Rafael Nadal has not beaten a top-10 ATP player since June in 2014. How many people knew that?
My guess is that the answer is the same as the number of top-10 players that Rafa has beaten in the last nine months. That is, one.
My theory as to why you didn’t know this fact is because the media have not reported it.
My conspiracy theory as to why the media have not reported it? Well, I have one, but I won’t prejudice the rest of this article by airing it now.
Nine months. That’s a pretty long time. A lot happens in nine months. Heck, entire new lives are created and born in the space of nine months. But one thing that has not happened, at least in the last nine months, is Rafael Nadal emerging victorious after coming up against a top-10 player on a tennis court.
The last time he faced off with a top-10 player, he got dominated in straight sets with the double bagel. Making it even worse, that loss was to a player he’d beaten 17 times in a row. In the tradition of Vitas Gerulaitis, the lesson was learnt: nobody beats Thomas Berdych 18 times in a row.
In all honesty, these are both disturbing and revealing statistics about Rafa.
Consider this: in 2009, the season of Roger Federer’s 28th birthday, the same age as Nadal is at the moment, he was winning his maiden French Open and yet another Wimbledon title. In 2010 Federer won the Australian Open just for good measure.
Since that French Open final, Rafa has not even made a final, let alone won more slams. And he’s also just been struggling to compete, when you factor in his loss to Nick Kyrgios at Wimbledon, his failure to compete at the US Open, and his wholly perplexing loss to future Hall of Famer Michael Berrer in Round 1 at Doha in early 2015.
To paraphrase my beloved Craig Foster: that’s a massive statistic. It’s huge. It is huge.
Yet here we all sit, eulogising how it is Federer, not the younger Nadal, who is in terminal decline.
You remember Roger Federer, don’t you? You know how everyone expects Nadal to win on clay? Well, it wasn’t that long ago we expected Roger to win on any surface.
In case anyone has forgotten, Roger’s won more men’s singles grand slam titles than anyone else. He finished 2014 as the number two player in the world, won his record sixth Swiss indoor title, 82nd title overall, and recently registered 1,000 career wins.
Today he’s doing better than big Rafa at a much more advanced age. He’s that old, he remembers playing some of the past greats like Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Thomas Muster. Federer has been around that long he remembers a time when, as a young rapscallion in the early stages of an ATP tour career, Marc Rosset was the big-name numero uno in Swiss tennis.
Remember Marc Rosset? Me neither, but Fed does. And that was a long time ago, when he was only 18 years old. Now, he’s a ripening vintage age of 33.
Yes, 33 years of age. In human years, not in dog years.
The declining Federer is performing better than another player five years his junior. Yet it is Federer who apparently needs to be concerned about his legacy.
Not Nadal. Oh no, he’s fine. The man has won 14 singles grand slams. He’s about to win his eleventy-squillionth clay court event, he’ll shortly win yet another French, he’s got five years on the Fed. It’s really just a matter of time.
Which brings me back to the last nine months.
By the logic used by most, if a 33-year-old Federer is so seriously in decline (and to be sure, he’s not dominating like he did in the early 2000s), but he is performing better than an at-peak-age Nadal, then surely the clock is ticking more loudly for the Spaniard than the Swiss.
(Something of an irony considering what the Swiss know about clocks.)
However, make no mistake, when you are failing to beat anyone in the top 10 for such a lengthy period, it’s concerning. I don’t care what arguments you want to say about schedules, surfaces, timing, injuries: nine months and you can’t beat anyone unless they are at least seven ranks below you cannot be explained away, beyond being completely out of form and, quite possibly, in decline.
Which then questions whether Nadal is the odds-on certainty to win the next French, or any more grand slams for that matter.
Now, granted, you can’t write-off champions. You do so at your own peril. But everyone’s time comes. Everyone’s.
The Fed has admitted as much. He has re-jigged his schedule to focus on majors. He even withdrew from the ATP end of season tour final because of long-term (and short-term) concern for his own physical welfare.
There are a lot of opinions on this topic. If you’re ever bored, or lonely, go over to the ATP website, click on an article about Federer, Nadal or Novak Djokovic, and read the comments. That stuff makes Real Housewives look placid. And if it ever got out that I was focusing on Nadal’s failure over nine months, I’d have to change my address and phone number. So it is certainly only one of several ways of looking at a defined period of time.
Of course, it is a perspective that I did not come up with on my own. At least, not when it comes to Nadal.
An intense focus on a player failing to beat top-10 players was a perspective that the media decided to take with Andy Murray. Remember when he couldn’t beat a top-10 player after Wimbledon in 2013? The media made a big sound about that one.
They haven’t about Nadal.
And then you can perhaps start to sympathise with Murray when he takes an injury time-out, but is called a cry baby. When Nadal does the same, he’s a hero for playing through the pain.
Something doesn’t add up.
Why is nine-time French Open Champion, 28-year-old, perpetually injured Nadal cocooned from criticism?
Why is the more successful player, five years the senior of Nadal, who is performing better, in decline, yet Nadal is surely just shortly going to be the greatest of all time?
Why is Murray soft, and Nadal brave?
And finally, why did I have to hear that Nadal cannot beat top 10 players anymore from a friend who loves his tennis, rather than reading about it in one of the bigger sports publishers?
It is beyond me, and I would love to say I have answers, but I don’t. I only have a conspiracy theory.
My theory is that the media have not reported Nadal as the mythical creature he is because the last nine months is merely emblematic for the better part of 10 years the media have spent protecting a one-surface wonder in an attempt to create a manufactured competition with one of the greatest athletes to grace a sporting field, Roger Federer, for the completely superficial and nonsensical battle for title of ‘greatest of all time’.
Of course, a truly good conspiracy theory can never be proven. So here’s what I do know: just as in 2009 Federer could not fairly be called the greatest, nor is it fair to say that of Nadal. Time alone will tell these things.
And time may well tell us that Nadal is presently in trouble. Big trouble. Until then? Well, it appears nobody else will.
Beb
Guest
My screen name is weird to you, because it is comprised of initials? Yours is strange to me, because it's a dumb name. Dyslexia often causes a 'b' to be read as a 'd'. BTW (initials for by the way), nice input regarding the point of this article. (Sarcasm)
ankush
Guest
How many grand slams did Federer won after his back injury? This is my simple question to you Mr. Karlo Tychsen. The fact that Nadal recovered from a knee injury to win grand slams makes him earn the respect about his determination and hopes to the fans that he can do it again.
Riccardo
Guest
We are so blessed to have seen these two Champions in our tennis lifetime. A rivalry as epic as that of Borg and McEnroe and similar in the contrasting playing styles while probably not as volatile. God I used to love watching those two go at it. I don't understand the heat from fans of either camp to be honest. Both players are in decline and have been for some time even if the slide is not at acute. Federer, despite his obvious love of the game is aging. Father Time always wins but another favourite of mine Stefan Edberg has provided some vim and encouraged more volleying in the aging champions game and the fact he retains the number 2 spot is not only testament to his grace and skill but the slow arrival of realistic competition beneath him. Stan, Nishikori, Berder and Raonic are only just making the step to the next level. Rafa, in spite of an incredible level of fitness, that has seen his career have significant longevity considering the torque he forces on his body, is breaking down and has been for a while actually. His hands, wrist, elbow, knees and back are all suspect now but warrior that he is he finds a way back to the arena. He is struggling to deliver though and while he has held the upper hand against Roger in their personal rivalry, he will struggle to continue to emulate that, let alone beat Wawrinka, Murray and especially Dokovic, regularly. I am a fan of both players but the facts state that while Rafa managed to dominate his arch rival for significant periods he will not eclipse the record of perhaps the greatest player the game has seen. This is not to diminish his impact or appeal. It just is. Something that they have both brought to the game though is a general standard of humility, a genuine love of the game, and conduct befitting any of the great Golfers for whom being a gentleman was paramount. While the author's narrative is somewhat tongue-in-cheek and a little inflammatory there is some accuracy in it. What's so bad about that? Take some time to savour and appreciate what's left of the careers of these giants of our game. These rivalries are rare and fleeting. Borg and McEnroe. Becker and Edberg (to a lesser extent; I only mention it because Stefan's backhand was poetry and I used to emulate his serve and volley). Sampras and Agassi and the twilight of Roger and Rafa. Mouthwatering...
pepo
Guest
Karlo, the criticism Rafa had for the last three years, and most in Spain, saying his career it was over and always asking in interviews when he will retired is massive and you will be surprise..
Alison
Guest
Come to think of it, how many times has Nadal *faced* a top-10 player in the last 9 months? Probably not that many, I'd guess.
Alison
Guest
"But not even Roger has won as many grand slams as Rafa. Stop living in this fantasy world where you think all what you said has a myth or whatever you think it is." ???!!! Pot - kettle - black? Are you living in some alternate universe where, perhaps, Rafa won all of their Wimbledon meetings?! It *is* true, though: media reactions to Nadal's poor form and Federer's have been markedly different. Obviously, Federer is 5 years older, but even so, the very widespread (knee-jerk?) reaction of "he needs to retire" and writing his tennis obituary back in 2013 is very different from the attitude to Nadal's repeated absences and current relatively poor form. Two years ago, it seemed that very few commentators actually went "Hang on a minute. This really doesn't make sense, that someone of Federer's abilities should suddenly start playing this badly and losing to journeymen. Could there perhaps be something we're not seeing here?" People were even casting doubts, last year, on whether Andy Murray would even be a top player again, yet both of them have since reached Slam finals. The difference between Nadal's return from what appears to have been a major injury in 2013 and his return from a seemingly more minor injury and appendix surgery this year *is* striking, if not startling, and I am surprised it *hasn't* drawn more comment in the press. Perhaps it's just that they are so inured to Rafa taking extended periods of time out that it hasn't struck them yet. Anyway, this is probably all academic: I fully expect him to magically recover his form the minute he has Federer on the opposite side of the net :-)
Alison
Guest
"[Federer] even withdrew from the ATP end of season tour final because of long-term (and short-term) concern for his own physical welfare." Actually, no. He has since admitted that his back was so bad that day that he was unable to run. It wasn't a preventive measure: he literally was not fit to play a match. So it wasn't a case of saving himself for the Davis Cup final, or anything like that.
duecer
Guest
Federer, in most people's opinion, is the more naturally gifted and fluid player. Because of this, his injury toll has been minimal compared to more aggressive players and has only suffered extended periods of downturn with the mono back in 2005 and back problems in 2013. Nadal, as he plays to the very limits (wearing one size smaller shoe, just one example) is far more prone to injuries. But he seems to be able to bounce back and get on his winning ways again. How long this can continue as he gets older is the big question - all these injuries, tendonitis and strains must eventually catch up with him, and perhaps this extended period, for him, of not being at the top of his game, may be an indication that this is happening.
Michael
Guest
You have to be kidding me. The only player Nadal has a poorer H2H record to (whom he's played more than say 3 times) is Davydenko, because Davydenko got him a few times early. He has completely dominated allcomers. 'Nadal is a complete hit or miss player'. What in the world does that even mean. He has been in the top 4 since 2005 every week but 15 (due to injury). 'Hit and miss'? How can you be 'hit and miss' against Federer over 33 matches? Or 23-19 over Novak across 42 matches? I can't actually believe the rubbish you're churning out. You think of the 75 combined times he has played Federer and Djokovic, his two closest contemporaries, he has been at his best and they at their worst? The majority of these matches would come in finals and semi-finals, given that's where the top seeds meet. Also, did you watch the 2007 Wimbledon Final? You cannot argue that Fed was not at his peak then. He nearly got done on his favourite surface by a 21 year old Rafa playing on his worst surface. I'm obviously a Rafa fan, but I can concede that Federer has achieved more, and will in all likelihood go down as the greatest player (due, in my opinion, to Rafa's constant injuries). Please. Take off your rose coloured glasses. Take a course in statistics. Do something. But just spare us this garbage.
Michael
Guest
'If it weren't for the French' What is the point of hypotheticals? The French exists. If you removed the most frequently won Slam for each player, 5 slams would very much be in contention for status as a 'great'. It's just a ridiculous argument that his complete domination of a surface on which 1/3 of tournaments are played acts to his detriment.
Bandy
Roar Guru
Pretty poor article in my opinion. I have followed tennis very closely for the last 10 years and this is a terrible case of click-bait journalism. Rafa has had injuries/appendicitis - on top of that when he came back it was the indoor circuit, his worst surface historically so I wasn't surprised at all when he lost to young gun Coric et. al late last year. One bad loss to start a year after 9-months (essentially) away doesn't exactly scream decline. Neither does a quarter-final showing at the Aussie. He lost to Berdych who is in career best form with Murray's previous coach, Berdych is a perennial top 10 finisher with an impressive resume himself. The next 3 months are his strongest - N.A hard courts and then European clay. You'd be a brave man to bet you wouldn't have flushed cheeks reading your own article after that part of 2015. I've heard similar cries of decline for the last 4-5 years only for late March to arrive and Rafa to storm to titles again and again. At least wait until he loses at the French open before calling a close on his chances at slams.
Evie
Guest
You make up a weird screen name using your initials and accuse someone else of not caring about accuracy because they misread a non-name? And you're telling that person to take a deep breathe?
John
Guest
"If you don’t like the stats he has quoted.." Would that be the stat about a bagel that wasn't...the stat about someone with 5 majors on surfaces other than clay being a one-surface wonder...or ....why bother to even go on? The "stats" in here are a joke, which is why the comments reflect such a drubbing.
John
Guest
Still waiting for all of those supporters to show up eh? Maybe when only 2 people out of over a hundred comments agree with you, it's reflective of the writing. Except for the delusional.
Kingo
Guest
Because Nadal has 14 slams and Murray while having broken through to win 2 isn't in the same class as Nadal. Also the way Nadal plays ,he never retires,he plays on ,he never bitches or wines or blames and injury . It's the whole way he plays . Murray moans and groans and holds his leg and his hip and his arm and screams abuse at his box and then in the next second sprints like a gazelle .hes improved but has not been to easy to like because of his dour down in the dumps disposition . Point being Nadal has nothing to prove and obviously has been injured,but even after the tendinitis he came back and smashed everyone .
Readthearticle
Guest
Did anyone actually read the article? This bloke isn't saying Rafa is a bad tennis player he is just wondering why he garners favourable media attention, which is true. If you don't like the stats he has quoted maybe you should read 1984 and learn how to change facts.
riight
Guest
There is no difference in coverage--it's in your head. just like the author of this article completely fantasized himself the discrepancy in the way the media treat Federer and Nadal and their respective potential decline. Impossible to prove a negative no wonder no one has ever able to prove it to you.
Beb
Guest
The purpose of my comment was not to cast doubt on the authenticity of Nadal's back problem. Personally, I suspect Nadal's injury authenticity. Also, if the injuries are authentic, which surely some are, I think there may be a good reason for the breakdown of his body. Ok, since that is out of the way, I will say it is completely irrelevant to the point of the article, as well as to the point of my comment. Whether or not I think Nadal fakes is incidental. The real question is and always has been why the media protects Nadal amongst all his injuries, while not affording similar treatment to......say.......Andy Murray? Once again, THAT is my question. Once again, however, I received a knee jerk, emotional response from a Nadal fan.
riight
Guest
The difference is that Andy didn't end up a cripple during a slam final in the middle of a set. That's the only time Nadal has been hailed for the back issue and behavior warranted it. Your post on the same issue earlier implied that Nadal decided to fake an injury because he lost a set to Stan Wawrinka. Get a grip--that's absurd. You clearly think that he faked the injury but you realize that coming out and saying so is going to make you look like a loony tune so you're writing posts about Murray's back injury and the media--which make no sense--to try to somehow cast doubt on the authenticity of Nadal's back injury.
Mark Anderson
Guest
He only played one top ten player in that time, injury dweeb. Don't worry, he'll play Federer soon.