In his quest to become the greatest ever, Rafael Nadal stopped short at last Sunday’s Australian Open final. However, the reason he didn’t win the trophy was the very reason why he is so great.
He is a physical specimen, a well oiled, well rigged athlete that is built to chase down every ball and battle for every point.
His career has been highlighted with some destructible tennis consisting of some of the most amazing shots.
It has also been categorised by also a number of untimely injuries which has recently turned his invincibility to vulnerability.
The intensity he shows in his face as he grimaces every time he hits the ball is consistent with the immense pressure he puts his body through point after point. Over his career he has consolidated the importance of a tennis player’s physical attributes.
The players of yesteryear such as Andre Agassi, John McEnroe and Boris Becker played the game with finesse and immense technicality.
They used their tennis IQ in order to win matches which created their legacies. This is a trend continued by Roger Federer who is seen to be one of the last of its kind.
Rafael Nadal has always had the answer for these types of players. He has changed the landscape of tennis and transformed what qualities the next generation of tennis players need in order to succeed.
Tennis has not escaped evolution and it is now clear what players like Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Gael Monfils offer.
They offer physically demanding tennis, a different type of athlete that relies on their physical prowess as opposed to tennis IQ.
The new breed of tennis players are quicker, have stronger shots and play longer rallies which are evident through both genders.
When comparing Nadal and Federer, the statistic that stands out is their head to head record of 23-10, which Nadal leads.
He is simply Federer’s kryptonite; his style exposes Federer’s weaknesses which is lack of speed and inability to move extensively in rallies.
Nadal’s dominance signals the end of the classic player which we’ve enjoyed the past forty years.
He can chase every ball down and not only defend it but turn it into an attacking shot.
Roger has no answer, but what does he have that Rafa doesn’t?
He has health and finesse, qualities that in tennis, equate to longevity.
Nadal certainly has the skill and arsenal to be the best of all time, but his style of play along with the physical pressure he puts his body through cannot be sustained much longer.
The result of this was magnified on Sunday’s Australian Open final.
It was clear that at 28, Rafa’s way of play finally caught up to him.
Whether, it’s his back, groin or knees Nadal’s approach to the game needs to change and his style of play along with it.
He needs to accept that father time will eventually catch up to him, consequentially meaning that he simply needs to adapt and evolve.
To do this he needs to take a page from his nemesis’ book. The way he won the third set of that final demonstrated that he can do it.
He was suffering physically from his injury but he won the set purely on his shot selection and tennis I.Q.
He covered more ground by standing in the middle of the baseline and used his angled ground strokes to succeed.
In the end, his head to head record will mean nothing because Federer has simply won more grand slams.
Nadal certainly didn’t deserve the harsh treatment he received from the impatient crowd but he needs to learn from that experience and reassess his playing style.
Both Pete Sampras and Roger Federer achieved vast dominance during their careers but also suffered very abrupt and sudden ends to their reign, he needs to make sure that he doesn’t endure the same fate.
Athletes enjoy their prime at different stages and various ages, with some periods lasting longer than others.
The most important thing for Nadal is to ensure that he is healthy to enable him to pro long his career.
This is done by minimising his injuries which in turn will give him the best opportunity to pursue Roger’s grand slam record and become the ‘Greatest of All Time’.
If you look at great athletes most of them have one thing in common and that is longevity.
It is their ability to adapt and evolve as they grow old that makes them truly great.
As dominating as he looks on the court Rafael Nadal is not immune to this. At 28, if managed correctly he can still conquer the world and become the greatest ever.
Tom Dibble
Roar Rookie
Nadal will pass Federer's record. He's only 27. His body is the only thing that can stop him.
Kane
Guest
Federer has won 14 of his 17 slamswhen Nadal was present in the draw. The three that he won when Nadal wasn't present were Aus 06 and Wimbledon 04,09. If you agree that Federer has won a lot of easy slams against much lesser likes than Nadal has had to face then you must also agree that Nadal has lost 14 slams agains easy opposition aswell. Aus 04 Nadal lost to Hewitt who Federer beat the next round. Aus 05 Nadal again lost to Hewitt. Aus 07 Nadal lost to Fernando González. Aus 08 Nadal lost to Tsonga. Aus 09 Nadal Retired against Murray who Federer went on to beat. Aus 11 he lost to Ferrer. Aus 12 he lost to Djokovic and in Aus 14 he lost to Warwinka. French 09 he lost to Soderling who Federer went on to beat in the final. Wimbledon 03 Nadal lost to Paradorn Srichaphan. Wimbledon 05 he lost to Gilles Müller. Wimbledon 06 and 07 he lost to Federer in the Final. Wimbledon 11 He lost in the Final to Djokovic. Wimbledon 12 he lost to Lukáš Rosol. Wimbledon 13 he lost to Steve Darcis. US 03 He lost to Younes El Aynaoui. US 04 he lost to Roddick. US 05 he lost to James Blake. US 06 he lost to Mikhail Youzhny. US 07 he lost to Ferrer. US 08 he lost to Murray who Federer beat. US 09 he lost to Delpotro and US 11 he lost to Djokovic. There are some pretty ordinary players listed above that he lost to and failed to take advantage the weak era that Federer was playing in. Six times he either lost to Federer or lost to the guy who Federer then eliminated. Federers dominance doesn't make the era weak although it can make it look that way otherwise you can also claim that this is the weakest clay era of all time because only one player is any good at it.
duecer
Guest
Steele - the players who haven't won a grand slam that Federer faced were Mark Philippoussis, Marcos Baghdatis Robin Söderling amd Fernando González. The players Nadal faced that haven't won a GS were Mariano Puerta, Robin Söderling, Tomáš Berdych and David Ferrer. - so you could argue Nadal has had the same number of 'lesser' players. Six of the other finals were won over Federer, a player who he has a mental edge on, So, if we take away the 4 extra slams that Federer has won, can you really say he has played against 'lesser' players?
Steele
Guest
You don't win 13 slams without a fantastic tennis iQ. He is mentally the toughest player to have probably played the game and he beats Federer because he dictates the play with him and bullies him with his Lefthand ground strokes. Nothing to do with Federers speed! To be frank he wins because he is a better player period. Federer got a lot of easy slams against much lesser likes than Nadal has had to face. But yes injuries are making it an interesting slam chase. Andre Agassi wasn't really a finesse player either and Monfils doesn't even rate a mention.
Bob
Guest
Agree mostly. But one cannot discount how the courts have been slowed to favour longer rallies thus influencing a more physical type of game. To the detriment of attacking tennis.
Brian
Guest
I agree 17 is no certainty, not many win the French as they got older, although no one has ever been as good on Clay as Nadal.
Brian
Guest
I think the point is that Rafa showed just how much shot placement ability he has in the 3rd set. Not the equal of RF but enough to basically get him through 80% of games without winning the physical battle. Mind you he would probably like another Rolland garros title in May and then he can think about the style change.
Chris Doroudgar
Roar Pro
Thanks for the comment buddy. You're right there was definitely a mental aspect on Wawrinka's behalf that helped him though Nadal's shot selection was better and his choice of shots were more efficient.
clipper
Guest
Nadal is 27, not 28 as you mentioned twice in the article - which is a huge difference in the number of years he can still dominate. But as Eddard mentions there are no young upstarts with a six year start at present that Federer faced when he was 27 - if any of the present crop can step up or we get a new Nadal, then he may have trouble reaching the 17 GS's.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
5 slams within two years. That doesn't seem likely. It wouldn't surprise me if Nadal has the same difficulty overtaking Federer that Federer had overtaking Sampras.
Eddard
Roar Guru
I wouldn't say 17 is a given for Nadal at all. He is close to 28 now. A lot of the great players didn't win many more slams after that age - and you have to consider how long Nadal has been a top player (9 years now since he won his first slam). Federer won his 14th slam (FO 2009) aged 27 and his 15th (W 2009) and 16th (AO 2010) aged 28. 17th was just before his 31st birthday. What's in Nadal's advantage is that the current young generation is not anywhere near as strong as the new generation Federer had to face when he was 27/28. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were already great players by then, while there's currently no great players aged under 25. But that can change quickly.
Eden
Guest
Agree with the comment that the main advantage nadal has is the left hander top spin against Feds one hander. If nadal was right handed they would have a closer record (tho nadal still has the physical edge) Also agree with the article about nadal physical approach breaking down his body. He has to accept that if he wants to go 100% at everything he will break down sooner than most. Also very interesting point about nadal's potential to evolve into a more accuracy and attacking philosophy. Definitely could pull it off and would win over the doubters if he evolved into a "classic" player with his killer shotmaking Regardless he will eclipse 17 slams no matter what-probably within two years, so fed needs to win some more or accept that he will be overtaken
Eddard
Roar Guru
I agree with the basic premise of the article, and Nadal has certainly got better at flattening out the ball and shortening points. A few years ago I thought he'd be done as a contender by 27 or 28, but now I think he's probably got 2 or 3 good years left in him. I disagree with a lot of points you've made though: "Tennis has not escaped evolution and it is now clear what players like Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Gael Monfils offer." Monfils has no business in this sentence. Out of the 3 he is the most explosive athlete but his tennis IQ, consistency of shot and endurance is not even close to being in the same category. "His style exposes Federer’s weaknesses which is lack of speed and inability to move extensively in rallies" His style does expose Federer's weakness, but Federer has always (until last year when he had back problems) been an excellent mover. Even at 32 his movement is not really a weakness - it's still better than most guys on tour. His weakness is a one handed backhand that gets broken down by Nadal's huge top spin forehand that consistently gets the ball up above the shoulder. On high bouncing courts (which most of the year is played on) he has rarely had an answer. However, on quicker, low bouncing courts (grass and indoor) he leads their head to head 6-2. "Both Pete Sampras and Roger Federer achieved vast dominance during their careers but also suffered very abrupt and sudden ends to their reign" Federer's peak period was 2004-2007. Then he was dethroned by Nadal. But he regained the number 1 again for long periods in both 2009 and 2012 when he turned 30. Hardly an abrupt and sudden end. Sampras also won his last slam at 31. He didn't exactly fall of a cliff.
tennis fan
Guest
"To do this he needs to take a page from his nemesis’ book. The way he won the third set of that final demonstrated that he can do it. He was suffering physically from his injury but he won the set purely on his shot selection and tennis I.Q." Stan lost the third set rather than Rafa winning it. Stan was completely thrown by the lack of pace coming back from across the court and didn't have the mental approach to deal with it and put Rafa out of his misery, should never have gotten to a fourth set. Rafa did most definitely not win the set purely on his shot selection and tennis I.Q. Other than that, very well written article and I have to agree.