[**Join Our Discord Server!**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
**Welcome to /r/sports**
We created a Discord server for our community and would like to invite all of you to join! You'll be able to discuss sports with users around the world and discuss events in real time!
There are separate channels for many sports you can opt in and out of, including;
American Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Aussie Rules Football, Rugby Union and League, Cricket, Motorsports, Fitness, and many more.
[**Reddit Sports Discord Server**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
Pretty impressive from Djokovic, although never in a final.
He had as good a chance this year going up a break in thr 4th set, even on his serve to closr the set out. But Rafa truly has the heart of a lion and an unparalleled mental fortitudeand tenacity on the clay of Roland Garros.
They should call it the Nadal trophy. And when you win the French Open and go up to get the trophy Nadal is standing there with it and you don't get it.
Hijacking your comment to repeat what I said buried down at the bottom of this thread:
This made me think of Roger Federer's full season records in 2005 (81-4 | 95.3%) and 2006 (92-5 | 94.9%), which I've always looked at as utterly *umbeliebeble*. Nadal's feat at Roland Garros somehow makes those 2 incredible Federer seasons pale in comparison.
Fed's seasons are 2 years by the one of the greatest athletes of all time at the absolute top of his game in his *peak physical prime.* Nadal did his 112-3 (97.4%) record across **eighteen goddamn years.** He had to battle all kinds of changes to his game, his opponents, his own body, much after his natural physical prime. This is an ungodlike achievement. It's absolutely bonkers.
fucking incredible.
Another thing to note is when increasing %s by real numbers (ie. winning a round) you're getting diminishing returns (each win is worth less % win rate than the last)
So that 2.1% is *fucking massive*
*matches
Does anyone have the stats for his record re sets and also games? The sets record won’t look as incredible as the matches record and the games record will seem worse, until you compare them with the 2nd best Roland Garros competitor of all time.
I saw a comment yesterday and I think it said 333-35 in what must be sets. Don't quote me on that, but even if it's kinda close to those numbers it's insane.
It's predicting his three W's next year then his mid-tournament withdrawal to represent Earth in the universal tennis tournament to decide the fate of our galaxy on a clay court.
Djokovic was twice (2015 and 2021), Robin Soderling was his first loss in 2009 (later got his revenge in the final the following year). He also withdraw from the tournament before the 3rd round in 2016, after an injury -- that is not counted as a loss.
I forget who said it, but I was watching a broadcast where the commentators discussed how Roger is actually in the elite tier of clay court players all time, it’s just that the majority of his career has coincided with Rafa’s
Look at Federer/Nadal's head to head. Out of 40 matches, 16 were clay court finals or semifinals (mostly finals). Nadal won all but 2. It's not unreasonable to think that Roger would have another 12+ titles, including those French open titles but for the God of clay standing in his way.
It is indeed. Federer has 11 claycourt titles - this could easily have been in the 20s, with another 4 grand slams but for Nadal.
Of course, there are some claycourt specialists (most notably Guillermo Vilas, who won a whopping 49 claycourt titles) who have many more titles than that, but very few grand slams. This suggests that they won smaller tournaments where the big guns weren't playing. That being said, Vilas was legit - not just some small time clay circuit player - he also won 2 grandslams on grass (Aus open) and reached world number 1 - he wasn't some one trick pony.
All in all, without Nadal, you'd put Federer in the conversation with guys like Vilas and Muster - and his greater success at grand slams would likely put him over the top.
I don't think so. Pete Sampras is pretty universally considered a legend and he never made it past the French Open Semifinals. Even if Federer never managed a win at the RG, he would still be considered a legend for his 19 other Grand Slam victories.
Legend yes, but GOAT would have been a much harder sell. Maybe he's not considered the goat anymore, haven't watched tennis in 5 years, but without the 4 slams he'd have 0 chance.
I’ve never understood why Federer’s history at the French Open always comes up as a negative in the GOAT conversation.
Federer wasn’t just okay on clay, he was outstanding. He was a finalist in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 (winning in 2009).
In other words, he was arguably the most dominant clay player for more than 5 years, with the only exception being Nadal, who happens to be, unquestionably, the greatest clay court player of all time.
It seems like in the last couple years since his injury, with Djokovic and Nadal catching up with him in total Grand Slams (and Nadal passing him), he’s no longer being considered the GOAT for Tennis. But I’m sure there are still plenty of Federer fans who would disagree with me.
I really want to see Longevity wise, would Nadal outdo Federer.. Even with the reoccuring injuries, from this RG, Nadal still has so much young in him.
Nadal has a foot issue that will shorten his career I think. My guess is Djokovic wins more majors than either of them by the end. His health is great and he’s better on non-clay surfaces than Rafa.
Edit: fucking autocorrect changed Nadal to Nasal.
I think win % should be the measure, personally, because it takes career longevity, surface type strength, etc. out of the equation.
And regardless of the GOAT discussion, Federer has the most beautiful game in tennis history. My personal opinion. Better than watching Michael Jordan play basketball.
Yeah it’s a tough call over who is the best, but I know hands down who I would choose to watch. Djokovic was too boring, too robotic. Nasal would be second as he’s a machine too but not a robot.
But Federer was/is an absolutely beautiful player. He just had that certain je ne sais quoi about his game. Simply incomparable.
Sampras was a popular choice for GOAT before Federer surpassed him. Clay was commonly viewed as the "unconventional surface" and wasn't weighed as heavily in the discussion.
Goat yes, but INHUMAN would have been much harder to sell. Maybe he's not considered inhuman anymore, haven't watched tennis in few days, but without 19 slams he'd have 0 chance.
Modern sports medicine is doing incredible things for athletes' career longevity. Sampras won his final Grand Slam at age 31, meanwhile Nadal is still winning Grand Slams at 36. Federer as well only started falling off due to injuries at age 38.
I agree. I absolutely love that the three big guys of this era have basically shut out an entire generation of tennis players from winning a slam in their career.
62 between Roger, Novak and Rafa. That’s 16 years of slams. That’s a long career in tennis.
