'One-trick pony'-ness underlined again

[ahonkan]

10 of 15 GS titles, 53 out 73 ATP tour titles on clay.
Not a single title defended off clay throughout career.
Not a single YEC title.
Didn't go past R4 at Wimbledon for 5 straight years in mid-career.
No other all-time great has such a lopsided resume.

[ali...@alinefx.com]

All his usual supporters are hiding again, whisper, TT, all licking their chops because gap may just be four by the end of this week.... LOL

[lview...@gmail.com]

Best stat I've seen today.

Nadal has missed 6 QFs at the last 6 Wimbledons. (Missed one).

Federer has missed 8 QFs of the last 54 Majors (Missed three).

[soccerfan777]

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 11:15:43 PM UTC-5, ali...@alinefx.com wrote:
> All his usual supporters are hiding again, whisper, TT, all licking their chops because gap may just be four by the end of this week.... LOL

Whisper hates Nadal. He hates Federer a lot more. So he "supports" Nadal to make Federer looks worse. The only players Whisper ever loved are McEnroe and Sampras

[lview...@gmail.com]

And Mecir.

[Javier González]

Not to detail your little Nadal bashing party, but, um, Sampras?

[reilloc]

His father--uncle, perhaps; an older male relative, without doubt--would
go on about Hoad. Hoad, this and Hoad, that--enough to make the child
notice and ingrain that worship status of impressionable youth. Later,
McEnroe came along and the movement coupled with the flashes of, yeah,
pure genius put that player in the pantheon near Hoad. Still later,
Sampras, beyond dispute one of the all-time greats took the sport by
storm and the psyche of the boy; but, since then, the game's become too
different for him to understand.

Federer, the greatest player ever to pick up a racket, must be denied
because he's tainted by the perceived shortcomings of *now*. It also
doesn't help that he's from some land where they speak so candidly about
their abilities that it's unbecomingly immodest.

It's enough to make a man too vain ever actually to own a dog
nevertheless claim he kicked one to death--simply to erect a false flaw
on which others might waste their time condemning him.

Then, there's poor Nadal: the most successful bumrooter ever born. Dad
or uncle would hurl his pint at the telly seeing how he produces
groundstrokes but, with respect to the dead, they never had to put up
with worse alternatives and would probably understand.

LNC

[TT]

You sound desperate.

Pretty harsh considering Rafa made 5 Wimbledon finals and won multiple
slams on all 3 surfaces...

[The Iceberg]

you seem to know a lot of history considering you're only 22.

[The Iceberg]

the Fedfans are still very very very bitter about Nadal totally PWNing him and especially the greatest match ever played - W2008!

[ali...@alinefx.com]

That's ok. AO2017 was the ultimate revenge match, fed just owning him there. Even at 1-3 down, everyone
Knew Fed was going to come back and win it, he was playing just lights out better, having had break points in every service game before he broke in the 6th (and more importantly, the 8th!) game.

So sad that Nadal couldn't beat old ass Fed, and his supporters have to keep digging out an almost 10 yeAr old match to help with the 2017 thrashings Feds been giving Nadal (especially the 2017 Indian wells ass kicking ).

[The Iceberg]

LOL good to admit your bitterness, still yep peak Fed taken to 5 by an out of sorts Nadal there, everyone knows.

[joh]

Op dinsdag 11 juli 2017 12:23:41 UTC+2 schreef The Iceberg:

How long has it been since Nadal won his last 5 setter?

[SliceAndDice]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:15:30 AM UTC-4, Javier González wrote:
> Not to detail your little Nadal bashing party, but, um, Sampras?

Sampras was dominant on 70% of the tour surfaces (grass + hard + carpet), Nadal on 30%. Not the same thing. Plus, surface heterogeneity was much more pronounced during his time.

[ahonkan]

I also mentioned YEC titles and mix of titles won where there's no
contest between Rafa & Sampras. I am not bringing in #weeks at #1
because it is not relevant to 'one-trick-pony'-ness.
It's shocking that more than 3/4 ths of Rafa's titles have been won
in the April - June window.
It's certainly very odd that despite having a career littered with
'injuries', Rafa has never missed a single April - June season. It's
as if he deliberately skips the grass/ HC season citing 'injuries'
to rest & return refreshed for the next clay season.

[fymido...@yahoo.com]

This has been my feeling too observing his pattern of injuries in the last 7 years.

[Carey]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 6:53:51 AM UTC-7, ahonkan wrote:

> It's certainly very odd that despite having a career littered with
> 'injuries', Rafa has never missed a single April - June season. It's
> as if he deliberately skips the grass/ HC season citing 'injuries'
> to rest & return refreshed for the next clay season.<

+1

[Javier González]

Nadal has the career slam and, has been less than one match away from a double career slam, multiple runner-ups at W/AO/USO. Sampras has three clay titles, two of them Mickey Mouse and one of them against someone with zero clay titles. Nadal on hard/grass > Sampras on clay.

[PeteWasLucky]

> Nadal on hard/grass > Sampras on clay

Sampras is much better than Nadal in three slams while Nadal is superior to any other player in one slam.

[Javier González]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:38:34 AM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> > Nadal on hard/grass > Sampras on clay
>
> Sampras is much better than Nadal in three slams while Nadal is superior to any other player in one slam.

But that's the thing, you can't claim Nadal is the least versatile all timer when Sampras' clay resume is pretty much nonexistent. Nadal has won/reached 5/12 non-clay slam finals, and 8/16 Masters. Theoretically he could do more. Sampras reached 0 clay slam finals and 1 clay masters final. Won that against Boris "0/6 on clay" Becker.

To the original post's claim of "most lopsided record for an all timer":

-> Nadal's hard/grass titles: 20 (27% of his total).
-> Sampras' clay titles: 3/64 (4% of his total).

