
10-19-2012, 06:34 PM
There's a clear difference between efficient movement and inefficient. It's not in any way related to effectiveness in present performance.

Honestly
10-19-2012, 06:44 PM
Dull is not a natural mover. He runs around the baseline like a headless chicken. If he you want to see what natural, graceful movment is that is easy on the body then look no further than the GOAT.

Whiznot
10-19-2012, 07:19 PM
Nadal exhibits inefficient movement even in his walk. When Nadal walks he bounces up and down with every step and that up and down motion is distinctive. You can discern much from a player's walk. Take a look at Grigor Dimitrov's walk--his whole body wags from side to side like a dog wagging his tail. No way will Dimitrov ever be a top player.

Orka_n
10-19-2012, 11:10 PM
The best mover the game has ever or will seePerhaps on clay, fanboy. On HC and grass, my ass.