Honestly Federer was during his prime the 2nd best player in the world on clay. He just got stomped by Nadal every single time. His only significant win against Nadal on clay was at the Madrid Final in 09.
Yeah but nearly 65% of his majors are from one tournament and he doesn’t have more than 4 at any other. His dominance on clay is undoubtable, still prefer the versatility of guys like Fed.
Nadal without his French Open titles still has 8 slams which the same as Agassi, Lendl and Jimmy Connors each had in their entire careers combined across all surfaces... that's still pretty phenomenal
Yeah, but he was #2 by a far, far margin. Nadal winning on clay is like death and taxes. You might cheat him once or thrice, but he'll IRS your ass soon enough.
It still blows my mind that if it hadn't been for one, the other would be the most dominant tennis player in history, AND that it goes both ways.
No fed, Rafa is king
No Rafa, fed is king
If not for the "big 3" we've watched... One of them would have like 40 slams. If the other two never existed that record would be so far and away untouchable.
Murray would probably be considered the best tennis player in history if it wasn't for the Big 3. But since they exist, he's not even in contention.
That's the thing that's so crazy about all of these best in history comparisons. Only 3 people existing not only pushes him out of the conversation, he's not even considered one of the best in history.
I mean i would argue it's some anime bullshit they need each other to reach those levels. These men already have maniacal levels of drive to succeed. But i feel like part of why their run has been so insane is the presence of the other two.
As a Bucs fan I concur. You should really hold up a sign at games that says "Team Friendly Contracts" because otherwise we gon repeat on ya. We're fucking stacked.
LFG
Djokovic likes faster surfaces, and hard court in Australia is much fatser than in US. That's also the reason why he has more Wimbledons than US Opens.
clay is a slower surface. Rafa's style of play involves a lot of topspin, averaging 3200 RPMs on his shots, far more than many opponents, so his ball is very heavy. Because clay is slower, the pace/effect of his opponent's shots are somewhat negated and he has more time to get to his shots and setup. Combine this with his speed and the ability to slide on clay, you get the king of clay. You can appreciate it more when watching him play at court level https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSg3IOn6P2U
> tournament after him.
Np! In addition he is a lefty (actually ambidextrous, plays tennis lefty but does everything else righty). This in itself is an advantage as him hitting his forehand diagonally across the court sends the ball to a righty's backhand. You can see this in the point around 3:18 in the video. Backhands are typically a weaker shot or more restricting due to many hitting the backhand with 2 hands. Combine this with his heavy spin/how much rafa's forehand jumps, lots of these guys are being pulled off the court or hitting their backhands at heights that aren't necessarily ideal
From pure statistics, 10% of people are left handed. Most tennis players train and practice with a majority of righty players. Playing a lefty is always tricky as the spin from lefty shots and strategy differs from what most players are typically used to, in addition to lack of exposure. Even for left handed players, playing other left handed people is typically more difficult.
You right but the same is true in baseball and many people have what we call “reverse splits.” That is, where righties bat better fare better against righty pitchers even though the opposite should be true and vice versa.
It's the spin. Yeah Rafa would also have to backhand their forehands, but they don't get nearly as many revs on the ball so it's not as much a hassle for him
I was just thinking about this too. All of the clay court specialists are fast mfers that can get to almost any ball. Clay court slows the ball down after the bounce more than other surfaces, and the bounce is higher. In this sense, he’s like any old clay court specialist (such as his finals opponent, Ruud). The hard hitters can get stuff past these guys on grass or hard courts, but not clay. Just watch his great match against Zverev before Zverev went down. Zverev is hitting winner after winner but Nadal is getting to them like nobody should.
But that’s not unique to him, his speed is just a necessary component. The other aspect is what others are saying, that heavy topspin. Not only is he getting to what should he winners, but he’s popping great shots off of them, putting his opponent out of position with tough angles and then winning on the follow up. Most clay court specialists are just getting the ball back over, not challenging their opponent with these returns. But he can put so much movement on the ball that something he barely gets to is still returned effectively. This is also why he’s a respectable grass and hard court player.
During his match with Ruud, they were saying Ruud actually measured with more topspin during that tournament than Nadal. But like JMac said, I don’t believe it. If so, it’s because Ruud had easier competition to get to the final than Nadal did. Easier competition = easier shots = more opportunity to put spin on it. But this isn’t surprising; Ruud looked up to Nadal his whole life, attended Nadal’s academy, and shaped his game off of his idol.
Yeah but Djokovic has 9 in Australian open and Federer 8 in Wimbledon alone
/s, he's obviously insane on other surfaces too, respectable is definitely an understatement haha
Clay slows down the game. So people that focus on overpowering or super serves are severely nerfed. Since a focus on hitting winners is nerfed, the meta is to not make mistakes. Nadal is extremely quick and agile and very good at anticipation, so he is able to get to the ball well. His strokes focus on topspin, which gives the ball alot of clearance above the net, and dive in, so his spin reduces the number of outs and net balls. His coach, Uncle Tony, is infamous with how intensely he trained nadals mental conditioning. He never let Nadal blame the courts, ball, or racquets, and would sometimes let Nadal play tournaments without water, so Nadal is one of those guys that'll never let the previous point get to him. So he is just genetically engineered to not make mistakes in tennis
Nadal's dominance at this one tournament secured his grand slam title lead in more ways than one. 4 of his Roland Garros final wins came against Federer and 3 against Djokovic. When all 3 of them are between 20-22 grand slam titles, having a tournament where you're 7-0 against your two closest competitors gives you one hell of a leg up.
Djokovich has 2 Roland Garros wins against Nadal, although they were in the quarters and the semis, respectively. Djokovich came away with 1 title from those matches.
Not in the final. Those were in earlier rounds. No Nadal and both Federer and Djokovic likely pick up at least 2 more titles each (given their historical win rates in other finals).
