Rafael Nadal's "Imbalanced" Resume

[brokenshoelace]

It's the most dull time for tennis fans. No more majors for the rest of the year, and the fall hard court season hasn't begun.

Fedal have dominated the narrative this year, and this already Fedal-heavy board has grown even Fedaler as a result. Bitterness ensued on both ends of the fanbases post each major, excuse-making remains as rampant as ever (slowed down surfaces, fatigued players after semi final marathons, bad backs, etc...). In other words, not much has changed for the past 10 years and the rivalry is as strong as ever.

One of the biggest criticisms of Nadal throughout the years has been his imbalanced results. In other words, his results on other surfaces pale by comparison when compared to his clay court results. This, of course, is undeniably true. After all, Nadal has won 10 French Opens, 22 masters on clay, and went on an 81-match unbeaten run on clay. His Grand Slam tally looks like this: Australian Open: 1. French Open: 10. Wimbledon: 2. US Open: 3.

Clearly, the number "10" sticks out and is much greater than the second highest number on that list, 3.

So why make this thread then, since it's so clear-cut? Well, what if I told you, this adds to Nadal's legacy instead of taking away from it? Why? Well, let's look at the following hypothetical scenario.

Let's take an example of a player who never existed, and give him an imaginary resume. Let's call this player Nafael Radal. Radal is now retired, after enjoying a stellar career, winning a total of 10 majors. His major count looks as such: AO: 1. FO: 4. Wimbledon: 2. US Open: 3. Wow. A no-brainer straight entry into the hall of fame. Double digit majors, having won three different majors at least twice, and winning all four majors too. What a balanced resume!

Of course, nobody can have an ounce of criticism to dish out with regards to this player's career. After all, celebrated legends who succeeded on all surfaces like Andre Agassi have accomplished less.

Now, imagine a player with the exact same resume, but replace his 4 French Opens with 10... and somehow, this would be a resume you can criticize?

I hope the stupidity of this premise is obvious now. Nadal would be getting punished for being even greater? How does that make any sense? I'll highlight this point further with this: Nobody in their right mind could claim that a player who won 2 majors on grass (let's ignore the finals he reached) and 4 on hard courts has had been anything short of great on those surfaces in terms of majors won. But somehow adding 10 FO's -- which is an absolutely impossible feat -- takes away from that?

Because then, you're asking Nadal to be almost as good on other surfaces as he is on clay, which is utter lunacy. We are talking about someone who in his prime, was as close to literally unbeatable on a particular surface as you can possibly get, and that's not even hyperbole. If he were 85% as good on those other surfaces, you'd end up with something borderline obscene.

So Nadal's otherworldly greatness on clay is somehow used against him by pretending that some players should feel "ashamed" for letting this supposed clay courter win so much on other surfaces (let's not pretend these boards aren't littered with similar takes). Moreover, clay is treated as some gimmicky exotic surface that's almost a different sport (ignoring that the vast majority of the players on tour grew up on clay courts). The fact that only one major is played on clay is mere happenstance. There was a time when two majors per year were played on clay (1975-1977). So it's all arbitrary. Hard court tennis just happens to dominate this era, but it doesn't make the surface any superior or more authentic than others.

And finally, by the same token why are Federer and Djokovic's lone clay court majors not a knock against them? Hell, Novak's 12 majors include 1 French Open, 3 Wimbledons, 2 US Opens and 6 Australian Opens. Why is that not looked at as an imbalanced resume?

 

[Ricardo]

It's the most dull time for tennis fans. No more majors for the rest of the year, and the fall hard court season hasn't begun.

Fedal have dominated the narrative this year, and this already Fedal-heavy board has grown even Fedaler as a result. Bitterness ensued on both ends of the fanbases post each major, excuse-making remains as rampant as ever (slowed down surfaces, fatigued players after semi final marathons, bad backs, etc...). In other words, not much has changed for the past 10 years and the rivalry is as strong as ever.

One of the biggest criticisms of Nadal throughout the years has been his imbalanced results. In other words, his results on other surfaces pale by comparison when compared to his clay court results. This, of course, is undeniably true. After all, Nadal has won 10 French Opens, 22 masters on clay, and went on an 81-match unbeaten run on clay. His Grand Slam tally looks like this: Australian Open: 1. French Open: 10. Wimbledon: 2. US Open: 3.

Clearly, the number "10" sticks out and is much greater than the second highest number on that list, 3.

