Rafa's Decline - visual depiction

[El Dude]

I was curious about the course of Rafa's last few years, how he has fared at the same tournaments each year, and in particular wanting to get a sense of whether his results have been worse this year compared to last, so I put together a chart that shows Rafa's tournament results from 2013 to the present, in chronological order and weighted by points (that is, the more important the tournament, the larger the square). Take a look:

As you can see, he's a far cry from 2013 when he dominated. No surprises there. You can also see how he's basically been a different player after 2014 Roland Garros, winning only three tournaments, none of them larger than an ATP 500.

Another worrying thing to note is that the only non-clay titles he's won since 2013 are two ATP 250s, 2014 Doha and 2015 Stuttgart, and at neither tournament did he play anyone ranked higher than #16 (Gael Monfils at Stuttgart).

Clearly this coming clay season is very important to Rafa. Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, and then of course, Roland Garros, and a bit later, Hamburg, the Pluto of the clay season. I for one am very curious to see how this chart looks two months from now.

Anyhow, I thought it was an interesting chart and wanted to share it with my friends at the Frontier.

 

[Fiero425]

You really needed a chart to see how precipitously this guy has fallen? :cover :nono uzzled

 

[mrzz]

Not to see, but to illustrate.

 

[Carol]

And talking about the same again and again? hmmm it seems to be the favorite theme for someone.
I hope that if he rises the game then I will read a lot about it but in the good terms

 

[El Dude]

We need an unlike button.

Carol, I know you are endlessly defensive of Rafa, but you're being ridiculous if you think I'm obsessed with his downfall. I'm fascinated by all aspects of the game and, as you likely know, enjoy statistical analysis. Rafa is one of the greatest players in the history of the sport, so watching his decline IS fascinating and worthy of conversation.

And yes, if Rafa bounces back I'll be happy to talk about it. Actually, I'm hoping he can challenge Novak during clay season, even if I don't think it will happen.

 

[Fiero425]

We need an unlike button.

Carol, I know you are endlessly defensive of Rafa, but you're being ridiculous if you think I'm obsessed with his downfall. I'm fascinated by all aspects of the game and, as you likely know, enjoy statistical analysis. Rafa is one of the greatest players in the history of the sport, so watching his decline IS fascinating and worthy of conversation.

And yes, if Rafa bounces back I'll be happy to talk about it. Actually, I'm hoping he can challenge Novak during clay season, even if I don't think it will happen.

The only reason I make mention is due to the endless fawning; esp. from past champions that were so over the top! It was ridiculous to think of Nadal as A GOAT of any era due to several obvious shortcomings; never able to defend a title off dirt, the endless upsets of late by "has beens, qualifiers, WC's, and never-weres," and of course his ranking bouncing up and down over the years with little consistency due to various reasons we may never fully know for sure! Even though behind Roger in major wins, so called experts (McEnroe & Wilander) thought he was greater since he literally owned the man on any surface; esp. clay! Then those same experts went down a litany of reasons Nole could never catch up due to his coming into his own so late; "Nole can't beat Rafa on clay (dispelled), he can't beat Rafa in best of 5" (dispelled), and he won't get by Rafa in his path at the FO (also dispelled in '15)! uzzled :nono :dodgy: :cover

 

[El Dude]

I hear you, Fiero, although back in late 2013 I thought Rafa had a chance of passing Roger, and also laying sole claim to the GOAT title. Dial back to 2013, after say the US Open, and there was a clear path towards such heights for Rafa. He was 27 years old with 14 Slams. Then the flaws in his record were just aspects of his uniqueness, reminders that even the greatest players aren't perfect, and the gaps in his record still had a chance of being filled.

Now he's almost 30 years old, still with 14 Slams. I think because he dropped off like he did, his flaws stand out more because now its clear that he'll ever rectify them.

The biggest gap in his record is his lack of a Tour Finals title. While it isn't a Slam and shouldn't be viewed as such, it is the closest thing to a "fifth Slam" that there is. Rafa is the only 6+ Slam winner of the Open Era who doesn't have a tour finals title. The next best player is Jim Courier, who is more of a "near-great" than a true great. But Rafa's lack of a tour final's title is one of the biggest outlier in tennis records. From a certain perspective it is a more glaring gap in his record than even the French Open is for Sampras. Whereas we can write off Pete's lack of a FO title to the greater difference in courts back in the 90s, and the presence of numerous clay specialists, it is harder to write off Rafa's inability to win a WTF.

If Novak doesn't win the French Open it will be a similar, and even greater, gap in his resume. But I think Novak will win it, maybe even more than once.

 

[El Dude]

I just realized that Mats Wilander also never won it. Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, and John Newcombe didn't either, but it only started in 1970 so it is hard to penalize them for that. Connors (1), Borg (2), McEnroe (3), Lendl (5), Edberg (1), Becker (3), Agassi (1), Sampras (5), Federer (6), and Djokovic (5) all won it at least once.

 

[Carol]

We need an unlike button.

Carol, I know you are endlessly defensive of Rafa, but you're being ridiculous if you think I'm obsessed with his downfall. I'm fascinated by all aspects of the game and, as you likely know, enjoy statistical analysis. Rafa is one of the greatest players in the history of the sport, so watching his decline IS fascinating and worthy of conversation.

And yes, if Rafa bounces back I'll be happy to talk about it. Actually, I'm hoping he can challenge Novak during clay season, even if I don't think it will happen.

Thanks to call me ridiculous but then I could say the same about you and others which are defending, praising and worshiping your fav and at the same time trying to make fun and underestimate to whom deserves a lot of respect as player and as human been like Nadal is
I think the theme "decline" has been too much talked already but you should have paid more attention how he played in IW in spite his sickness in Miami. I know that some of you are "fascinated" with his downfall but like I said before I hope that all of you would have the same fascination (which I doubt it) if he would star to play well again

 

[Fiero425]

I just realized that Mats Wilander also never won it. Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, and John Newcombe didn't either, but it only started in 1970 so it is hard to penalize them for that. Connors (1), Borg (2), McEnroe (3), Lendl (5), Edberg (1), Becker (3), Agassi (1), Sampras (5), Federer (6), and Djokovic (5) all won it at least once.

Like Djokovic these days, Lendl literally owned the Masters Final (WTF); winning it twice in '86 when they decided to move the Chp. up from Jan.! Martina Navratilova did the same after their season-ender was shifted from March to Nov. as well! This is something unique to those 2 greats that may never be duplicated! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[El Dude]

Thanks to call me ridiculous but then I could say the same about you and others which are defending, praising and worshiping your fav and at the same time trying to make fun and underestimate to whom deserves a lot of respect as player and as human been like Nadal is
I think the theme "decline" has been too much talked already but you should have paid more attention how he played in IW in spite his sickness in Miami. I know that some of you are "fascinated" with his downfall but like I said before I hope that all of you would have the same fascination (which I doubt it) if he would star to play well again

Carol, its as if you go around looking to pick fights about Rafa. And I know that some Fedfans are "anti-Rafa" but it annoys me that you put everyone in the same category. That is what I see as ridiculous.

Feel free to take your squabbles elsewhere, but I'm not interested. If you're actually interested in talking tennis, let's talk.

 

[El Dude]

Like Djokovic these days, Lendl literally owned the Masters Final (WTF); winning it twice in '86 when they decided to move the Chp. up from Jan.! Martina Navratilova did the same after their season-ender was shifted from March to Nov. as well! This is something unique to those 2 greats that may never be duplicated! :angel: :dodgy:

Interesting stat there, Fiero. More of a historical anomaly than a real accomplishment, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Kieran]

Talking tennis, Rafa's tennis hasn't been the same since physical decline hit him with the back injury at Oz, which he didn't recover from until Wimbledon, then the appendix and wrist. He's looked a shadow of himself since.

Plus, he's getting older. How long exactly do we expect players to stay at their peak? Or even their prime? Look to history, and you'll see that actually Rafa's decline is quite natural. It gets to the stage round here where it seems people hold it against him, whereas actually, he can't help it...

 

[El Dude]

I hear you, Kieran. I've seen you say a few times that his decline rate is within historical norms, and I agree. Actually, assuming 2014 FO was his last Slam, he was 28 when he won it. By my account, only nine players have won two or more Slams at age 28 or later, and several great players didn't win any Slams that old. Roger has won only 2 Slams since turning 28, as did Sampras and Lendl, while Novak has won three (and counting) - the same as Connors. Actually, Novak will almost certainly surpass Agassi's and Laver's Open Era record of 5 Slams at age 28 or older.

As far as the Oz injury goes, I don't know if that is correlation or causation - I suspect more the former. This is also why I worry about Roger's knee injury, because once you're in your 30s it gets harder and harder to recover from such things.

I also think that this might be the last year that we see one or both of Roger and Rafa in the top 5.

 

[Carol]

But how is possible that one superb player after to play a very good season, almost winning another AO but unfortunately he got a back injury can go down so fast (one tournament by tournament since then)
and still with very good age (he was 27 that year, how he got old so fast in a couple of months? really?
I'm not going to say one more word about this subject, only the time will say it correctly

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

rafa has been a bit sh!t for almost 2years.

 

[Front242]

^ two words:

Biological Passport.

Time to wake the hell up people. You want correlation. There you go. It came into effect late 2013.

 

[Kieran]

^ two words:

Biological Passport.

Time to wake the hell up people. You want correlation. There you go. It came into effect late 2013.

Two other words: troll alert.

You'd know you're only a youngster and haven't been following tennis long. Anyone with a grain of tennis history in their DNA knows how players decline physically and mentally when left to their natural human devices.

Without exception...

 

[Great Hands]

^ two words:

Biological Passport.

Time to wake the hell up people. You want correlation. There you go. It came into effect late 2013.

But I thought you were of the opinion that doping controls were so lax that players could easily get away with doping. Now you are saying that the biolical passpoert is effective, cause it stopped nadal doping. this suggests that the current anti-dopign sustem works, because players woudl be scared of what could show up on the biological passport, which completyely contradcitys what you've said ion the matter before. i'm confued. so which is it?

 

[Great Hands]

^ two words:

Biological Passport.

Time to wake the hell up people. You want correlation. There you go. It came into effect late 2013.

I'm confused. I thought you were of the opinion that doping controls were so lax that players could easily get away with doping. Now you are saying that the biological passport is effective at stopping players from doping, suggesting that is the reason for Nadal's decline. So this all completely contradicts what you've said about doping controls being ineffective. So which is it?