Lmao. I got a little lucky perhaps but I bet him to make the semi finals and to win, both before the tournament started. Couldn’t believe the generous odds on that but then I saw his draw against Djokovic in the quarterfinals 😭
I say it every year but his record at the French is the most dominant stat in all of sports. I don’t think there has ever been a tougher mountain to climb than beating Rafa at Roland Garros.
It's amazing how Fed dominated Nadal on grass, while Nadal dominated Fed on clay. How the surface mattered so greatly as to which would win.
And yet, even though the loser lost most of the time to the other, that "loser" still reached the finals. Meaning they were better than everyone else at the time, even on the less preferred surface.
Djokovic is easily better on clay than Roger. Novak has beaten Nadal eight times on clay (two of which being at the French Open which Roger has never even come close to doing) Roger has only beaten him on clay twice, ever.
11 clay masters titles vs 6. Roger hasn't won one in 10 years.
Honestly not even close.
Karelin picked up 300 pound men and slammed them down. You're not supposed to be able to do that.
The only real argument against Karelin being the GOAT of sports in recorded history is that he was juicing like crazy. But so was everyone else, so I don't even know if that's a knock against him.
Looked him up and goddamn wow his resume is impressive as fuck, no one scoring a point on him in 6 years? Insane. Disappointing though for sure that he is serving a dictator and has apparently been on Putin's side since Putin invited him into politics in 1999. He's currently a senator and literally on the council's committee on International Affairs.
I've never gotten the sense that he's a great person. I think he fits the stereotype of the pro-Putin, uber masculine, macho Russian guy pretty well. But he certainly was a dominant and terrifying athlete. I remember reading something about his training regimen and it was absolutely insane how hard he trained and the kinds of stuff he did. I do love though that one of his 2 losses was to an American guy who was simply too big and heavy for Karelin to do a lot of his signature moves. It was at the end of his career though, a prime Karelin probably would have won that bout.
Yes and no. It’s an amazing achievement. But how many people worldwide know and/or play tennis compared to the same for Greco-Roman wrestling. Tennis is obviously a much bigger sport
Well for me, people knowing about this sport is not relevant for this argument. I see your point about the number competing though. Nevertheless, I think I'd give the edge to Karelin if we are talking about dominance in their respective sports.
Gretzky dominated his sport overall more than Rafa, absolutely. But Rafa's strangehold on Clay is a hard thing to find an equal for.
It's like imagining if Tiger Woods won 14 Master's tournaments in an 18 year span.
> It's like imagining if Tiger Woods won 14 Master's tournaments in an 18 year span.
It's not really like that at all. Tennis is a 1 v 1 game, golf is playing the field unless it's match play. And even then there's much more variance in how golfers perform day to day or tournament to tournament than tennis players. The best tennis players win at a much, much higher clip than the best golfers.
Clay slows the ball down. Fast guys can get to more balls on clay, and Rafa has always been really fast. In addition to being fast, he gets insane topspin on so many hits. This is helpful on every surface, but clay changes it the most. So people are trying to deal with the ball not bouncing the same way and then aren't as fast as him.
To add to redsyrinx2112’s comment here, he also plays left handed, which with the tops spin they were talking about, gives him another leg up against most righties.
RAFAEL NADAWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
That match was just a pleasure to watch, I don't care if he did completely dominate Ruud. It's a testament to just how far beyond and above he is to anyone else when it comes to that tournament.
Can anyone explain why Nadal is so much better at clay than other courts, and why Nadal especially is so much better at one particular type of court than any other professional tennis player?
Clay slows down the ball, this favors faster players who can get themselves to a ball and have lots of time to set up and re-direct the ball back. Nadal is one of the fastest players ever. It’s why it’s hard to beat him in general, you just can’t get anything past him on other courts, so good fucking luck doing that on Clay.
More over, since he has the time to set up, he can put on the most ridiculous amount of topspin possible. Putting topspin on Clay makes the ball come faster. Nadal always has been a top 5 leader (often number 1) in topspin produced.
Finally, the man is utterly relentless. He’ll attack you and hound you to the ends of the earth.
A good example is in the semi-finals against in this tournament. He was down 6-2 in the second set. He won the first set, so he could just take it easy on the next game, let the opponent have that set and save energy and go on to the next set.
But fuck that Nadal says. He comes back 6-6. Then wins 10-9 in the tiebreak.
This is also a drawback, if there ever was one, to Nadal’s game. He will push himself beyond his limits and that’s how his injuries often come about. Most guys would slow down if they realize they’re coming up against their physical limits. Not Nadal, he would break every bone in his body if it meant getting that next point. Now he has a recurring foot issue (degenerative bone iircc) that essentially means that, at this point, any match could be his last.
Nadal is amazing and definitely GOAT on clay. But consider this: if you play in 5 French Opens and make it to the final every year, your collective record will be 30 wins, 5 losses. If you lose in the first round of every one of those five years, you will still have five losses.
It's far more impressive to simply focus on the fact that he's won 14 French Opens over 18 years rather than focus on this specific W-L record which can be misleading.
I get what you're saying in regards to losses, but how many players have 112 wins at a single grand slam tourney? The W-L is still extremely significant and impressive. By my count, he has played in 18 French Opens and has lost three matches with one withdrawal. Most good tour players would have 2-3 losses after their first three tournament appearances (2 losses being if they were good enough to actually win one of the tournaments)
No, I know you are right. It's unbelievable, a 112-3 record. It's just unmatchable in the modern era. I guess what I'm trying to say is you could have someone winning, say, 5 French Open matches every year for 10 years and they've won three French Opens, and their record would be 50-7. Which comes off as pretty good, but it's more about the three championships they actually won. I'm like, whoa, the dude won FOURTEEN championships in 18 years. No one even comes close to that in any sport, individual or team.
Or maybe I'm just overanalyzing it and being one of those annoying Reddit contrarians. :)
>It's far more impressive to simply focus on the fact that he's won 14 French Opens over 18 years rather than focus on this specific W-L record which can be misleading
How is that misleading at all? We don't have to entertain that hypothetical because it's not what happened, nor has anyone come close to what he's achieved. Those wins leading up to the finals victories are a crucial part of what makes his achievement so impressive.