So why make this thread then, since it's so clear-cut? Well, what if I told you, this adds to Nadal's legacy instead of taking away from it? Why? Well, let's look at the following hypothetical scenario.

Let's take an example of a player who never existed, and give him an imaginary resume. Let's call this player Nafael Radal. Radal is now retired, after enjoying a stellar career, winning a total of 10 majors. His major count looks as such: AO: 1. FO: 4. Wimbledon: 2. US Open: 3. Wow. A no-brainer straight entry into the hall of fame. Double digit majors, having won three different majors at least twice, and winning all four majors too. What a balanced resume!

Of course, nobody can have an ounce of criticism to dish out with regards to this player's career. After all, celebrated legends who succeeded on all surfaces like Andre Agassi have accomplished less.

Now, imagine a player with the exact same resume, but replace his 4 French Opens with 10... and somehow, this would be a resume you can criticize?

I hope the stupidity of this premise is obvious now. Nadal would be getting punished for being even greater? How does that make any sense? I'll highlight this point further with this: Nobody in their right mind could claim that a player who won 2 majors on grass (let's ignore the finals he reached) and 4 on hard courts has had been anything short of great on those surfaces in terms of majors won. But somehow adding 10 FO's -- which is an absolutely impossible feat -- takes away from that?

Because then, you're asking Nadal to be almost as good on other surfaces as he is on clay, which is utter lunacy. We are talking about someone who in his prime, was as close to literally unbeatable on a particular surface as you can possibly get, and that's not even hyperbole. If he were 85% as good on those other surfaces, you'd end up with something borderline obscene.

So Nadal's otherworldly greatness on clay is somehow used against him by pretending that some players should feel "ashamed" for letting this supposed clay courter win so much on other surfaces (let's not pretend these boards aren't littered with similar takes). Moreover, clay is treated as some gimmicky exotic surface that's almost a different sport (ignoring that the vast majority of the players on tour grew up on clay courts). The fact that only one major is played on clay is mere happenstance. There was a time when two majors per year were played on clay (1975-1977). So it's all arbitrary. Hard court tennis just happens to dominate this era, but it doesn't make the surface any superior or more authentic than others.

And finally, by the same token why are Federer and Djokovic's lone clay court majors not a knock against them? Hell, Novak's 12 majors include 1 French Open, 3 Wimbledons, 2 US Opens and 6 Australian Opens. Why is that not looked at as an imbalanced resume?

what if 'Radal' has 4, 4, 4, 4 instead? nobody can criticise that. if he had 1,4,2,3, you are right he wouldn't be looked at so much because he isn't in that rarified GOAT zone so there is no need to point out that 'little imbalanced thing'. But here it is, Fed fans would wank themselves to the fact that Fed has 5, 1, 8, 5 so that better balance would be just another case for them to self-justify that GOATness.

 

[Federberg]

It's the most dull time for tennis fans. No more majors for the rest of the year, and the fall hard court season hasn't begun.

Fedal have dominated the narrative this year, and this already Fedal-heavy board has grown even Fedaler as a result. Bitterness ensued on both ends of the fanbases post each major, excuse-making remains as rampant as ever (slowed down surfaces, fatigued players after semi final marathons, bad backs, etc...). In other words, not much has changed for the past 10 years and the rivalry is as strong as ever.

One of the biggest criticisms of Nadal throughout the years has been his imbalanced results. In other words, his results on other surfaces pale by comparison when compared to his clay court results. This, of course, is undeniably true. After all, Nadal has won 10 French Opens, 22 masters on clay, and went on an 81-match unbeaten run on clay. His Grand Slam tally looks like this: Australian Open: 1. French Open: 10. Wimbledon: 2. US Open: 3.

Clearly, the number "10" sticks out and is much greater than the second highest number on that list, 3.

So why make this thread then, since it's so clear-cut? Well, what if I told you, this adds to Nadal's legacy instead of taking away from it? Why? Well, let's look at the following hypothetical scenario.

Let's take an example of a player who never existed, and give him an imaginary resume. Let's call this player Nafael Radal. Radal is now retired, after enjoying a stellar career, winning a total of 10 majors. His major count looks as such: AO: 1. FO: 4. Wimbledon: 2. US Open: 3. Wow. A no-brainer straight entry into the hall of fame. Double digit majors, having won three different majors at least twice, and winning all four majors too. What a balanced resume!

Of course, nobody can have an ounce of criticism to dish out with regards to this player's career. After all, celebrated legends who succeeded on all surfaces like Andre Agassi have accomplished less.

Now, imagine a player with the exact same resume, but replace his 4 French Opens with 10... and somehow, this would be a resume you can criticize?

I hope the stupidity of this premise is obvious now. Nadal would be getting punished for being even greater? How does that make any sense? I'll highlight this point further with this: Nobody in their right mind could claim that a player who won 2 majors on grass (let's ignore the finals he reached) and 4 on hard courts has had been anything short of great on those surfaces in terms of majors won. But somehow adding 10 FO's -- which is an absolutely impossible feat -- takes away from that?

Because then, you're asking Nadal to be almost as good on other surfaces as he is on clay, which is utter lunacy. We are talking about someone who in his prime, was as close to literally unbeatable on a particular surface as you can possibly get, and that's not even hyperbole. If he were 85% as good on those other surfaces, you'd end up with something borderline obscene.

So Nadal's otherworldly greatness on clay is somehow used against him by pretending that some players should feel "ashamed" for letting this supposed clay courter win so much on other surfaces (let's not pretend these boards aren't littered with similar takes). Moreover, clay is treated as some gimmicky exotic surface that's almost a different sport (ignoring that the vast majority of the players on tour grew up on clay courts). The fact that only one major is played on clay is mere happenstance. There was a time when two majors per year were played on clay (1975-1977). So it's all arbitrary. Hard court tennis just happens to dominate this era, but it doesn't make the surface any superior or more authentic than others.

And finally, by the same token why are Federer and Djokovic's lone clay court majors not a knock against them? Hell, Novak's 12 majors include 1 French Open, 3 Wimbledons, 2 US Opens and 6 Australian Opens. Why is that not looked at as an imbalanced resume?

I actually used a similar type of argument to point out the silliness of the H2H. A lot of Rafa fans either ignored it or pooh poohed it. I have no issue with this argument. It's crazy that Sampras is implicitly given an edge of Roger because somehow "Pete would never have let the H2H get so bad". I would love to have seen Pete try to get past Rafa on clay! The simple fact is Roger got tuned so many times on clay precisely because he was so darned good! To count that as a demerit against him makes no sense to me

Frankly to be able to assess how balanced these top guys are you need to also look at the number of times they've been finalists in slams. On that basis I think Rafa comes out reasonably well, although I haven't actually checked.

 

[Ricardo]

I actually used a similar type of argument to point out the silliness of the H2H. A lot of Rafa fans either ignored it or pooh poohed it. I have no issue with this argument. It's crazy that Sampras is implicitly given an edge of Roger because somehow "Pete would never have let the H2H get so bad". I would love to have seen Pete try to get past Rafa on clay! The simple fact is Roger got tuned so many times on clay precisely because he was so darned good! To count that as a demerit against him makes no sense to me

Frankly to be able to assess how balanced these top guys are you need to also look at the number of times they've been finalists in slams. On that basis I think Rafa comes out reasonably well, although I haven't actually checked.

right this should be repeated again, if Fed was total rubbish on clay (so that he never got that far to play him) he'd have winning H-H over Nadal.

 

[DarthFed]

You have to keep in mind that the talk of Rafa's resume being imbalanced is when it gets compared to Federer. No one is comparing Rafa to Agassi, Lendl, or even someone like Borg at this point.

Compared to Federer his resume is still imbalanced. The best way to look at it is that Roger has been dominant everywhere except clay where he's still done very well and Rafa has been only dominant on clay though he's done very well outside of it. One of the biggest things in Roger's favor is that he is significantly better than Nadal everywhere except clay but obviously Nadal is way way way way better than Roger or anyone else on clay.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think Julian Benneteau has balanced resume. Not only he has won same number of slams on all surfaces, he also has same number of titles on all surfaces. So, did I hear anyone say Julian is the goat?

BS is clearly indulging in classic strawman argument and he clearly knows what he is doing as well.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

Nobody said that balancedness is the first criteria or the only criteria. However, balancedness is an issue when comparing players with the same or similar number of slams.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think Julian Benneteau has balanced resume. Not only he has won same number of slams on all surfaces, he also has same number of titles on all surfaces. So, did I hear anyone say Julian is the goat?

BS is clearly indulging in classic strawman argument and he clearly knows what he is doing as well.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

Nobody said that balancedness is the first criteria or the only criteria. However, balancedness is an issue when comparing players with the same or similar number of slams.

This isn't anymore of a strawman than the claim that "some are trying to pass the idea across that Federer is just some big server," which I've read someone (you) mention recently. Of course, nobody (maybe one insane Roger detractor but that's it) was claiming that.

On the flipside, Nadal's supposed imbalanced resume has been offered as a form of criticism against him. As I said, I am not denying that his resume is imbalanced. I am simply claiming that the argument itself is flawed and can be used against anyone.

Case in point, Roger Federer: Australian Open: 5. French Open: 1. Wimbledon: 8. US Open: 5. That's 10 hard court majors, 8 grass court majors, and 1 clay court major. Why is that not an imbalance?

My argument has nothing to do with Fedal. Federer's resume is still substantially superior to Nadal's, imbalance or no imbalance.

 

[Carol]

Imbalanced..... que chorrada!.lol

Meanwhile Rafa is very concerned about what his antis say...yeah!
He and his girlfriend at Cannes Yachting Festival

 

[Moxie]

I actually used a similar type of argument to point out the silliness of the H2H. A lot of Rafa fans either ignored it or pooh poohed it. I have no issue with this argument. It's crazy that Sampras is implicitly given an edge of Roger because somehow "Pete would never have let the H2H get so bad". I would love to have seen Pete try to get past Rafa on clay! The simple fact is Roger got tuned so many times on clay precisely because he was so darned good! To count that as a demerit against him makes no sense to me

Frankly to be able to assess how balanced these top guys are you need to also look at the number of times they've been finalists in slams. On that basis I think Rafa comes out reasonably well, although I haven't actually checked.

The point is often made that Roger wouldn't have had such a poor H2H v. Rafa if he hadn't done so well on clay as to get to him. Understood, (and the point as to Sampras is risible, as he has almost no clay resume.) I find this similar to Darth's complaint that Sampras is better at Wimbledon because he is 7-0 in finals there, where Roger is 7-3, or something. Your point is that Roger lost a lot to Rafa on clay, but Rafa is the best ever on it, I guess. Where we keep ending up is that Rafa is the GOAT on clay, and Federer still has the best overall resume.

This isn't anymore of a strawman than the claim that "some are trying to pass the idea across that Federer is just some big server," which I've read someone (you) mention recently. Of course, nobody (maybe one insane Roger detractor but that's it) was claiming that.

On the flipside, Nadal's supposed imbalanced resume has been offered as a form of criticism against him. As I said, I am not denying that his resume is imbalanced. I am simply claiming that the argument itself is flawed and can be used against anyone.

Case in point, Roger Federer: Australian Open: 5. French Open: 1. Wimbledon: 8. US Open: 5. That's 10 hard court majors, 8 grass court majors, and 1 clay court major. Why is that not an imbalance?

My argument has nothing to do with Fedal. Federer's resume is still substantially superior to Nadal's, imbalance or no imbalance.

Calling "straw man" is silly and unfair here. I get your argument, Broken, and appreciate it. The basic premise of your OP is to point out the basic fallacy of calling Nadal's resume "imbalanced." Sure, there're a lot of clay wins in there, but there are so many wins off of clay as to put most others fallow. If clay weren't treated, as you say, as some "exotic" surface, and lesser, it wouldn't be counted so much against Nadal. In today's game, which is the one they are all playing in, it is grass that is the more exotic and less represented. By rights, grass should be the underrated, not clay. As you rightly point out: no one looks down their nose at Roger and Novak for only having one FO in their resumes, for balance.

 

[Ricardo]

I thought you said there is no such thing as GOAT, yet it applies to Rafa on clay.....change the goal post again no? and Fed is reduced to having 'best resume' but no overall GOAT...you know people laugh when they see how you argue (like on the PC thread too), you are almost trying too hard but the argument is always very flawed.

 

[Moxie]

I thought you said there is no such thing as GOAT, yet it applies to Rafa on clay.....change the goal post again no? and Fed is reduced to having 'best resume' but no overall GOAT...you know people laugh when they see how you argue (like on the PC thread too), you are almost trying too hard but the argument is always very flawed.

I still am willing to say that there is no actual "GOAT." It has been pointed out to the point of ridicule that Rafa has to be considered the Clay GOAT, so I just went with it. And I have given Roger the overall credit, so what's your complaint?

 

[Ricardo]

I still am willing to say that there is no actual "GOAT." It has been pointed out to the point of ridicule that Rafa has to be considered the Clay GOAT, so I just went with it. And I have given Roger the overall credit, so what's your complaint?

GOAT for Rafa but no GOAT for Fed as both have qualifying resume, double standard much?

 

[Moxie]

Read much?

 

[Ricardo]

Read much?

best overall resume isn't GOAT, understand much?

 

[Moxie]

best overall resume isn't GOAT, understand much?

I already said that, so there's no need for you to be so childish. Try to keep up.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

On the flipside, Nadal's supposed imbalanced resume has been offered as a form of criticism against him. As I said, I am not denying that his resume is imbalanced. I am simply claiming that the argument itself is flawed and can be used against anyone.

You are bringing up some hypothetical Radal whose resume is balanced. Then claiming as though people thought your fictitious Radal is better than Nadal due to balanced resume. That is why I was telling you that Julien Benneteau has even more balanced resume. Your whole argument is a classic case of strawman argument. Nobody would claim that your Radal is better than Nadal. You acted as though everybody would do so without any basis to it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

.

Case in point, Roger Federer: Australian Open: 5. French Open: 1. Wimbledon: 8. US Open: 5. That's 10 hard court majors, 8 grass court majors, and 1 clay court major. Why is that not an imbalance?

.

Imbalance is not a binary stuff. There are degrees of imbalances.

If you take Roger, his distribution is 8,5,5,1. The total is 19. The mean is 4.75. Standard Deviation is 2.49. That is about 52% of mean.

If you take Rafa, his distribution is 10, 3, 2, 1. The total is 16. The mean is 4. Standard Deviation is 4.64. That is 116% of mean.

Now, you can clearly see as to how much is the degree of imbalance between the two. The last figure for each person is a measure of
imbalance. With a perfectly balanced resume, the last figure would be 0. The higher the value of std deviation as a % of mean, the higher the imbalance. Rafa's distribution is WAY MORE imbalanced than Roger's.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This isn't anymore of a strawman than the claim that "some are trying to pass the idea across that Federer is just some big server," which I've read someone (you) mention recently. Of course, nobody (maybe one insane Roger detractor but that's it) was claiming that.

.

It was Nekro or Strokes or someone else who very gently slipped it in (mentioning RF's name alongside Karlovic and others). I am actually even tired to fight with these people. Federerberg or someone else took him on. On the heels of it, Mikeone was trying to say something similar, but not in a very overt manner. I have heard this more than a few times. It is not a strawman argument.

While people do complain that Rafa's resume is imbalanced, they don't do that when they compare Nadal's resume with Radal's resume as in your hypothetical argument. The criticism of imbalance is often mentioned when Rafa's resume is compared to that of Roger's and rightly so.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You are bringing up some hypothetical Radal whose resume is balanced. Then claiming as though people thought your fictitious Radal is better than Nadal due to balanced resume. That is why I was telling you that Julien Benneteau has even more balanced resume. Your whole argument is a classic case of strawman argument. Nobody would claim that your Radal is better than Nadal. You acted as though everybody would do so without any basis to it.

I never said people would say he's better. I said people would have less to criticize. Nobody would seriously claim that a 10 slam resume > 16 slam resume, irrespective of balance. But somehow, they'd have more to criticize in a 16 slam "imbalanced" resume, which I think is ironic and unfair. This isn't at all a hypothetical that I created based on nothing.

I'll give you a non hypothetical example to better illustrate my point. Novak Djokovic. He's got 12 slams, which is obviously fewer than 16. Nobody claims he's got a better resume than Nadal, but they do spend more time nit-picking Nadal's resume in a way that diminishes it. Why? Novak has 9 hard court slams, 2 grass slams, and 1 clay slam. How is that not imbalanced?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Imbalance is not a binary stuff. There are degrees of imbalances.

If you take Roger, his distribution is 8,5,5,1. The total is 19. The mean is 4.75. Standard Deviation is 2.49. That is about 52% of mean.

If you take Rafa, his distribution is 10, 3, 2, 1. The total is 16. The mean is 4. Standard Deviation is 4.64. That is 116% of mean.

Now, you can clearly see as to how much is the degree of imbalance between the two. The last figure for each person is a measure of
imbalance. With a perfectly balanced resume, the last figure would be 0. The higher the value of std deviation as a % of mean, the higher the imbalance. Rafa's distribution is WAY MORE imbalanced than Roger's.

You're proving something I've agreed to in like... the 2nd or 3rd paragraph of the initial post. "This is undeniably true" (re: Nadal's imbalanced resume).

I'm not debating whether it is or isn't. I'm debating what it actually means and whether the criticism is unfair.