2019 Roland Garros Men's Final: Rafael Nadal vs. Dominic Thiem

Who wins?


  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
654
Reactions
480
Points
63
Running up and down the court is not something minor. It adds a whole new dimension to in-game fitness. Moving side-to-side explosively is much more challenging when you have the added cardiovascular strain of running up and down a 94-foot court.



Lol....not when it comes to running up the court and moving side-to-side. How do you get teammates to run up the court for you and move your feet for you?

you make it sound like they are constantly running up/down and at full speed. Sometimes the stroll from one side to the other, unless the offense is fast paced, which it's often not. Then they get plenty of time on one side of the court, either on offense or defense. I've watched plenty of basketball, watch how they stand and walk around when setting up offense. They run up, sometimes stroll., slowly.. then walk around and pass the ball..taking time off clock. Yes, running up/down the court is part of the game but there are plenty of chill time in between... as offense sets up the point.



And in tennis you get to take mini-breaks after you hit the ball and you wait for your opponent to hit the ball back to your side, and you don't have to run that far (compared to basketball) unless your opponent hits a great drop shot or short-angle shot that you have to chase. You also get mini-breaks between points.

And, again, having to RUN vertically up and down the court constantly is a very significant difference. Tennis players don't have to run vertically like that unless they are chasing down drop shots or chasing down lobs that were hit over their head.
Two high grade baseliners will play a tiring rally, take a few secs break, back at it... point after point after point. This is exhausting and yes, brutal... i guarantee you the fittest basketball player would find it as challenging, if not more, than 38 mins of playtime in an avg b-ball game! that's NOTHING in tennis, 1 set. I would not be surprised if Lebron James would be totally out of breath if he had to play a baseline war for 4 hours, he is not used to that!


And in tennis you have changeovers. You also get to leave the court if you are a player with clout to take bathroom breaks.
they rarely take bathroom breaks and again, in slams, 3-4 hours is common for a match..in basketball 38 mins is actually a lot!




The difference being that in tennis you don't have to run up and down the court constantly and you're not getting hit.
Physical contact is something basketball has but you make it sound like it's boxing. The game has changed, especially after hand check rule, which makes MJ's feats so impressive vs today's guys. The game is not nearly as physical as it was was during Jordan days, the 90s were physical... go back and watch the pistons. Today's it's sissy basketball..there is not much contact unless you are down in the paint. The contact is the least of the physical demands in basketball... unlike in football or boxing where it's a big part of physical nature of those sports.





Yes, running up and down the court is a huge difference. And moving side-to-side in basketball is not something you only do "at times." It's something you have to do on every defensive possession.
running up/down with pauses in between and only doing it for 30-40 mins. No, the side to side movements in basketball are nothing like in tennis. The offensive player will stand in front of defender, look for screen, try and dribble past defender or jut shoot the ball from outside, or pass it to a teammate who will shoot it. They do dart from time to time, looking for open pass but they take some breaks all the time and stand watching teammates do the work. This is nowhere near what you see when two high quality baselines play for 3-4 hours.. Yes the running up/down court is a big part of basketball but there is more running in a 3-4 hour tennis match than in a 38 min basketball game.





Because Jordan displayed a rare level of durability. Most NBA guys are not that durable.
Lebron James hasn't been injured that much either, in his career.




There are plenty of ankle, hamstring, and groin injuries in basketball. Plus I have seen over the years far more ACL and Achilles injuries (like the one Durant just suffered) in basketball than in tennis.
In basketball, injuries are mostly due to physical contact or more acute, sudden injuries like tears or ankle sprains. In tennis you have the ankle sprains and tears too but you also have types of injuries that are related to repetitive unnatural movements. Hitting thousands of serves, forehands, backhands is totally unnatural and over time, shoulders, elbows, wrists break down. You don't see this type of wear and tear in basketball. Knees and hips and back are also issues for many tennis players. I guarantee you that if we made list of injuries for avg tennis player, they beat list of injuries for avg basketball player. I would say that the injuries in basketball are also more easy to recover from as they are more acute and not due to wear and tear. it's much easier to recover from a bruised rib, hamstring from a collision with a player than from knee, hip, shoulder problems due to wear and tear, these are more long term problems that usually never go away, they are managed. Injuries in tennis are freakishly common, look around.