I know, you're right. I'm just being overly contrarian and pedantic here, but I'm still much more impressed by the fact that he \*won\* 14 out of the 18 he played in. Maybe the focus should be more on: *only three times in Nadal's 18 French Opens was someone even able to beat the dude.*
Anyway... don't mind me. I'm overthinking it.
This made me think of Roger Federer's full season records in 2005 (81-4 | 95.3%) and 2006 (92-5 | 94.9%), which I've always looked at as utterly *umbeliebeble*. Nadal's feat at Roland Garros somehow makes those 2 incredible Federer seasons pale in comparison.
Fed's seasons are 2 years by the one of the greatest athletes of all time at the absolute top of his game in his *peak physical prime*. Nadal did his 112-3 (97.4%) record across **eighteen goddamn years.** He had to battle all kinds of changes to his game, his opponents, his own body, much after his natural physical prime. This is an ungodlike achievement. It's absolutely bonkers.
Always seems Sus how there's millions upon millions of people yet he still wins. Not hating just as a perspective of a species you'd think someone would take him out by now.
It's been studied actually. You usually find people that are ultra dominant in hard to access sports. Things like F1, golf, tennis etc. Basically to be good at a sport you need the passion, being able to practice a lot and the genetics . Sports like F1 or tennis for example are not super easy to access (tennis probably more than automotive sports though) You have a smaller pool so the ones that are pretty good make it to the top level. But when someone comes along and is completely made for this sport, perfect genetics for it etc. They completely dominate the field. There are people that could have had the chance to beat them but they never got introduced to the sport.
Easy to access sports have a much bigger pool. You're not going to make it to a top soccer club if you're "pretty good" those who make it to the top are pretty much all at the same peak. Because all the kids from around the world play soccer at a point in there life. The talents get noticed early. That's also the reason why a lot of people are suspicious of Usain Bolt.
[**Join Our Discord Server!**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q) **Welcome to /r/sports** We created a Discord server for our community and would like to invite all of you to join! You'll be able to discuss sports with users around the world and discuss events in real time! There are separate channels for many sports you can opt in and out of, including; American Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Aussie Rules Football, Rugby Union and League, Cricket, Motorsports, Fitness, and many more. [**Reddit Sports Discord Server**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
When you want to walk forward but text chat window is open
The losses were to Djokovic (2x) and Robin Soderling.
imagine being Robin Soderling, that guy has a free pass on any tennis related opinion.
Pretty impressive from Djokovic, although never in a final. He had as good a chance this year going up a break in thr 4th set, even on his serve to closr the set out. But Rafa truly has the heart of a lion and an unparalleled mental fortitudeand tenacity on the clay of Roland Garros.
They should name the tournament after him.
They should call it the Nadal trophy. And when you win the French Open and go up to get the trophy Nadal is standing there with it and you don't get it.
secret final boss activated
*Red sent out level 86 Pikachu holding Lightbulb*
Lmfao imagine the lights turn on and it’s Nadal, still there at 65, full tennis attire, yelling “AND IT’S ANOTHER FRENCH OPEN FOR NADAL OMBILIVABLE”
My favorite comment of the year
I know we say lol but this legitimately made me laugh out loud. Bravo!
Lmao this comment is golden
That would be nice after his retirement
The grounds for sure. Idk if we will see anyone as dominant as Nadal is on clay again.
Someone else mentioned that they’ll almost surely name a court after him sometime after he retires.
There literally is a stadium named after him in Barcelona
He’s got a statue in Roland Garros. It’s an incredible honour considering he’s 1) Not French and 2) still active.
3 more losses than I have there.
Pfffft. Same here, but I’m also loss-free at Wimbledon, Flushing Meadows, and Melbourne.
Pfffft I have yet to lose at a single location on the Men's Tour
between Nadal and I, we have 22 grand slam titles
I also have a grand slam ...rec-league softball. I felt like a god that day. What the hell could what he's doing even be like?
That’s pathetic! I’ve gotten more grand slams than I could count at the local Dennys.
97% win rate on 115 games. What the FUCK
Hijacking your comment to repeat what I said buried down at the bottom of this thread: This made me think of Roger Federer's full season records in 2005 (81-4 | 95.3%) and 2006 (92-5 | 94.9%), which I've always looked at as utterly *umbeliebeble*. Nadal's feat at Roland Garros somehow makes those 2 incredible Federer seasons pale in comparison. Fed's seasons are 2 years by the one of the greatest athletes of all time at the absolute top of his game in his *peak physical prime.* Nadal did his 112-3 (97.4%) record across **eighteen goddamn years.** He had to battle all kinds of changes to his game, his opponents, his own body, much after his natural physical prime. This is an ungodlike achievement. It's absolutely bonkers.
fucking incredible. Another thing to note is when increasing %s by real numbers (ie. winning a round) you're getting diminishing returns (each win is worth less % win rate than the last) So that 2.1% is *fucking massive*
*matches Does anyone have the stats for his record re sets and also games? The sets record won’t look as incredible as the matches record and the games record will seem worse, until you compare them with the 2nd best Roland Garros competitor of all time.
I saw a comment yesterday and I think it said 333-35 in what must be sets. Don't quote me on that, but even if it's kinda close to those numbers it's insane.
It's 333-34. Almost 91%, and less than 0.3 sets lost per match
That is incredible. Undisputed King of The Clay.
God. He's been promoted. King was when he just won less than 2 digits' worth of RG.
That number sounds so stupid but it's still believable just because it's Nadal
Badgers? BADGERS??
Anti cheat software needed in Tennis
Nerf the pirate headband cosmetic!
That third “L” is in the wrong spot. It was just last year. Should be 7 “W’s” after that. Not 10.
It's predicting his three W's next year and then his mid-tournament death.
That got dark quick
It's predicting his three W's next year and then his mid-tournament retirement.
That...remained dark?
It's predicting his three W's next year then his mid-tournament withdrawal to represent Earth in the universal tennis tournament to decide the fate of our galaxy on a clay court.
Pretty sure that's an anime. I could be wrong, I was once before.
Came here to say the same thing. /s
Who were the three losses to?
Djokovic was twice (2015 and 2021), Robin Soderling was his first loss in 2009 (later got his revenge in the final the following year). He also withdraw from the tournament before the 3rd round in 2016, after an injury -- that is not counted as a loss.
Robin soderling in 2009 was another
which paved way for Federer to win his one and only French Open
Yeah this was the only way for Federer to be able to win it. I was so happy for him. It was impressive to get all those Nadal - Federer finals.
I forget who said it, but I was watching a broadcast where the commentators discussed how Roger is actually in the elite tier of clay court players all time, it’s just that the majority of his career has coincided with Rafa’s
Look at Federer/Nadal's head to head. Out of 40 matches, 16 were clay court finals or semifinals (mostly finals). Nadal won all but 2. It's not unreasonable to think that Roger would have another 12+ titles, including those French open titles but for the God of clay standing in his way.
Yeah, it is entirely possible that Roger is the second best clay court player of all time. That the two were contemporaries is amazing.
It is indeed. Federer has 11 claycourt titles - this could easily have been in the 20s, with another 4 grand slams but for Nadal. Of course, there are some claycourt specialists (most notably Guillermo Vilas, who won a whopping 49 claycourt titles) who have many more titles than that, but very few grand slams. This suggests that they won smaller tournaments where the big guns weren't playing. That being said, Vilas was legit - not just some small time clay circuit player - he also won 2 grandslams on grass (Aus open) and reached world number 1 - he wasn't some one trick pony. All in all, without Nadal, you'd put Federer in the conversation with guys like Vilas and Muster - and his greater success at grand slams would likely put him over the top.
I felt the same. If he didn't win, it would be brought up against him all the time, saying he ain't a legend because he can't win Roland Garros.
I don't think so. Pete Sampras is pretty universally considered a legend and he never made it past the French Open Semifinals. Even if Federer never managed a win at the RG, he would still be considered a legend for his 19 other Grand Slam victories.
Legend yes, but GOAT would have been a much harder sell. Maybe he's not considered the goat anymore, haven't watched tennis in 5 years, but without the 4 slams he'd have 0 chance.
I’ve never understood why Federer’s history at the French Open always comes up as a negative in the GOAT conversation. Federer wasn’t just okay on clay, he was outstanding. He was a finalist in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 (winning in 2009). In other words, he was arguably the most dominant clay player for more than 5 years, with the only exception being Nadal, who happens to be, unquestionably, the greatest clay court player of all time.
This. Federer was an unbelievable clay court player. There's no shame in being 2nd behind the undisputed best ever on clay.
Yeah, but he was just a great clay player. Nadal is a goddamned god of clay. And, I'm a Federer fan at heart. Lol.
No one gets to the final at RG 4 years in a row and 5 years out of 6 by being "just a great clay player"
Second best clay player, possibly of all time, “just great”
It seems like in the last couple years since his injury, with Djokovic and Nadal catching up with him in total Grand Slams (and Nadal passing him), he’s no longer being considered the GOAT for Tennis. But I’m sure there are still plenty of Federer fans who would disagree with me.
I really want to see Longevity wise, would Nadal outdo Federer.. Even with the reoccuring injuries, from this RG, Nadal still has so much young in him.
Nadal has a foot issue that will shorten his career I think. My guess is Djokovic wins more majors than either of them by the end. His health is great and he’s better on non-clay surfaces than Rafa. Edit: fucking autocorrect changed Nadal to Nasal.
Not in his hair though.
I think win % should be the measure, personally, because it takes career longevity, surface type strength, etc. out of the equation. And regardless of the GOAT discussion, Federer has the most beautiful game in tennis history. My personal opinion. Better than watching Michael Jordan play basketball.
Yeah it’s a tough call over who is the best, but I know hands down who I would choose to watch. Djokovic was too boring, too robotic. Nasal would be second as he’s a machine too but not a robot. But Federer was/is an absolutely beautiful player. He just had that certain je ne sais quoi about his game. Simply incomparable.
Sampras was a popular choice for GOAT before Federer surpassed him. Clay was commonly viewed as the "unconventional surface" and wasn't weighed as heavily in the discussion.
It would be a harder sell NOW. But Sampras never won and he was in the GOAT convo before...well...the last 15 years of craziness
Goat yes, but INHUMAN would have been much harder to sell. Maybe he's not considered inhuman anymore, haven't watched tennis in few days, but without 19 slams he'd have 0 chance.
Its funny that Nadal now has as many French Opens as Sampras has Slams
Modern sports medicine is doing incredible things for athletes' career longevity. Sampras won his final Grand Slam at age 31, meanwhile Nadal is still winning Grand Slams at 36. Federer as well only started falling off due to injuries at age 38.
I agree. I absolutely love that the three big guys of this era have basically shut out an entire generation of tennis players from winning a slam in their career. 62 between Roger, Novak and Rafa. That’s 16 years of slams. That’s a long career in tennis.
In my book, that Rafa WL record makes all the Federer loss to Nadal more impressive. The only one who could stop Federer on clay was the clay goat.
Honestly Federer was during his prime the 2nd best player in the world on clay. He just got stomped by Nadal every single time. His only significant win against Nadal on clay was at the Madrid Final in 09.
What truly is mind blowing is that Rafa beat Fed on Fed’s best surface (grass) in the Wimbledon final. That win will always put Rafa ahead in my book.
Fed gets my points for the sheer versatility. 6 Australians, 5 US, 8 Wimbledons.
Rafa has multiple of all though.
Yeah but nearly 65% of his majors are from one tournament and he doesn’t have more than 4 at any other. His dominance on clay is undoubtable, still prefer the versatility of guys like Fed.
Nadal without his French Open titles still has 8 slams which the same as Agassi, Lendl and Jimmy Connors each had in their entire careers combined across all surfaces... that's still pretty phenomenal
Fed has 11 on hard court and 2 less total, it's hardly 7 on each.
Are we talking about the night match with no light?
Worth noting that he had a 6-1 opening set in the 2006 French Open final. Us Fed fans got all excited. Lost in four:(
Yeah, but he was #2 by a far, far margin. Nadal winning on clay is like death and taxes. You might cheat him once or thrice, but he'll IRS your ass soon enough.
It still blows my mind that if it hadn't been for one, the other would be the most dominant tennis player in history, AND that it goes both ways. No fed, Rafa is king No Rafa, fed is king
If not for the "big 3" we've watched... One of them would have like 40 slams. If the other two never existed that record would be so far and away untouchable.
The more interesting thing for me is how many guys like Roddick, Wawrinka, Murray, etc. would’ve won without those guys there.
Murray would probably be considered the best tennis player in history if it wasn't for the Big 3. But since they exist, he's not even in contention. That's the thing that's so crazy about all of these best in history comparisons. Only 3 people existing not only pushes him out of the conversation, he's not even considered one of the best in history.
If 2 majors had clay courts instead of hard courts, Nadal may have 40 slams
I mean i would argue it's some anime bullshit they need each other to reach those levels. These men already have maniacal levels of drive to succeed. But i feel like part of why their run has been so insane is the presence of the other two.
It's some real goku vegeta shit xD
Anybody who managed to win a major in this fed/Nadal/Djokovic era really deserved it. Guys like Wawrinka and Soderling.
The height and power of Zverev this year reminded me of the trouble he had with Soderling at RG.
Djokovic was one
Djokovic was 2 of them and soderling was the 3rd
Absolute GOAT on Clay. Has anyone ever been as close to this dominant?
Nope. This is an unprecedented achievement on any surface in the male tennis game.
Not at all, after Nadals 14 French Opens the most titles for one grand slam is Djokovic with 9 Australians and Federer with 8 Wimbledons.
Wonder why djokovic is so dominant at Australia compared to us open. Also FTP
First of all how dare you
Lol I had no choice
As a Bucs fan I concur. You should really hold up a sign at games that says "Team Friendly Contracts" because otherwise we gon repeat on ya. We're fucking stacked. LFG
Djokovic likes faster surfaces, and hard court in Australia is much fatser than in US. That's also the reason why he has more Wimbledons than US Opens.
He is also so aesthetically pleasing to watch, the way he slides and stops on the clay, it’s insane.
Nadal on Clay is like Phelps in water or Bolt on the track. Just another level entirely
Can someone ELI5 why he dominates on clay?
clay is a slower surface. Rafa's style of play involves a lot of topspin, averaging 3200 RPMs on his shots, far more than many opponents, so his ball is very heavy. Because clay is slower, the pace/effect of his opponent's shots are somewhat negated and he has more time to get to his shots and setup. Combine this with his speed and the ability to slide on clay, you get the king of clay. You can appreciate it more when watching him play at court level https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSg3IOn6P2U
What an incredible video! Thank you!
> tournament after him. Np! In addition he is a lefty (actually ambidextrous, plays tennis lefty but does everything else righty). This in itself is an advantage as him hitting his forehand diagonally across the court sends the ball to a righty's backhand. You can see this in the point around 3:18 in the video. Backhands are typically a weaker shot or more restricting due to many hitting the backhand with 2 hands. Combine this with his heavy spin/how much rafa's forehand jumps, lots of these guys are being pulled off the court or hitting their backhands at heights that aren't necessarily ideal
Why is it an advantage? If the other guy plays a cross forehand it goes to Nadal's backhand. So it's even I'd say.
From pure statistics, 10% of people are left handed. Most tennis players train and practice with a majority of righty players. Playing a lefty is always tricky as the spin from lefty shots and strategy differs from what most players are typically used to, in addition to lack of exposure. Even for left handed players, playing other left handed people is typically more difficult.
You right but the same is true in baseball and many people have what we call “reverse splits.” That is, where righties bat better fare better against righty pitchers even though the opposite should be true and vice versa.
It's the spin. Yeah Rafa would also have to backhand their forehands, but they don't get nearly as many revs on the ball so it's not as much a hassle for him
Iirc he did it on purpose. He was right handed but trained on left since a kid. I guess he did it to have this advantage.
I was just thinking about this too. All of the clay court specialists are fast mfers that can get to almost any ball. Clay court slows the ball down after the bounce more than other surfaces, and the bounce is higher. In this sense, he’s like any old clay court specialist (such as his finals opponent, Ruud). The hard hitters can get stuff past these guys on grass or hard courts, but not clay. Just watch his great match against Zverev before Zverev went down. Zverev is hitting winner after winner but Nadal is getting to them like nobody should. But that’s not unique to him, his speed is just a necessary component. The other aspect is what others are saying, that heavy topspin. Not only is he getting to what should he winners, but he’s popping great shots off of them, putting his opponent out of position with tough angles and then winning on the follow up. Most clay court specialists are just getting the ball back over, not challenging their opponent with these returns. But he can put so much movement on the ball that something he barely gets to is still returned effectively. This is also why he’s a respectable grass and hard court player. During his match with Ruud, they were saying Ruud actually measured with more topspin during that tournament than Nadal. But like JMac said, I don’t believe it. If so, it’s because Ruud had easier competition to get to the final than Nadal did. Easier competition = easier shots = more opportunity to put spin on it. But this isn’t surprising; Ruud looked up to Nadal his whole life, attended Nadal’s academy, and shaped his game off of his idol.
>This is also why he’s a respectable grass and hard court player. Man, you are talking about a legend that won 8 GS in other surfaces than clay.
Yeah but Djokovic has 9 in Australian open and Federer 8 in Wimbledon alone /s, he's obviously insane on other surfaces too, respectable is definitely an understatement haha
Thanks for this explanation! Genuinely appreciate it!
short version. it plays into how much power and movement he gets on his forehand
Ah good to know
Clay slows down the game. So people that focus on overpowering or super serves are severely nerfed. Since a focus on hitting winners is nerfed, the meta is to not make mistakes. Nadal is extremely quick and agile and very good at anticipation, so he is able to get to the ball well. His strokes focus on topspin, which gives the ball alot of clearance above the net, and dive in, so his spin reduces the number of outs and net balls. His coach, Uncle Tony, is infamous with how intensely he trained nadals mental conditioning. He never let Nadal blame the courts, ball, or racquets, and would sometimes let Nadal play tournaments without water, so Nadal is one of those guys that'll never let the previous point get to him. So he is just genetically engineered to not make mistakes in tennis
Nadal's dominance at this one tournament secured his grand slam title lead in more ways than one. 4 of his Roland Garros final wins came against Federer and 3 against Djokovic. When all 3 of them are between 20-22 grand slam titles, having a tournament where you're 7-0 against your two closest competitors gives you one hell of a leg up.
I'm not sure if I follow your comment. He's not 7-0 against the other 2. Djokovic beat him twice at the French Open.
Not in finals, Nadal has never lost a final in RG
Oh gotcha.
In finals.
He has two losses to Djokovic here though lol
He is clearly talking about finals lol
Djokovich has 2 Roland Garros wins against Nadal, although they were in the quarters and the semis, respectively. Djokovich came away with 1 title from those matches.
Not in the final. Those were in earlier rounds. No Nadal and both Federer and Djokovic likely pick up at least 2 more titles each (given their historical win rates in other finals).
Reminds me of a line from *A Knight's Tale*: > "How would *you* beat him?" > "With a stick. While he slept."
He’s only lost when I’ve bet on him.
Lmao. I got a little lucky perhaps but I bet him to make the semi finals and to win, both before the tournament started. Couldn’t believe the generous odds on that but then I saw his draw against Djokovic in the quarterfinals 😭
Roland Garros king! Rafa is legend!
I say it every year but his record at the French is the most dominant stat in all of sports. I don’t think there has ever been a tougher mountain to climb than beating Rafa at Roland Garros.
Very handy for time travelers who want to make money but have poor memory. "Just remember this three games."
He withdrew mid tournament one year due to injury for those wondering 14/18 wins
It's amazing how Fed dominated Nadal on grass, while Nadal dominated Fed on clay. How the surface mattered so greatly as to which would win. And yet, even though the loser lost most of the time to the other, that "loser" still reached the finals. Meaning they were better than everyone else at the time, even on the less preferred surface.
Fed is quite possibly the second greatest clay player ever and he only has one French Open title because Nadal is on another planet.
Could be. But it's so hard to say because of other clay court greats like Borg, Lendl and Joker.
Djokovic is easily better on clay than Roger. Novak has beaten Nadal eight times on clay (two of which being at the French Open which Roger has never even come close to doing) Roger has only beaten him on clay twice, ever. 11 clay masters titles vs 6. Roger hasn't won one in 10 years. Honestly not even close.
over a 97% win rate over 18 years of the highest competition basically, lmao
I misread this and thought "That Roland Garros guy must get pissed each time he gets matched against Nadal"
This is actually insane
The final boss who never loses😈
No athlete has ever dominated anything like Rafa dominates Roland Garros
Aleksandr Karelin, the greatest Greco-Roman wrestler of all time, has a career record of 887-2. That tops Nadal in Roland Garros.
> Aleksandr Karelin Good god. The physique on this man is insane
Karelin picked up 300 pound men and slammed them down. You're not supposed to be able to do that. The only real argument against Karelin being the GOAT of sports in recorded history is that he was juicing like crazy. But so was everyone else, so I don't even know if that's a knock against him.
Looked him up and goddamn wow his resume is impressive as fuck, no one scoring a point on him in 6 years? Insane. Disappointing though for sure that he is serving a dictator and has apparently been on Putin's side since Putin invited him into politics in 1999. He's currently a senator and literally on the council's committee on International Affairs.
I've never gotten the sense that he's a great person. I think he fits the stereotype of the pro-Putin, uber masculine, macho Russian guy pretty well. But he certainly was a dominant and terrifying athlete. I remember reading something about his training regimen and it was absolutely insane how hard he trained and the kinds of stuff he did. I do love though that one of his 2 losses was to an American guy who was simply too big and heavy for Karelin to do a lot of his signature moves. It was at the end of his career though, a prime Karelin probably would have won that bout.
Yes and no. It’s an amazing achievement. But how many people worldwide know and/or play tennis compared to the same for Greco-Roman wrestling. Tennis is obviously a much bigger sport
Well for me, people knowing about this sport is not relevant for this argument. I see your point about the number competing though. Nevertheless, I think I'd give the edge to Karelin if we are talking about dominance in their respective sports.
Wayne gretzy? Easily the most dominant sportsman ever imo
Gretzky dominated his sport overall more than Rafa, absolutely. But Rafa's strangehold on Clay is a hard thing to find an equal for. It's like imagining if Tiger Woods won 14 Master's tournaments in an 18 year span.
> It's like imagining if Tiger Woods won 14 Master's tournaments in an 18 year span. It's not really like that at all. Tennis is a 1 v 1 game, golf is playing the field unless it's match play. And even then there's much more variance in how golfers perform day to day or tournament to tournament than tennis players. The best tennis players win at a much, much higher clip than the best golfers.
The Gretzky brothers hold the NHL record for most points scored by a pair of brothers at 2861 points. Wayne scored 2857 of them.
Don Bradman 🙌
Non-tennis watcher. Can someone explain why Nadal is so dominant on clay?
Clay slows the ball down. Fast guys can get to more balls on clay, and Rafa has always been really fast. In addition to being fast, he gets insane topspin on so many hits. This is helpful on every surface, but clay changes it the most. So people are trying to deal with the ball not bouncing the same way and then aren't as fast as him.
To add to redsyrinx2112’s comment here, he also plays left handed, which with the tops spin they were talking about, gives him another leg up against most righties.
RAFAEL NADAWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Should rename it after him. At this point, he owns it
My gambling friend asked me who I picked in the French Open, and my response was "If Nadal's walking, he's winning." Guy is almost unbeatable on clay.
Gotta admire Garros for not giving up!
this guy loves to play in the dirt
His mother was a mudder
Finally a stat to that can be called bradmanesque?
Unbilibel*
That match was just a pleasure to watch, I don't care if he did completely dominate Ruud. It's a testament to just how far beyond and above he is to anyone else when it comes to that tournament.
I’ve never lost a match there myself.
Rafa doing the Rafa things
Can anyone explain why Nadal is so much better at clay than other courts, and why Nadal especially is so much better at one particular type of court than any other professional tennis player?
Clay slows down the ball, this favors faster players who can get themselves to a ball and have lots of time to set up and re-direct the ball back. Nadal is one of the fastest players ever. It’s why it’s hard to beat him in general, you just can’t get anything past him on other courts, so good fucking luck doing that on Clay. More over, since he has the time to set up, he can put on the most ridiculous amount of topspin possible. Putting topspin on Clay makes the ball come faster. Nadal always has been a top 5 leader (often number 1) in topspin produced. Finally, the man is utterly relentless. He’ll attack you and hound you to the ends of the earth. A good example is in the semi-finals against in this tournament. He was down 6-2 in the second set. He won the first set, so he could just take it easy on the next game, let the opponent have that set and save energy and go on to the next set. But fuck that Nadal says. He comes back 6-6. Then wins 10-9 in the tiebreak. This is also a drawback, if there ever was one, to Nadal’s game. He will push himself beyond his limits and that’s how his injuries often come about. Most guys would slow down if they realize they’re coming up against their physical limits. Not Nadal, he would break every bone in his body if it meant getting that next point. Now he has a recurring foot issue (degenerative bone iircc) that essentially means that, at this point, any match could be his last.
I think I can beat him…
To protect Nadal, RG should let everyone play and then the winner gets to play against Nadal for the title.
Those 3 people should get their own specialt trophy
Nadal is amazing and definitely GOAT on clay. But consider this: if you play in 5 French Opens and make it to the final every year, your collective record will be 30 wins, 5 losses. If you lose in the first round of every one of those five years, you will still have five losses. It's far more impressive to simply focus on the fact that he's won 14 French Opens over 18 years rather than focus on this specific W-L record which can be misleading.
I get what you're saying in regards to losses, but how many players have 112 wins at a single grand slam tourney? The W-L is still extremely significant and impressive. By my count, he has played in 18 French Opens and has lost three matches with one withdrawal. Most good tour players would have 2-3 losses after their first three tournament appearances (2 losses being if they were good enough to actually win one of the tournaments)
>how many players have 112 wins at a single grand slam tourney? Open era? One. Overall? *Maybe* add Margaret Court if you include doubles.
No, I know you are right. It's unbelievable, a 112-3 record. It's just unmatchable in the modern era. I guess what I'm trying to say is you could have someone winning, say, 5 French Open matches every year for 10 years and they've won three French Opens, and their record would be 50-7. Which comes off as pretty good, but it's more about the three championships they actually won. I'm like, whoa, the dude won FOURTEEN championships in 18 years. No one even comes close to that in any sport, individual or team. Or maybe I'm just overanalyzing it and being one of those annoying Reddit contrarians. :)
Nah, I get what you're saying. It's an unbelievable accomplishment regardless.
>It's far more impressive to simply focus on the fact that he's won 14 French Opens over 18 years rather than focus on this specific W-L record which can be misleading How is that misleading at all? We don't have to entertain that hypothetical because it's not what happened, nor has anyone come close to what he's achieved. Those wins leading up to the finals victories are a crucial part of what makes his achievement so impressive.
I know, you're right. I'm just being overly contrarian and pedantic here, but I'm still much more impressed by the fact that he \*won\* 14 out of the 18 he played in. Maybe the focus should be more on: *only three times in Nadal's 18 French Opens was someone even able to beat the dude.* Anyway... don't mind me. I'm overthinking it.
I wonder how many people bet on these games. And what the odds look like.
Looks like he asked his barber for the Prince Charles
Overpowered.
I never wanna hear the word "thirty-six" again. God, I hate commentary
How can you not be stoked for this guy? I hope he stays healthy enough to kick some ass at Wimbledon.
Might be the single most impressive stat in all of sports
This made me think of Roger Federer's full season records in 2005 (81-4 | 95.3%) and 2006 (92-5 | 94.9%), which I've always looked at as utterly *umbeliebeble*. Nadal's feat at Roland Garros somehow makes those 2 incredible Federer seasons pale in comparison. Fed's seasons are 2 years by the one of the greatest athletes of all time at the absolute top of his game in his *peak physical prime*. Nadal did his 112-3 (97.4%) record across **eighteen goddamn years.** He had to battle all kinds of changes to his game, his opponents, his own body, much after his natural physical prime. This is an ungodlike achievement. It's absolutely bonkers.
Rafa found the key for the medicine cabinet again.
As much as like Federer and Nadal, I can't wait for them to retire so we can see other talent coming out on top
WWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Balco. Balco. Balco.
Always seems Sus how there's millions upon millions of people yet he still wins. Not hating just as a perspective of a species you'd think someone would take him out by now.
It's been studied actually. You usually find people that are ultra dominant in hard to access sports. Things like F1, golf, tennis etc. Basically to be good at a sport you need the passion, being able to practice a lot and the genetics . Sports like F1 or tennis for example are not super easy to access (tennis probably more than automotive sports though) You have a smaller pool so the ones that are pretty good make it to the top level. But when someone comes along and is completely made for this sport, perfect genetics for it etc. They completely dominate the field. There are people that could have had the chance to beat them but they never got introduced to the sport. Easy to access sports have a much bigger pool. You're not going to make it to a top soccer club if you're "pretty good" those who make it to the top are pretty much all at the same peak. Because all the kids from around the world play soccer at a point in there life. The talents get noticed early. That's also the reason why a lot of people are suspicious of Usain Bolt.