(numbers via wikipedia).

[SliceAndDice]

But clay is only 30% of the tour, so Sampras had far fewer opportunities to rack up clay titles. Also, the surfaces are much more homogenized now. Everyone plays similar, so far easier for Nadal to win titles outside of his comfort zone than for Sampras. I don't think your analysis factors these things in. The fact remains that Nadal's resume is very heavily padded by clay, when it isn't even the most dominant or competitive surface on tour. Can't think of any other ATG who has such a skewed distribution.

[SliceAndDice]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 3:19:58 PM UTC-4, Javier González wrote:

Here is a breakdown by surface I had prepared and it highlights how skewed Nadal's numbers are:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.sport.tennis/ZD2K_A7Bp6s/bNBXVLQtAgAJ;context-place=msg/rec.sport.tennis/myhWCC9sHAQ/T4UkMCTUAQAJ

I will see if I can run these numbers for Sampras as well.

[MBDunc]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 10:29:32 PM UTC+3, SliceAndDice wrote:
> But clay is only 30% of the tour, so Sampras had far fewer opportunities to rack up clay titles.

Surely had opportunities - Muster at the same time played practically "only-clay" -schedules.

>Also, the surfaces are much more homogenized now. Everyone plays similar, so far easier for Nadal to win titles outside of his comfort zone than for Sampras.

Somewhat true but way less than some want to think.

> I don't think your analysis factors these things in. The fact remains that Nadal's resume is very heavily padded by clay, when it isn't even the most dominant or competitive surface on tour. Can't think of any other ATG who has such a skewed distribution.

If we do some deduction and want to build ultimate clay king -> the results would look like Nadal. He is that extreme. He is that great. And his clay greatness is shown on other venues too (bit like Borg - you are exceptional -> this exceptional stuff leaks to some other surfaces too).

Sampras actually did OK job on clay (Rome + 2 minor titles + SF/QFs at FO). Of course it feels retrospectively nothing but his game was so totally opposite of clay dogmas and clay instantly nullified his best assets.

.mikko

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:20:22 PM UTC-7, MBDunc wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 10:29:32 PM UTC+3, SliceAndDice wrote:

> > I don't think your analysis factors these things in. The fact remains that Nadal's resume is very heavily padded by clay, when it isn't even the most dominant or competitive surface on tour. Can't think of any other ATG who has such a skewed distribution.

> If we do some deduction and want to build ultimate clay king -> the results would look like Nadal. He is that extreme. He is that great. And his clay greatness is shown on other venues too (bit like Borg - you are exceptional -> this exceptional stuff leaks to some other surfaces too).

6 FOs and 5(consecutive) Wimbledons for Borg. That's more than "leaking." Borg mastered two very different surfaces, which is hardly comparable to Nadal's 10/15 on clay. Lack of HC slams was Borg's only deficiency.

[SliceAndDice]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 4:20:22 PM UTC-4, MBDunc wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 10:29:32 PM UTC+3, SliceAndDice wrote:
> > But clay is only 30% of the tour, so Sampras had far fewer opportunities to rack up clay titles.
>
> Surely had opportunities - Muster at the same time played practically "only-clay" -schedules.

Clay season is typically from April-June. You cannot expect Sampras to play clay events when there are other, more prestigious tournaments being played at the same time. That is reserved for clay specialists.

[AZ]

Has more Wimbledons than Lendl, Stich or Krajicek.

Has more USOs than Safin, Hewitt or Roddick.

Harsh to call him a one trick pony.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

Nadal slams are two-thirds clay. Djok's are two-thirds HC. Is he a one-trick pony too?

[SliceAndDice]

But 50% of the slams are on hard, only 25% of them on clay. So Djoker's slams are not that ridiculously skewed.

[SliceAndDice]

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 4:44:23 PM UTC-4, AZ wrote:

I think he meant relative to the ATGs.

[ahonkan]

On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 21:03:51 UTC+5:30, Javier González wrote:

> Nadal has the career slam and, has been less than one match away from a double career slam, multiple runner-ups at W/AO/USO. Sampras has three clay titles, two of them Mickey Mouse and one of them against someone with zero clay titles. Nadal on hard/grass > Sampras on clay.

Fed is less than four matches away from a quintuple CGS - losing 4 FO
finals to Rafa while he has 5, 7 & 5 at the other slams. Djoker too has
6,3 & 2 and is less than a match away from double CGS. Both have multiple
YEC's, more #weeks at #1 & more YE #1s. So if someone says "You can't be
the GOAT if you are not the best of your era", it applies more to Rafa
than to Fed (the intended target) or Djoker. Both are provably superior
in just about every category to Rafa.

I agree that both Borg & Sampras fall short by the same yardstick (no
HC slams, no clay slams) when compared to Rafa. He has a CGS & multiple
slam final losses at non-clay slams while Sampras was hopeless on clay
& Borg lost many HC slam finals. But that was an era when the surfaces
didn't play so similar as they do now and different skillsets were
needed. Considering the homogeneity of surfaces, Rafa's skewed career
record stands out as an aberration.

So although I hate to compare across eras, one goes back to Laver & Fed
as the top two to ever grace the game since the other 3 normally chosen
to be on the same platform (Borg, Sampras, Rafa) have noticeable holes
in their resumes. Also, Djoker's NCYGS is probably the best single
achievement of the Open Era.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

Many all time greats have around 50% of their slams from one slam (Djok, Sampras, Nav [Borg and Court too, but special circumstances with them]). Isn't it the case with Nadal that he's just more unbeatable at his best slam than Djok is at his? If Nadal's level at the FO was the same as DJok's at the AO, Nadal would probably only have 6 FOs and we wouldn't be talking about this.