Go watch John Wall or Derrick Rose highlights when they were younger and please try to tell me that Djokovic or Nadal are even close to being in their athletic ballpark. I'll wait.
this discussion didn't start with arguing about who is more athletic, it was about you laughing at me saying tennis was 'brutal' and that i needed to look at other sports. I have already, very clearly, showed you tennis is as every bit demanding physically as basketball. I have explained to you the causes of injury, the fact that avg. basketball player plays 30-40 mins which is merely a set in tennis and also explained in depth what both sports require physically. Athletically, on avg., basketball players are more athletic but my point to you is you underestimate the athleticism of tennis players. It's also hard to compare athletes across different sports. In basketball, wingspan and height are big advantages but you could, in theory, be tall with big wingspan and be 'unathletic'. I would not consider Derrick Rose than much more athletic than Monfils... I was a fan of Derick rose, one of the most explosive players i have ever seen, but he trained for basketball, monfils didn't. Rose has about a 40-42 in vertical, do you know Monfil's? and who's faster running? we don't know. Again, basketball rewards height, i wouldn't consider height an athletic trait. It so happens the basketball rims are 10 feet, what if they were 5 feet? would LeBron have an advantage over Nadal if rim were 5 feet? he would probably have a disadvantage as now Nadal would be in the middle between Lebron and the rim, whereas at 10 feet, Nadal cannot guard him. We should compare Nadal to 6'1 basketball players... height is an unfair, unathletic, advantage.



Monfils is nowhere near as athletic as Westbrook, John Wall, or Derrick Rose. Curry is a misleading example simply because of his shooting skill.
how do you know? Do you know how fast he is or what his vertical is? These guys trained all their lives in basketball, what if Monfils would've. Look at Monfils, his body resembles a 6'4 MJ!





I respect the athleticism of tennis players but I don't think tennis entails the same cardiovascular strain as basketball.
How can you tell me 38 mins of playing basketball is harder than 3-4 hours of tennis? both at a high level?



Yes it does. You are just talking up tennis players because tennis is obviously your favorite sport.
no, because tennis is oftentimes diminished by people that like other sports but they have no idea what they are talking about. I have played both sports and i can honestly tell you that i have never been more tested than when playing a consistent strong baseliner for 3 sets. I for sure got winded playing basketball many times but only time i have had to quit or pause is when playing tennis against a very good baseliner.

You got yourself in a hole by laughing at my 'brutal' comments and telling me basketball is more demanding. Big mistake. If you want to talk about sports that more demanding, tell me boxing. Not only is it incredibly exhausting to throw punches for 12 rounds, you are getting hit... now that is a step up..
 
Last edited:

kskate2

Administrator
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
30,396
Reactions
9,309
Points
113
Age
54
Location
Tampa Bay
Pics of the champ:
upload_2019-6-13_22-6-19.png


upload_2019-6-13_22-9-1.png


upload_2019-6-13_22-10-50.png


upload_2019-6-13_22-24-32.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: tented and Moxie

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
I don't see one of the animal biting the trophy. Has he finally evolved?
 

kskate2

Administrator
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
30,396
Reactions
9,309
Points
113
Age
54
Location
Tampa Bay
I thought you were on my side. We are going to have to talk about this. I tick you off on NBA thread and you disgust me with this stuff
Haha. I put up pics for both champs. Stop being so sensitive. :rolleyes:
 

imjimmy

Pro Tour Player
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
228
Reactions
162
Points
43
I thought this was a great article on Nadal's record in Paris:

http://www.tennisnow.com/News/2019/June/Next-Level-Nadal-has-Gone-Beyond-Greatness-in-Pari.aspx

_________

It may seem routine to all who saw it coming and who knew better than to expect any other outcome. But when Rafael Nadal stops winning Roland Garros titles one day in the not too distant future we will all look back in awe, the realization that his simple and sublime quest has yielded the greatest achievement of the greatest era of men’s tennis.

Those beads of sweat that colored the fabled clay of Court Philippe Chatrier, they’ll forever be a part of the fabric of Nadal’s magic in Paris. An improbable feat managed with the most humble of origins.

When he’s gone, replaced no doubt by a statue, we’ll know where to find the true essence of Nadal: in the terre battue, trampled beneath the feet of future generations, who will endeavor but never match what he’s accomplished.

______________
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
Obviously Nadal's FO greatness is taken for granted now, so 12 RG titles doesn't feel as insane as it should because well, he had 11 last year, and we all accepted that, so he wins another and it's 12, big deal. It's almost like diminishing marginal return.

However, to truly appreciate how nuts that is, let's go back in time to 10 years ago after he had just lost to Soderling. Back then, he "only" had 4 FO titles and despite the fact that he had failed to tie Borg's record of 5 consecutive FO's, most figured Nadal was the greatest clay courter ever and pretty much knew he'd win a few more French Opens. That is fair enough, but imagine 10 years ago on these forums, right after he had lost to Soderling, a crazy Nadal fan predicted that he would end up with 12 Roland Garros titles. How insane would you have thought he was? Never mind the knees and his body breaking down and all the doom and gloom we've heard over the years. The idea itself is utterly nonsensical. To win 12 FO's, he'd have to win EIGHT more. That's impossible.
 
Last edited:

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
Obviously Nadal's FO greatness is taken for granted now, so 12 RG titles doesn't feel as insane as it should because well, he had 11 last year, and we all accepted that, so he wins another and it's 12, big deal. It's almost like diminishing marginal return.

However, to truly appreciate how nuts that is, let's go back in time to 10 years ago after he had just lost to Soderling. Back then, he "only" had 4 FO titles and despite the fact that he had failed to tie Borg's record of 5 consecutive FO's, most figured Nadal was the greatest clay courter ever and pretty much knew he'd win a few more French Opens. That is fair enough, but imagine 10 years ago on these forums, righte after he had lost to Soderling, a crazy Nadal fan predicted that he would end up with 12 Roland Garros titles. How insane would you have thought he was? Never mind the knees and his body breaking down and all the doom and gloom we've heard over the years. The idea itself is utterly nonsensical. To win 12 FO's, he'd have to win EIGHT more. That's impossible.

This actually reminds me of how much Nadal has surpassed expectations in general. I remember @britbox and I being in agreement around 2008 that Nadal would end up with something like 8 majors total.
 
  • Like
Reactions: don_fabio

don_fabio

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
4,031
Reactions
4,342
Points
113
This actually reminds me of how much Nadal has surpassed expectations in general. I remember @britbox and I being in agreement around 2008 that Nadal would end up with something like 8 majors total.
Back then majority believed Nadal career will be short and his body will break, making him unable to win anything big, but the guy is still kicking ass in 2019. That's just crazy. Imagine the commitment he has to remain where he is. Back then I tought he will go down due to injuries and become another Hewitt who was great at the beginning and mediocre player later just running around putting balls back, but Rafa is on a whole another level. He is actually very agressive player, it just doesn't seem that way because of the whole Fed Rafa duel, but Rafa really adopted so well to prolong his career. Even in 2015 it looked like he is finally going down. I don't see the end of him anymore. He is probably going to remain strong for 3-4 years more which gives him plenty of opportunities. I just hope he stops playing after US Open, claims an injury and gets proper rest. His body is usually suffering too much playing late in the season.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
you make it sound like they are constantly running up/down and at full speed.

Maybe it sounded that way to you but that was never my point. The basketball players may not run at full speed every time up the court, but even going on average at 60-70% speed for an extended period of time is very demanding when you consider the half-court work players have to do.

Sometimes the stroll from one side to the other, unless the offense is fast paced, which it's often not. Then they get plenty of time on one side of the court, either on offense or defense. I've watched plenty of basketball, watch how they stand and walk around when setting up offense...

Yes, that happens at times. That doesn't change the fact that you still have to run up and down the court. Have you ever played half-court basketball compared to full-court basketball? The strain does not even compare.

They run up, sometimes stroll., slowly.. then walk around and pass the ball..taking time off clock. Yes, running up/down the court is part of the game but there are plenty of chill time in between... as offense sets up the point....

The offense just sets up, no one around basketball says "sets up the point." That is tennis terminology.

That aside, you discount how many easy and cheap points there are in tennis. What about points where there are aces, or double faults, or missed returns? Or short rallies ended by unforced errors?

Those happen all the time. Not every tennis point is a 2.5-minute rally with the two players screaming through pain.

Two high grade baseliners will play a tiring rally, take a few secs break, back at it... point after point after point. This is exhausting and yes, brutal.......

No it's not, except in the most competitive matches. Do you really think Djokovic finds the average match to be "brutal"? If you do, you have to be kidding me. Your standard for what constitutes "brutality" has to be very low.

i guarantee you the fittest basketball player would find it as challenging, if not more, than 38 mins of playtime in an avg b-ball game!

Not unless they were playing someone of comparable athleticism and the rallies were very long for a long time. But, again, you keep downplaying the running dimension here and how much of an extra challenge that is.

that's NOTHING in tennis, 1 set.

And moving side-to-side a little bit is nothing in basketball. So there.

I would not be surprised if Lebron James would be totally out of breath if he had to play a baseline war for 4 hours, he is not used to that!

Yeah, sure Mike. I doubt LeBron could possibly match Serena Williams's stamina or John Isner's constant explosiveness in rallies. LeBron would not be able to physically compete with either.

they rarely take bathroom breaks and again, in slams, 3-4 hours is common for a match..in basketball 38 mins is actually a lot!

And the tennis players don't have to run up and down a long court (even if only at 60-70% on average).

Physical contact is something basketball has but you make it sound like it's boxing. The game has changed, especially after hand check rule, which makes MJ's feats so impressive vs today's guys.

Players today still have to run through screens, fight for position on box-outs, and deal with all kinds of accidental contact.

The game is not nearly as physical as it was was during Jordan days, the 90s were physical... go back and watch the pistons. .

You are talking about cheap shots. Those have been reduced but there is still a ton of in-game contact.

The contact is the least of the physical demands in basketball... unlike in football or boxing where it's a big part of physical nature of those sports. .

I never said that basketball was as physical as football or boxing, but it is certainly more physical than tennis.

running up/down with pauses in between and only doing it for 30-40 mins..

And tennis players by and large only run side-to-side. Also, Mike, you keep bringing up this 30-40 minutes figure. How much of a 2-hour tennis match do you think is actually spent in long rallies, if you were to time it out? Maybe 10-15 minutes total?

You act like there are no changeovers and no commercial breaks and no short points in tennis. Just 35-shot rallies point after point, minute after minute. Who are you kidding?

No, the side to side movements in basketball are nothing like in tennis.

Yes, they're harder when you're guarding a great dribbler and you have to constantly fight through screens.

The offensive player will stand in front of defender, look for screen, try and dribble past defender or jut shoot the ball from outside,

Yeah, sure Mike. Defense just means standing and watching someone dribble.

Do you think it is easy to just stay in front of a great dribbler and deal with screens constantly being set around you?

They do dart from time to time, looking for open pass but they take some breaks all the time and stand watching teammates do the work.

Possessions are short in basketball. The "standing around" does not occur for minutes at a time. And tennis players only have to recover from short points all the time.


This is nowhere near what you see when two high quality baselines play for 3-4 hours.. Yes the running up/down court is a big part of basketball but there is more running in a 3-4 hour tennis match than in a 38 min basketball game.,

No there's not, lol. I'm talking about long-stride actual running, not moving laterally and occasionally chasing a drop shot. Tennis definitely entails intense movement but to call it "running" in the vertical sense is absurd.

Lebron James hasn't been injured that much either, in his career. ,

And he is an anomaly.


In basketball, injuries are mostly due to physical contact or more acute, sudden injuries like tears or ankle sprains.,

Do you seriously think you see as many ACL's and ankle sprains in tennis as in basketball? No way.

In tennis you have the ankle sprains and tears too but you also have types of injuries that are related to repetitive unnatural movements. Hitting thousands of serves, forehands, backhands is totally unnatural and over time, shoulders, elbows, wrists break down. You don't see this type of wear and tear in basketball. .,

Fair point, but not everyone who plays tennis copes with unbearable physical breakdown either. If you look at ex-tennis players, they are by and large in excellent health.

I guarantee you that if we made list of injuries for avg tennis player, they beat list of injuries for avg basketball player. I would say that the injuries in basketball are also more easy to recover from as they are more acute and not due to wear and tear. it's much easier to recover from a bruised rib, hamstring from a collision with a player than from knee, hip, shoulder problems due to wear and tear, these are more long term problems that usually never go away, they are managed..,

So what? That doesn't mean any one individual match is unbearably difficult. It just means that serving as hard as you can for 15 years will give you a bad shoulder.

But, I should add, that a lot of former basketball players struggle with knee pain too.

this discussion didn't start with arguing about who is more athletic, it was about you laughing at me saying tennis was 'brutal' and that i needed to look at other sports. ..,

Yes, when you call 15 minutes of rallies "brutal," I stand by that.

I have already, very clearly, showed you tennis is as every bit demanding physically as basketball...,

In your own mind, maybe. Not to me.

I have explained to you the causes of injury, the fact that avg. basketball player plays 30-40 mins which is merely a set in tennis

Which is a laughable argument because you are not taking into account the stoppages in tennis, the constant pauses, the fact that not every point is a 50-shot rally, the fact that most points do not entail straight-line running, nor the fact that in a 3-hour tennis match you can squeeze a few long rallies out to say that only 20 minutes (if that) of the match was highly intense.

Athletically, on avg., basketball players are more athletic but my point to you is you underestimate the athleticism of tennis players.

No I don't.

It's also hard to compare athletes across different sports. In basketball, wingspan and height are big advantages but you could, in theory, be tall with big wingspan and be 'unathletic'..

And most NBA players are not tall stiffs like John Isner or Anderson from South Africa. They are far more athletic than both. So that's another stupid argument by you.

I would not consider Derrick Rose than much more athletic than Monfils...

Then you're being an idiot. Monfils has the athleticism of a regular D-1 or D-League swingman. He is also an anomaly among tennis players, so don't act like he is the average player.

I was a fan of Derick rose, one of the most explosive players i have ever seen, but he trained for basketball, monfils didn't. Rose has about a 40-42 in vertical, do you know Monfil's? and who's faster running? we don't know....

Let's compare Monfils to the key players on the Raptors roster:

Leonard? Leonard is more athletic.
Siakam? Siakam is definitely more athletic.
Ibaka? Monfils is quicker but Ibaka with proper tennis skills (such as a big serve) could definitely trouble him.
Lowry? Quicker than Monfils and just as fast. Also more explosive.
Van Vleet? Van Vleet is stronger and just as quick but Monfils is faster.
Danny Green? Monfils is more athletic but Green with tennis skill could do a lot of damage against him.
Marc Gasol? Monfils is more athletic but Gasol is stronger and with tennis skill could do a lot of damage against him.

Again, basketball rewards height, i wouldn't consider height an athletic trait. ...

It sure helps with serving for Isner, Karlovic, and Anderson, doesn't it? It is an athletic trait. All things being equal, you would rather be 6-8 than 6-3.

Look at Monfils, his body resembles a 6'4 MJ! ...

By that standard, there are a lot of 6-4 MJ's in the world.

How can you tell me 38 mins of playing basketball is harder than 3-4 hours of tennis? both at a high level? ...

Because basketball entails more full-court running. Also, if you squeeze the most intense moments of a 3-4 match out, you are only talking about 20 minutes at most of full, all-out exertion.

no, because tennis is oftentimes diminished by people that like other sports but they have no idea what they are talking about....

I like tennis and fully respect and enjoy the lateral movement it entails. But to say it requires the same high-level athleticism as pro basketball is a stretch.

I have played both sports and i can honestly tell you that i have never been more tested than when playing a consistent strong baseliner for 3 sets. I for sure got winded playing basketball many times but only time i have had to quit or pause is when playing tennis against a very good baseliner....

Obviously you didn't have the shots to finish points quickly like Nalbandian did.

Big mistake. If you want to talk about sports that more demanding, tell me boxing. Not only is it incredibly exhausting to throw punches for 12 rounds, you are getting hit... now that is a step up..

DB's, wide receivers, and running backs in high-level football are also much more athletic, on average, than tennis players.
 

El Dude

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,756
Reactions
5,127
Points
113
Obviously Nadal's FO greatness is taken for granted now, so 12 RG titles doesn't feel as insane as it should because well, he had 11 last year, and we all accepted that, so he wins another and it's 12, big deal. It's almost like diminishing marginal return.

However, to truly appreciate how nuts that is, let's go back in time to 10 years ago after he had just lost to Soderling. Back then, he "only" had 4 FO titles and despite the fact that he had failed to tie Borg's record of 5 consecutive FO's, most figured Nadal was the greatest clay courter ever and pretty much knew he'd win a few more French Opens. That is fair enough, but imagine 10 years ago on these forums, right after he had lost to Soderling, a crazy Nadal fan predicted that he would end up with 12 Roland Garros titles. How insane would you have thought he was? Never mind the knees and his body breaking down and all the doom and gloom we've heard over the years. The idea itself is utterly nonsensical. To win 12 FO's, he'd have to win EIGHT more. That's impossible.

I kind of see it this way. Rafa's 12 RG titles came in three groups. The first, 2005-08, was him establishing himself as a truly great clay courter - one of the best ever. The second group, 2010-14, was him surpassing Borg and establishing himself as the greatest clay courter of all time. This third group, 2017-19 (so far) is him besting hiimself, taking it up another notch altogether.

By the end of the second group he was the best clay courter ever - a solid level above Borg, Lendl, etc. Now he has bested even that. As amazing as #13, 14, 15 would be, I'm not sure how much more he can add to that legacy.

But I will suggest that whatever his final tally is, it will last longer as a record than whatever the overall Slam title record is in a few years (probably 20-22).
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
42,654
Reactions
13,845
Points
113
Obviously Nadal's FO greatness is taken for granted now, so 12 RG titles doesn't feel as insane as it should because well, he had 11 last year, and we all accepted that, so he wins another and it's 12, big deal. It's almost like diminishing marginal return.

However, to truly appreciate how nuts that is, let's go back in time to 10 years ago after he had just lost to Soderling. Back then, he "only" had 4 FO titles and despite the fact that he had failed to tie Borg's record of 5 consecutive FO's, most figured Nadal was the greatest clay courter ever and pretty much knew he'd win a few more French Opens. That is fair enough, but imagine 10 years ago on these forums, right after he had lost to Soderling, a crazy Nadal fan predicted that he would end up with 12 Roland Garros titles. How insane would you have thought he was? Never mind the knees and his body breaking down and all the doom and gloom we've heard over the years. The idea itself is utterly nonsensical. To win 12 FO's, he'd have to win EIGHT more. That's impossible.
I appreciate this post especially for giving Nadal's achievement some perspective. If, in 2009, some Nadal fan had said he'd win 8 more at RG, for sure even we Rafa fans would have called that fannish trolling, or outsized optimism at best. Your comment reminded me of another moment "back in the day" on these forums, after Novak won Wimbledon '11 for his 3rd Major, and someone put up a poll as to how many Majors we thought Djokovic would win by the end. One of the choices was "10+." I said I thought it was a bit early to say that, and caught some flack from a Nole fan who shall remain nameless. At that point I think Roger had 16 and Rafa 10, so the impossible had started to seem more possible, but it still seemed crazy to project the kinds of numbers that we now have with the Big 3. So, 15 Majors later for Nole, and counting, I will eat whatever crow.

We now tend to normalize the accomplishments of the big 3, and look for the next many-multi-slam winner, but I don't think that's happening anytime soon. Thanks for the reminder of how outrageous these achievements are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imjimmy

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
42,654
Reactions
13,845
Points
113
I kind of see it this way. Rafa's 12 RG titles came in three groups. The first, 2005-08, was him establishing himself as a truly great clay courter - one of the best ever. The second group, 2010-14, was him surpassing Borg and establishing himself as the greatest clay courter of all time. This third group, 2017-19 (so far) is him besting hiimself, taking it up another notch altogether.

By the end of the second group he was the best clay courter ever - a solid level above Borg, Lendl, etc. Now he has bested even that. As amazing as #13, 14, 15 would be, I'm not sure how much more he can add to that legacy.

But I will suggest that whatever his final tally is, it will last longer as a record than whatever the overall Slam title record is in a few years (probably 20-22).
I get why you say that adding more RG titles doesn't add much more to the legacy, even though we couldn't possibly feel 'ho-hum' about it. His clay legacy is already secure. Ideally, he would still diversify the resume a bit. Another title at the AO would be huge. And a YEC, which feels like a pipe-dream. But at the very least another one off-clay.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
I appreciate this post especially for giving Nadal's achievement some perspective. If, in 2009, some Nadal fan had said he'd win 8 more at RG, for sure even we Rafa fans would have called that fannish trolling, or outsized optimism at best. Your comment reminded me of another moment "back in the day" on these forums, after Novak won Wimbledon '11 for his 3rd Major, and someone put up a poll as to how many Majors we thought Djokovic would win by the end. One of the choices was "10+." I said I thought it was a bit early to say that, and caught some flack from a Nole fan who shall remain nameless. At that point I think Roger had 16 and Rafa 10, so the impossible had started to seem more possible, but it still seemed crazy to project the kinds of numbers that we now have with the Big 3. So, 15 Majors later for Nole, and counting, I will eat whatever crow.

We now tend to normalize the accomplishments of the big 3, and look for the next many-multi-slam winner, but I don't think that's happening anytime soon. Thanks for the reminder of how outrageous these achievements are.

The 3 of them far exceeded expectations in terms of slam count, including Roger. I know many Roger fans don't feel that way but 20 majors is nuts. You can argue he should have won more, and I'd say the same about Nadal who definitely left a few on the table too (these things have a way of balancing out, you lose some you should have won, you win some you should have lost) but in the end 20 majors is ridiculous. After he lost to Nadal at the 2009 AO many were saying he'd never break Sampras' record. Novak had already won more than many thought he would by 2016 but many, again, thought he'd never win another one after that. Now it wouldn't surprise me if he broke the all time record.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie and don_fabio

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
I get why you say that adding more RG titles doesn't add much more to the legacy, even though we couldn't possibly feel 'ho-hum' about it. His clay legacy is already secure. Ideally, he would still diversify the resume a bit. Another title at the AO would be huge. And a YEC, which feels like a pipe-dream. But at the very least another one off-clay.

I know some will claim I'm biased but I just find it odd to look at a guy who won 18 majors and go "but the YEC." I know this might seem like it goes against my "we shouldn't blindly look at major numbers" thing but these guys have such insane overall resumes that these small shortcomings don't matter much to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie