[Nadalgoat 2]

A lot of people was saying Nadal game style and injury's would be the reason why he would end up like Borg retiring early but instead he becomes the first and only player in history to be ranked number no.1 in 3 different decades. is this the greatest record in sports history guys?

 

[sheep85]

there there. it's fine. the pain is going away at some point. just have faith and it's gonna be alright.

 

[The Hero Cop Mark]

Still doesn't have his own era like Fed (2000s), Djokovic (2010s), Sampras (1990s), Lendl (1980s) or Borg (1970s).

 

[smithy]

I don't know, Nadalgoat 2. You tell me.

I'm sure I'll get an impartial answer based on your username.

 

[fedfan192]

The proper way to measure this is to measure the time span between when a player first achieved the #1 ranking and last achieved it. For Nadal it's 11 and a half years which is, of course, very impressive.

The fact that Nadal has held the #1 in three different decades is an arbitrary statistic, which he only holds because he first achieved the #1 ranking at the tail end of one decade (2008) and last achieved it at the beginning of another (early 2020). The time span between Federer's first and last #1 stints is 14 and a bit years, nearly 3 years more than Nadal's, and yet he hasn't been #1 in three different decades because his first #1 stint was at the beginning of a decade (2004). Had the calendar shifted back 2 years, Federer would have "achieved" this record and Nadal wouldn't have.

So no, this is merely an arbitrary and skewed representation of an actual record -- the longest time span between first and last stints at #1 -- that Nadal doesn't even hold. Nadal is the #2 in this category which, as I say, is a great achievement, but it can't be the "greatest record in tennis history" if it's not even a proper record.

 

[Bella&Mirka]

Broken-to-love is greater.

 

[ivanban]

A lot of people was saying Nadal game style and injury's would be the reason why he would end up like Borg retiring early but instead he becomes the first and only player in history to be ranked number no.1 in 3 different decades. is this the greatest record in sports history guys?

I'm sorry, but what is the 3rd decade? 🤔

 

[Yukimura]

Nope. And I'm a Nadal fan. He himself has at least two better ones.

 

[Roxitova]

It's a sweet one for sure.
And one only Rafa holds.
Kind of implies he's had the best career. And he's not done yet.

 

[Roxitova]

there there. it's fine. the pain is going away at some point. just have faith and it's gonna be alright.

You must be talking to yourself again.

 

[Roxitova]

I'm sorry, but what is the 3rd decade? 🤔

You have a point. This doesn't make sense.

 

[swissmaestro92]

well it clearly demonstrates Nadal has great longevity, but I also think its more sensible to look at the gap from when he first became number 1 2008-2020 (12 years), for Djokovic its 2011-2020 (9 years) and Federer its 2004-2018 (14 years).

Of course total weeks at number 1 are against Nadal compared to the other two also, but there is no doubt that Rafa has had considerably more longevity than I initially thought he would have say a decade ago.

 

[florentine]

A lot of people was saying Nadal game style and injury's would be the reason why he would end up like Borg retiring early

I only read that so far because no one has said that or so people very uninformed about Borg leaving.

Borg had the most loose game and without brutality in the execution, also in the displacement.
Nothing comparable with Nadal.

He was very rarely injured, and with little relation to his game, from memory, a groin injury US 1977 (ret vs Stockton), a fall and a slight sprain in Düsseldorf in 1980 and .. a blister in his thumb at US 1978 .

He left the circuit, his body intact and preserved, but the victim of mental burnout (the pressure due to the circuit, the media coverage) and also other complications with the ITF governing bodies who condemned his return in 1982, I have already developed them elsewhere, concerning a mandatory quota of tournaments to compete otherwise hehad to go through the qualifications .. also in slams..

Who would imagine that today for a tennis legend?

 

[El_Toro]

The real way to measure this is to measure the time span between when a player first achieved the #1 ranking and last achieved it. For Nadal it's 11 and a half years which is, of course, very impressive.

The fact that Nadal has held the #1 in three different decades is an arbitrary statistic, which he only holds because he first achieved the #1 ranking at the tail end of one decade (2008) and last achieved it at the beginning of another (early 2020). The time span between Federer's first and last #1 stints is 14 and a bit years, nearly 3 years more than Nadal's, and yet he hasn't been #1 in three different decades because his first #1 stint was at the beginning of a decade (2004). Had the calendar shifted back 2 years, Federer would have "achieved" this record and Nadal wouldn't have.

So no, this is merely an arbitrary presentation of an actual record -- the longest time span between first and last stints at #1 -- that Nadal doesn't even hold. Nadal is the #2 in this category which, as I say, is a great achievement, but it can't be the "greatest record in tennis history" if it's not even a proper record.

Federer last ended as YE#1 in 2009, a mere 5 years after earning his first #1. Rafa's is 11 years apart. That is the real record.

 

[NextGenKing]

Its very impressive but many will find it hard to admit to a rafa only fan.

There are 3 type fans

1. ONLY likes there fav and very biased
2. Loves tennis and has no fav
3. Has a fav but also respects and likes others

 

[florentine]

became number 1 2008-2020 (12 years), for Djokovic its 2011-2020 (9 years) and Federer its 2004-2018 (14 years)

details
List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players - Wikipedia

other
List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players - Wikipedia

 

[Roxitova]

you can add to this Nadal being in top 2 longer than any player, ever

They showed this stat during the atp finals

 

[Slasher1985]

I'm sorry, but what is the 3rd decade? 🤔

He is using 0-to-9 decade notation, statistically used by more than 60% of the planet, as opposed to what you're probably using, 1-to-0 decade notation.

So, by his standard, Nadal has been ranked #1 in
2000s
2010s
2020s

By your standard, Nadal has been ranked #1 in
The 201st decade
The 202nd decade

The 203rd decade has not yet started.

 

[ivanban]

He is using 0-to-9 decade notation, statistically used by more than 60% of the planet, as opposed to what you're probably using, 1-to-0 decade notation.

So, by his standard, Nadal has been ranked #1 in
2000s
2010s
2020s

By your standard, Nadal has been ranked #1 in
The 201st decade
The 202nd decade

The 203rd decade has not yet started.

New decade starts in 2021, ergo Nadal still hasn't been #1 in 3 decades

There is no "his standard" or "my standard", but only one correct standard

 

[Fargif]

The real way to measure this is to measure the time span between when a player first achieved the #1 ranking and last achieved it. For Nadal it's 11 and a half years which is, of course, very impressive.

The fact that Nadal has held the #1 in three different decades is an arbitrary statistic, which he only holds because he first achieved the #1 ranking at the tail end of one decade (2008) and last achieved it at the beginning of another (early 2020). The time span between Federer's first and last #1 stints is 14 and a bit years, nearly 3 years more than Nadal's, and yet he hasn't been #1 in three different decades because his first #1 stint was at the beginning of a decade (2004). Had the calendar shifted back 2 years, Federer would have "achieved" this record and Nadal wouldn't have.

So no, this is merely an arbitrary presentation of an actual record -- the longest time span between first and last stints at #1 -- that Nadal doesn't even hold. Nadal is the #2 in this category which, as I say, is a great achievement, but it can't be the "greatest record in tennis history" if it's not even a proper record.

No its not one of the greatest achievements in tennis by any means. I think Serena has it also, Could go for 4 decades if she manages to get there.
While Federer does have the longest time span. Rafa is still in this discusion. So lets not go into it because there is still time.
So you say its arbitrary in the tail end of the decade. Who cares ? Its a stat that demands being number 1 in a decade that he was. Even if Rafa was just number 1 for 1 week in October 2009 it would still be valid.
Look at this scenario. What if a player was number 1 for only 3 weeks in his career. But 1 week in 3 diferent decades. A bit lackluster but still a acomplisment many others never had.

Then you try and spin in for Federer side if the calender was sifted 2 years to make you look good and also Federer. Thats Fantasyland. Facts are facts and Op has the facts right. But i dont agree that this is the best acomplisment in tennis.
13 RG is until now.