Is Rafa in Decline?

[Denis]

The short answer is "Yes," I think so - although I voted "On the Fence" before I read Riotbeard's first post and emphasis on "beginning of the end." I really should have voted yes.

A longer answer is that every player declines in different ways, but one general pattern I see is that truly great players can still reach close to their highest level every once in a while, but it gets harder and harder.

Nadal has been declining on clay since peaking in 2008, but hardcourt has no pattern for him, as he peaked in 2010, declined in 2011/2012 and peaked even higher in 2013.
In 2013 Nadal sustained his best hardcourt form ever when he won 3 masters events (Indian Wells, Canada, Cincy) and US Open.
I don't even recall a man ever doing that.
I know Roddick won Canada, Cincy, US Open, but he didn't win Indian Wells that year.
And it came out of nowhere, because he won zero hardcourt masters shields/slams in 2011 and 2012.
So I wouldn't be surprised if Nadal again dominates hardcourts this year.
After all, 2013 began with him losing a claycourt final to a guy ranked 73.
No limits for Nadal.

Yeah no limits for Nadal on hards and still peaking while in decline on clay. That's why he's playing a 250 event on clay 3000 km from Indian wells while he could have played a 500 event on hards closer by.

 

[Front242]

^ Haha! Touché !

 

[auto-pilot]

^ Its easy to post these days isn't it, you can just copy and paste whatever you were posting in 2013.
None of this thread is an interesting discussion, because its all been done before in 2010 and 2013 throughout every tennis forum in the world.
Then again, the same can be said of the most subjective topic in tennis - "goat debate" - where apparently its possible to compare players of different eras that you never even saw play (not just different US Opens within a 10 year period).

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ Its easy to post these days isn't it, you can just copy and paste whatever you were posting in 2013.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing?

 

[auto-pilot]

^ I had never registered at a tennis forum in 2010/2013.
It may be surprising, but most tennis fans don't post on the internet.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Yes, Rafa is in the beginning of decline but he isn't Done yet. No chance he was going to keep winning what it was probably over 85 % of his matches on clay and being one of the top three threat of the majority of the grand slams and master series event. Rafa needs matches under his belt, the number 20-24 to regain his conditioning and most importantly his confidence. If he wins two of the next 6 events before RG, that should be more than sufficient for him to regain his form and retain his crown at RG. It looks bleak but it's gonna change very quickly when late March rolls around." Patience young highlander, the world can still be yours"

 

[auto-pilot]

Nadal's critics need to learn patience - they wrote him off in early 2010, early 2013 and early 2015.
Nadal has all the patience in the world, summed up nicely by his quote last week-
"Recovery is like a ladder which you don't climb running but rather step by step"

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ I had never registered at a tennis forum in 2010/2013.

Yes you did.

 

[auto-pilot]

^ I wish.
I would have made a killing in "I told ya so's".

My final answer to this thread:
Rafael Nadal peaked in 2008 on clay/grass and has since declined (his 2010 form on clay/grass was inferior).
Impossible to say on hardcourts however, because that has been up-and-down throughout his career (peaking in 2013).

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Yes, Rafa is in the beginning of decline but he isn't Done yet. No chance he was going to keep winning what it was probably over 85 % of his matches on clay and being one of the top three threat of the majority of the grand slams and master series event. Rafa needs matches under his belt, the number 20-24 to regain his conditioning and most importantly his confidence. If he wins two of the next 6 events before RG, that should be more than sufficient for him to regain his form and retain his crown at RG. It looks bleak but it's gonna change very quickly when late March rolls around." Patience young highlander, the world can still be yours"

Rafa isn't in his prime years anymore fact.I have followed him since he first came on tour,I have learnt over the years Never To Write Him Off,I understand he really hasnt played since Wimbledon 2014,he should have stopped ASAP to me and had his appendix out when he first learnt they were inflamed.I was in the same position as Rafa with his appendix,except I wasn't as lucky,mine did burst and left me with ongoing surgeries. It has been evident to me that Rafa,while watching his comeback again,is still in need of match play.He is still struggling in a lot of basic elements of the game.Quite frankly this will be a huge test for Rafa,if he is prepared to stick it out.Knowing his competitive nature,I still dont think he is done.I will look towards Indian Wells,which will give me me a clearer indication of where is game is.BTW where is Keiren? dont tell me he is in South America...

 

[the AntiPusher]

Yes, Rafa is in the beginning of decline but he isn't Done yet. No chance he was going to keep winning what it was probably over 85 % of his matches on clay and being one of the top three threat of the majority of the grand slams and master series event. Rafa needs matches under his belt, the number 20-24 to regain his conditioning and most importantly his confidence. If he wins two of the next 6 events before RG, that should be more than sufficient for him to regain his form and retain his crown at RG. It looks bleak but it's gonna change very quickly when late March rolls around." Patience young highlander, the world can still be yours"

Rafa isn't in his prime years anymore fact.I have followed him since he first came on tour,I have learnt over the years Never To Write Him Off,I understand he really hasnt played since Wimbledon 2014,he should have stopped ASAP to me and had his appendix out when he first learnt they were inflamed.I was in the same position as Rafa with his appendix,except I wasn't as lucky,mine did burst and left me with ongoing surgeries. It has been evident to me that Rafa,while watching his comeback again,is still in need of match play.He is still struggling in a lot of basic elements of the game.Quite frankly this will be a huge test for Rafa,if he is prepared to stick it out.Knowing his competitive nature,I still dont think he is done.I will look towards Indian Wells,which will give me me a clearer indication of where is game is.BTW where is Keiren? dont tell me he is in South America...

Idk where Kieran is, maybe he needs a vacation from the boards,responding to many anti-Rafa posts can be like work around here

 

[Federberg]

I don't see any evidence of a decline. If Rafa doesn't win at RG then I'm willing to discuss. But even that wouldn't justify panic. This is an all time great we're talking about. I'm sure he'll rage at the dying of the light

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't see any evidence of a decline

Oh my god.

 

[Federberg]

^You're shocked?

The guy gets injured, that's nothing to do with decline. He might not be peak Rafa, but that doesn't have to mean decline. Perhaps I'm a bit more practical than you. Results count, and the guy keeps producing. To imply that a guy who has been winning at least a slam a year for what... a decade? is in decline, elevates him a little too much in my humble opinion. I can see why a Rafa-fan might want to do that.. but I'm not one such.. :blush as you well know

 

[britbox]

^You're shocked?

The guy gets injured, that's nothing to do with decline. He might not be peak Rafa, but that doesn't have to mean decline. Perhaps I'm a bit more practical than you. Results count, and the guy keeps producing. To imply that a guy who has been winning at least a slam a year for what... a decade? is in decline, elevates him a little too much in my humble opinion. I can see why a Rafa-fan might want to do that.. but I'm not one such.. :blush as you well know

If he's not at his peak then he's in decline... unless you think he'll hit that peak again... surely?

That obviously doesn't mean he's chopped liver and incapable of winning big tournaments.

 

[Federberg]

^You're shocked?

The guy gets injured, that's nothing to do with decline. He might not be peak Rafa, but that doesn't have to mean decline. Perhaps I'm a bit more practical than you. Results count, and the guy keeps producing. To imply that a guy who has been winning at least a slam a year for what... a decade? is in decline, elevates him a little too much in my humble opinion. I can see why a Rafa-fan might want to do that.. but I'm not one such.. :blush as you well know

If he's not at his peak then he's in decline... unless you think he'll hit that peak again... surely?

That obviously doesn't mean he's chopped liver and incapable of winning big tournaments.

You can plateau. It's not clear to me that it has to be either or...

 

[brokenshoelace]

^You're shocked?

The guy gets injured, that's nothing to do with decline. He might not be peak Rafa, but that doesn't have to mean decline. Perhaps I'm a bit more practical than you. Results count, and the guy keeps producing. To imply that a guy who has been winning at least a slam a year for what... a decade? is in decline, elevates him a little too much in my humble opinion. I can see why a Rafa-fan might want to do that.. but I'm not one such.. :blush as you well know

WARNING: LONG POST INCOMING, BUT I URGE ALL OF YOU TO READ EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE ADMITTEDLY SNARKY AND SOMEWHAT UNBEARABLE. I'M RECOVERING FROM A HERNIA SURGERY AND HAVE TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS.

It's one thing to say "let's wait and see" if he's in decline, it's another to say "there's no evidence." The latter is factually incorrect. It's not a matter of opinion. Allow me to demonstrate:

Now Nadal has always been labelled as an injury prone player for as long as I can remember, but prior to 2009, while he had his injuries, it wasn't anything too severe. Hell, even in 2009, the reason the injury stands out so much is because he missed Wimbledon. But in truth, it was a 6 week layoff in which he missed two tournaments (Queens and Wimbledon). Obviously, one of them is huge, especially since he was the defending champion, but these things happen. The other reason that injury stands out so much is due to the never-ending debate about the Soderling match (and let's not get into that), and the fact that his results for the rest of the year suffered. Though it bodes mentioning that he missed time after the US Open in 2007 due to tendinitis, and missed the YEC in 2008 when he was world number 1.

Nevertheless, after 2009, while I do think Nadal's movement slowed down a touch, he surely improved other aspects of his game, culminating in his all-time best year in 2010. So surely, no decline. Fair? I'm sure you'll agree so far.

While his actual level throughout 2011 was a touch below 2010, much of that has to do with pretty much the one player in the world who was able to beat him. Nadal would have had a ridiculously dominant year otherwise. No decline. Fair? I'm sure you'll agree so far.

NOW let's get down to business:

He played 6 months in 2012. That's half a season, at the age of 25. That doesn't ring alarm bells to you about his health? A 7 months layoff?

Then, in 2013, he wasn't even ready for the beginning of the year and missed the first 6 weeks (second incomplete season in a row). Now, he was sensational after that, no doubt. But what happens in 2014? Injury again (back injury at the AO)...and again (wrist injury after Wimbledon)...and again (appendix surgery). The last two injuries virtually meant he played another 6 months season (he missed the entire North American summer, and only played a handful of matches after that).

That's what? Three incomplete seasons in a row. How is that NOT evidence of a physical decline? That's pretty much the definition of evidence. Starting 25 years of age, the man hasn't had a full season. I mean, what more do you want?

"The guy gets injured, that's nothing to do with decline."

That is indeed, a shocking statement. He gets injured >> he can't play >> he can't win >> His results suffer. That's not a decline?

Let's look at it another way: You can't play >> You lose points >> Your rankings DECLINES (literal definition of a decline). That's not a decline?

Let's look at it yet another way: You start getting injured more often >> Your body is breaking down >> it seems to be visibly affecting your movement (unless you failed to spot that this year) >> Not a decline?

I'm interested in what is the definition of a decline. So there is no such thing as a physical decline? And since tennis, is you know, a physical activity, how is that not part of a flat out decline?

But I know, I know, let's get back to results. You said: "Results count."

They sure do. So let's check them out:

Since winning the French Open last year, Nadal has:

- Lost in his opening match at Halle to...Dustin Brown (Nadal has always sucked on grass so surely that doesn't count).

- Lost in the 4th round at Wimbledon to a player ranked outside of the top 2014 (but I'll be the first to say it was almost exclusively due to his opponent's ridiculous level. That doesn't make the result THAT much less embarrassing).

- (Missed the North American hard court season which apparently has nothing to do with a decline because it's injury related).

- Wins a total of TWO matches at the China Open before losing to...Klizan (Nadal has always sucked on that surface).

- Wins a total of ZERO matches at the Shanghai Open and loses to...Feliciano Lopez (Nadal has always sucked on that surface).

- Wins a total of TWO matches in Basel before losing to...Coric (Nadal has always sucked indoors, and Coric just spanked Murray today so surely that's a logical result).

- Nadal takes the rest of the season off to get surgery AND treatment on his back (Yup, that's totally normal for a 28 year old).

- Nadal returns...and loses his first match back in Doha to 76 year old Michael Berrer (that's totally normal too. Nadal has always sucked in Doha, even though he was the defending champion).

- Australian Open: Nadal gets taken to five sets in the second round by some dude nobody's ever heard of and looks spent on court as early as set 3 (Nadal was never a physical freak so that's OK), and then loses to Tomas Berdych in straights, including a bagel (Nadal was never good against Berdych even though he had beaten Berdych some 173 times in a row).

- RIO Open: Nadal loses to Fabio Fognini on clay! (should I continue to run the "he's always sucked" joke to the ground? Cause I'm sure it got unbearable some 127956006 words ago).

Oh by the by, it's worth mentioning losses to Nicolas Almagro and David Ferrer (and almost Kei Nishikori prior to the injury) on clay in 2014.

Oh but it gets better: Since winning the FO (which is seemingly all that matters to prove whether Nadal is declining or not according to you), Nadal has won a total of 15 wins and lost 8 times, which is an abysmal ratio. That's not even 2 wins for every loss. So what was that above: "Results matter." Damn right they do.


"the guy keeps producing. To imply that a guy who has been winning at least a slam a year for what... a decade? is in decline, elevates him a little too much in my humble opinion."

Limiting whether Nadal is in decline or not to winning the French Open is actually a disrespect to Nadal and everything he's accomplished throughout the years. Yes, Nadal not winning the FO would be the time to panic, but that doesn't mean he's not in decline otherwise. Last I checked, the guy is not some one-dimensional one-trick pony who sleeps all year long and wakes up at the FO. He's not the leader in masters 1000 events won just because he wins on clay...and let's not even mention the decline in his results on clay, since that's apparently the only surface he can win on.

On second thought, let's do that. Between 2005 and 2012, Nadal lost a grand total of 8 matches on clay (to well over a 100 wins, just in case we're keeping track). Since 2012, he's lost 6. Ponder that for a moment. In virtually two seasons (2013 and 2014, and this one tournament he played in 2015) he's lost almost as much as he lost in eight seasons on the surface. Coincidence, I'm sure.

If you think this "elevates Nadal too much" it's because he deserves to be elevated. This is the most dominant player in history on a single surface and he's struggling with nobodies for the second season in a row, and this is a dude with an extremely impressive hard court resume who virtually can't buy a win on the surface for almost a year now. Oh, he's also a 5 time consecutive Wimbledon finalist and a two-time champion who hasn't gotten past the 4th round and virtually can't buy a win on grass in three consecutive seasons.

All of the above, is absolutely objective. I am talking facts: Results and repeated injuries. Nothing to be open to interpretation. I am not even beginning to tackle his obviously hampered movement because then I'll get accused by some of being subjective and letting my Nadal fandom cloud my judgment, even though the majority would agree with that assessment.

Random piece of trivia: Nadal's only two full seasons in the past TEN YEARS (starting 2005) have been in 2010 and 2011. Think about that for a second.


So was this post absolutely too long/elaborate/irritating/forceful (as in: "shut up, we f*cking get it already!"). Yes, absolutely. I realize I'm being unbearable. But I'm sorry, this is necessary. Since Nadal's 2012 injury, I'm tired of seeing people willfully ignore realities that hit them hard in the face:

Nadal misses Wimbledon in 2009: We have endless debates on just how injured he was and whether he needed to recover mentally from his shocking FO loss.

Nadal misses 7 months: We actually had endless debate about how injured he was, whether he was just resting and recovering mentally, and whether he could have played if he wanted to. And let's not get started on "silent bans."

Nadal gets injured mid-match in a major final against Wawrinka: DO NOT POINT IT OUT! No matter what. It's disrespectful to Wawrinka and you're making excuses.

Nadal gets injured two more times throughout the season and his results are garbage: See above about Nadal sucking at a certain point of the season.

Nadal gets tired an hour into a routine match in the second round of the AO: It happens to a lot of players. Australian heat.

None of the above arguments are made up, by the way. These are 100% facts and everyone is here to see them.

This has nothing to do with whether Nadal's style has contributed to some of his injuries (it has when it comes to tendinitis), whether Nadal fans are guilty of excuse making (they are), or whatever other agenda that's fueling the obvious denials. Everything above is a 100% fact that nobody can dispute. And no I'm not giving myself too much credit. That's just reality. It's been absolutely irritating to deal with some on the forums when it comes to this topic ever since the Australian Open final last year.

PS: I recall Federer winning slams in 2009, 2010 and 2012. I guess this talk of a decline since 2008 "elevates him too much," going by the logic in the post quoted some 10000 feet above.

PPS: Anyone wants a summary? :lolz:

 

[Federberg]

^You're shocked?

The guy gets injured, that's nothing to do with decline. He might not be peak Rafa, but that doesn't have to mean decline. Perhaps I'm a bit more practical than you. Results count, and the guy keeps producing. To imply that a guy who has been winning at least a slam a year for what... a decade? is in decline, elevates him a little too much in my humble opinion. I can see why a Rafa-fan might want to do that.. but I'm not one such.. :blush as you well know

WARNING: LONG POST INCOMING, BUT I URGE ALL OF YOU TO READ EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE ADMITTEDLY SNARKY AND SOMEWHAT UNBEARABLE. I'M RECOVERING FROM A HERNIA SURGERY AND HAVE TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS.

It's one thing to say "let's wait and see" if he's in decline, it's another to say "there's no evidence." The latter is factually incorrect. It's not a matter of opinion. Allow me to demonstrate:

Now Nadal has always been labelled as an injury prone player for as long as I can remember, but prior to 2009, while he had his injuries, it wasn't anything too severe. Hell, even in 2009, the reason the injury stands out so much is because he missed Wimbledon. But in truth, it was a 6 week layoff in which he missed two tournaments (Queens and Wimbledon). Obviously, one of them is huge, especially since he was the defending champion, but these things happen. The other reason that injury stands out so much is due to the never-ending debate about the Soderling match (and let's not get into that), and the fact that his results for the rest of the year suffered. Though it bodes mentioning that he missed time after the US Open in 2007 due to tendinitis, and missed the YEC in 2008 when he was world number 1.

Nevertheless, after 2009, while I do think Nadal's movement slowed down a touch, he surely improved other aspects of his game, culminating in his all-time best year in 2010. So surely, no decline. Fair? I'm sure you'll agree so far.

While his actual level throughout 2011 was a touch below 2010, much of that has to do with pretty much the one player in the world who was able to beat him. Nadal would have had a ridiculously dominant year otherwise. No decline. Fair? I'm sure you'll agree so far.

NOW let's get down to business:

He played 6 months in 2012. That's half a season, at the age of 25. That doesn't ring alarm bells to you about his health? A 7 months layoff?

Then, in 2013, he wasn't even ready for the beginning of the year and missed the first 6 weeks (second incomplete season in a row). Now, he was sensational after that, no doubt. But what happens in 2014? Injury again (back injury at the AO)...and again (wrist injury after Wimbledon)...and again (appendix surgery). The last two injuries virtually meant he played another 6 months season (he missed the entire North American summer, and only played a handful of matches after that).

That's what? Three incomplete seasons in a row. How is that NOT evidence of a physical decline? That's pretty much the definition of evidence. Starting 25 years of age, the man hasn't had a full season. I mean, what more do you want?

"The guy gets injured, that's nothing to do with decline."

That is indeed, a shocking statement. He gets injured >> he can't play >> he can't win >> His results suffer. That's not a decline?

Let's look at it another way: You can't play >> You lose points >> Your rankings DECLINES (literal definition of a decline). That's not a decline?

Let's look at it another way: You start getting injured more often >> Your body is breaking down >> it seems to be visibly affecting your movement (unless you failed to spot that this year) >> Not a decline?

I'm interested in what is the definition of a decline. So there is no such thing as a physical decline? And since tennis, is you know, a physical activity, how is that not part of a flat out decline?

But I know, I know, let's get back to results. You said: "Results count."

They sure do. So let's check them out:

Since winning the French Open last year, Nadal has:

- Lost in his opening match at Halle to...Dustin Brown (Nadal has always sucked on grass so surely that doesn't count).

- Lost in the 4th round at Wimbledon to a player ranked outside of the top 2014 (but I'll be the first to say it was almost exclusively due to his opponent's ridiculous level. That doesn't make the result THAT much less embarrassing).

- (Missed the North American hard court season which apparently has nothing to do with a decline because it's injury related).

- Wins a total of TWO matches at the China Open before losing to...Klizan (Nadal has always sucked on that surface).

- Wins a total of ZERO matches at the Shanghai Open and loses to...Feliciano Lopez (Nadal has always sucked on that surface).

- Wins a total of TWO matches in Basel before losing to...Coric (Nadal has always sucked indoors, and Coric just spanked Murray today so surely that's a logical result).

- Nadal takes the rest of the season off to get surgery AND treatment on his back (Yup, that's totally normal for a 28 year old).

- Nadal returns...and loses his first match back in Doha to 76 year old Michael Berrer (that's totally normal too. Nadal has always sucked in Doha, even though he was the defending champion).

- Australian Open: Nadal gets taken to five sets in the second round by some dude nobody's ever heard of and looks spent on court as early as set 3 (Nadal was never a physical freak so that's OK), and then loses to Tomas Berdych in straights, including a bagel (Nadal was never good against Berdych even though he had beaten Berdych some 173 times in a row).

- RIO Open: Nadal loses to Fabio Fognini on clay! (should I continue to run the "he's always sucked" joke to the ground? Cause I'm sure it got unbearable some 127956006 words ago).

Oh by the by, it's worth mentioning losses to Nicolas Almagro and David Ferrer (and almost Kei Nishikori prior to the injury) on clay in 2014.

Oh but it gets better: Since winning the FO (which is seemingly all that matters to prove whether Nadal is declining or not according to you), Nadal has won a total of 15 wins and lost 8 times, which is an abysmal ratio. That's not even 2 wins for every loss. So what was that above: "Results matter." Damn right they do.


"the guy keeps producing. To imply that a guy who has been winning at least a slam a year for what... a decade? is in decline, elevates him a little too much in my humble opinion."

Limiting whether Nadal is in decline or not to winning the French Open is actually a disrespect to Nadal and everything he's accomplished throughout the years. Yes, Nadal not winning the FO would be the time to panic, but that doesn't mean he's not in decline otherwise. Last I checked, the guy is not some one-dimensional one-trick pony who sleeps all year long and wakes up at the FO. He's not the leader in masters 1000 events won just because he wins on clay...and let's not even mention the decline in his results on clay, since that's apparently the only surface he can win on.

Between 2005 and 2012, Nadal lost a grand total of 8 matches on clay (to well over a 100 wins, just in case we're keeping track). Since 2012, he's lost 6. Ponder that for a moment. In virtually two seasons (2013 and 2014, and this one tournament he played in 2015) he's lost almost as much as he lost in seven seasons on the surface. Coincidence, I'm sure.

If you think this "elevates Nadal too much" it's because he deserves to be elevated. This is the most dominant player in history on a single surface and he's struggling with nobodies for the second season in a row, and this is a dude with an extremely impressive hard court resume who virtually can't buy a win on the surface for almost a year now. Oh, he's also a 5 time consecutive Wimbledon finalist and a two-time champion who hasn't gotten past the 4th round and virtually can't buy a win on grass in three consecutive seasons.

All of the above, is absolutely objective. I am talking facts: Results and repeated injuries. Nothing to be open to interpretation. I am not even beginning to tackle his obviously hampered movement because then I'll get accused by some of being subjective and letting my Nadal fandom cloud my judgment, even though the majority would agree with that assessment.

Random piece of trivia: Nadal's only two full seasons in the past TEN YEARS (starting 2005) have been in 2010 and 2011. Think about that for a second.


So was this post absolutely too long/elaborate/irritating/forceful (as in: "shut up, we f*cking get it already!"). Yes, absolutely. I realize I'm being unbearable. But I'm sorry, this is necessary. Since Nadal's 2012 injury, I'm tired of seeing people willfully ignore realities that hit them hard in the face:

Nadal misses Wimbledon in 2009: We have endless debates on just how injured he was and whether he needed to recover mentally from his shocking FO loss.

Nadal misses 7 months: We actually had endless debate about how injured he was, whether he was just resting and recovering mentally, and whether he could have played if he wanted to. And let's not get started on "silent bans."

Nadal gets injured mid-match in a major final against Wawrinka: DO NOT POINT IT OUT! No matter what. It's disrespectful to Wawrinka and you're making excuses.

Nadal gets injured two more times throughout the season and his results are garbage: See above about Nadal sucking at a certain point of the season.

Nadal gets tired an hour into a routine match in the second round of the AO: It happens to a lot of players. Australian heat.

None of the above arguments are made up, by the way. These are 100% facts and everyone is here to see them.

This has nothing to do with whether Nadal's style has contributed to some of his injuries (it has when it comes to tendinitis), whether Nadal fans are guilty of excuse making (they are), or whatever other agenda that's fueling the obvious denials. Everything above is a 100% fact that nobody can dispute. And no I'm not giving myself too much credit. That's just reality. It's been absolutely irritating to deal with some on the forums when it comes to this topic ever since the Australian Open final last year.

PS: I recall Federer winning slams in 2009, 2010 and 2012. I guess this talk of a decline since 2008 "elevates him too much," going by the logic in the post quoted some 10000 feet above.

PPS: Anyone wants a summary? :lolz:

I'll be honest, I read a little bit more than half of that. We only live one life after all :laydownlaughing

Are you talking about his health or his ability? I make a distinction. When he's fit (and so far he seems to time RG rather well), he's still producing at a high enough level for me to feel comfortable saying decline hasn't set in. I would agree... those periods where he's fit are fewer now, but we're not talking Roger style decline.. i.e., his performance relative to his peak is not huge yet..

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^

So what does it say that he's fit less and less? And did you consider Nadal fit at the clay season last year? If not, careful, you're making excuses. If he was, explain losses to Almagro and Ferrer, as well as Nadal's unforced error fests throughout, including matches in which he lost.

It's a catch 22. If Nadal loses and I point out his movement is suffering and he's clearly not fit, you and others mentioned how that is not a result of the injuries but because Nadal always struggles at that particular time of the season (talking about last fall).

Fine, when I mention how those losses imply a decline, suddenly you say "when he's fit he's still producing at a high enough level." Well, what part of his losses in the fall last year imply a "high enough level"?

The fact is, you can't separate physical performance from his game. Both are complementary. You're grasping at straws.

 

[Billie]

I don't know what you guys are talking about!!! Nobody is in decline: Nadal won FO 2014, Federer looks great here in Dubai, the only one in decline is probably Nole as he can't win all four majors and loses in these finals so often.:cover

:lolz: