Talk:List of career achievements by Rafael Nadal

Most match wins on clay

In the article it says "Borg leads the all time clay court wins 245-39." Can someone confirm if this is true? I find it hard to believe since Vilas has 45 clay titles and surely a lot of additional clay match wins, which should amount to much more than 245, but I can't find a source.Gap9551 21:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done Yes, Vilas leads that category in open era. It appears that the problem is solved since now it reads:

• Overall Nadal is 231–18 (92.77%) in his career on clay, the best winning percentage on clay in the Open Era. The quickest male player (losing fewest matches) in the Open Era to reach 200 clay-court wins (200–16). Vilas leads the all time clay court career win list: 632-162.
  Mrmarble (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Three consecutive (slam) runner-up finishes

Career achievements are supposed to be positive, not negative. It's true that reaching 3 slam finals is a job well done...but it really is not a record, reaching consecutive slam finals is a record (10, by Federer); reaching 3 consecutive finals but losing them doesn't make it a "record" or "achievement" in positive sense. Nadal has previously reached 3 consecutive finals and actually won them, so I don't see why doing it again but now losing them would be worth mentioning. Furthermore, Nadal's record on reaching consecutive slam finals is 4, an on-going streak.
173.64.101.198 (GreenTree998): Your original wording was "First and only player to lose 3 consecutive slam finals"... which sounds rather negative wording to me.
It would be best if we had only significant and positive achievements here and not a jungle of random statistics that mean very little...that way the reader can better distinguish what Rafael Nadal's actual achievements are. Sometimes less is more. Thank you. Mrmarble (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Being runner-up in a slam 3 consecutive times IS a positive achievement and a separate achievement from the ones you just listed. To be runner-up in a slam you have to defeat six straight opponents, just because it doesn't sound positive to you doesn't make it any less of an achievement. There are plenty of ATP players who would die just to make one slam final. TheLou75 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, whether it's a positive/negative achievement is irrelevant here: Nadal has made 3 slam finals in 2010 already, doing it again but losing is not worth a mention. And as I already said, Nadal's record is 4 consecutive slam finals, not 3.
Should we also add to Federer's achievements the record of losing Roland Garros 3 consecutive times? Losing to same player record 4 times consecutively in RG? The record loss for #1 in a slam final ever? (RG 2008, 4 games)...All magnificent records that everyone would surely be proud having? How do you feel his fans will react to those equally relevant edits? Mrmarble (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all you first stated that whether it was a negative or positive achievement was your main reason for deleting it by stating "Career achievements are supposed to be positive, not negative." Second, Federer's achievement of finishing runner up in Roland Garros 3 consecutive times is on his achievements page. Third, it's a separate record than 4 consecutive slam finals which by the way isn't even a record. Judging from your edits, it looks like you are being biased to the point that you are deleting anything that could possibly in some way be considered as a negative to Nadal even when it is not. TheLou75 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"First of all you first stated that whether it was a negative or positive achievement was your main reason for deleting it by stating "Career achievements are supposed to be positive, not negative."

Yes I did, because the original wording certainly seemed negative. But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether it is a "record" even worth mentioning. For example greater achievement of Nadal's, 4 consecutive finals, is not mentioned at all.

"Second, Federer's achievement of finishing runner up in Roland Garros 3 consecutive times is on his achievements page."

My bad. That raises very relevant question though: Why didn't I find it... The problem with Federer's career achievements page is that it's LITTERED with all kinds of statistics, which are really not records per se...but as said, just statistics. I actually would like to clean it up but am afraid of this kind of edit-wars :). I think we would be wise to avoid same mistake with Nadal's records page... leaving only the most relevant ones. Of course there's the problem of where to draw the line. My opinion is that not everything should be included. I sure could come up with 20 or so records/combinations for Nadal from memory, but they would rather confuse than clarify the article, overall.

"Judging from your edits, it looks like you are being biased to the point that you are deleting anything that could possibly in some way be considered as a negative to Nadal even when it is not."

It's true that I might be a bit paranoid about this, it does appear that lots of edits on Nadal's pages have been made by non-Nadal fans, with an agenda of their own. I do try to be unbiased though, and very much try and make Nadal's article as good as possible. Better to have Pro-Nadal views than opposite on an article about Rafael Nadal don't you think? Having said all this, I still think that 3 finals is lesser than 4 and logically it's not worth including. Cheers, Mrmarble (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Logically, 4 consecutive finals is better than 3 consecutive runner-up finishes, but 4 consecutive finals is not an ATP record while the other, 3 consecutive runner-up finishes is an ATP record. With that said, 3 consecutive runner-up positions is still an achievement and speaks to how Nadal has been able to get into slam finals. Some he wins, some he loses, but he's making them none the less.TheLou75 (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree my logic being accurate. About it being an ATP record; is it significant enough, or even a positive one is a question we should ask. Now do you know for example who holds the "record" for most consecutive finals lost in all tournaments on ATP-level? I can not find that info with some googling...why... because it is not an important record, rather a negative stat at best.
You claim that Nadal's 3 consecutive slam losses "is an achievement and speaks how Nadal has been able to get into slam finals"... Now, let's try to have some honesty here - if you were actually interested in telling how Nadal has been able to get in many finals you would be dying to inform the reader about his finals statistics; such as how Nadal is only nth player to reach 4 consecutive slam finals or reaching total of 15 slam finals as there are not many above him...
TheLou75, you also said in your previous post that you checked on my history in Wikipedia. Well that's just great since then you saw how I have been working and updating Nadal's records for quite some time. However, I also looked through your contributions... it appears that before coming here and reverting my edits on this article and on main article about Rafael Nadal - you only had made couple edits about tennis... trying to argue Federer as the greatest of all time while changing Laver's article to "one of" the greatest (despite several references telling otherwise). That would hint very strong pro Federer bias and apparently anti-Nadal bias to go with it as hinted by your recent edits...I find that unacceptable with an article about Nadal. Now you come here telling me that I am biased; I may well be - but at least I don't have an agenda.
I will wait for a while if you Lou would be kind enough to revert your undo, or other people joining the discussion. Mrmarble (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

First off, you are entirely wrong once again. I looked through my edits and the one edit I made on the Federer page was to correct a grammatical error. The original sentence read "Federer is considered by some contemporaries and former players as the greatest male singles players of all time." You see the error there? I only corrected it by taking out the "s". As for the Laver article, the original statement read "Laver has been rated as the greatest male tennis players of all time by several experts and polls." Another grammatical error which was fixed. And no, the sources did not state that Laver was the greatest, did you even read the sources?

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/14489546/?pg=1#spt_0823_Greatestplyr Has Laver as one of the greatest

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/13/SPGGPL4KST1.DTL&ao=2 Has Laver as one of the greatest

http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_00_12_23.html Has Laver as one of the greatest

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1009/top.ten.tennis/content.8.html Has Laver as one of the greatest (current reference in the article)

Third, it's an ATP record and like I previously stated, Federer has his record of finishing as the runner-up at the FO 3 straight times as well. If I was such pro-Federer and biased like you claimed, wouldn't you think I would remove it (like what you are attempting to do with the Nadal articles)? Fourth, I have not even touched the Federer article aside from fixing the grammatical error nor have I touched the Nadal article except for reverting some of your overzealous edits.

And you have the nerve to say that I have a pro Federer bias and anti-Nadal bias? Wow! You already admitted your bias which makes me wary of your edits as it appears you do have an agenda here with all the multiple edits you have done in the past few days. TheLou75 (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not "admitted" being biased. Also it is you who first accused me of being biased, I just replied with same medicine. What comes to your Laver edit, anyone can see that there were many references at the time claiming him greatest of all time. Why you thought that your references and edit were better is a mystery. When it comes to Fed's 3 RG losses... that is pretty hard to find there, in fact even important records of his are hard to find, the article is a jungle of stats. Imo, it's one of best examples how stats page with lots of people (fans) editing it can go wrong... that's what I have tried to avoid here with little bit cleaning up and arranging. I have hard time accepting your claim that your motive is 3 consecutive losses being "an achievement and speaks how Nadal has been able to get into slam finals". I try to keep the article relevant, while by the looks of it you're only interested in reversing me on everything concerning Nadal and calling me biased - no matter if I would be correct and my intentions being good. Mrmarble (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you are incorrect. I pulled all those references except for the last one straight from the article at the time I made the change to correct the grammar. So how are you saying that those references called Laver the single greatest player and instead of one of the greatest players of all time? So you ask why I thought my edit was better, well for one it corrects for the poor grammar by eliminating the "the" with the plural "players." Secondly, that's what the sources were saying. Perhaps if you actually paid attention to the edits I made you wouldn't be in this position right now. TheLou75 (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Glaring example of your bias:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Federer&diff=prev&oldid=295252060

Quite a comment about a player who won record of 200 career titles + 19 majors including record 2 Calendar Slams and the Pro Slam. Mrmarble (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What's funny is that you are stalking my history and yet you still could not refute the two points I made above, even after nearly two weeks.

Did you prove that my edits did not grammatically correct the sentence? No.

Did you prove that my edits were not accurate per the sources? No.

I am still waiting for you to prove your statement "despite several references telling otherwise." Show me these multiple references in the original article. There were not any so I'm very curious as to why you made that statement. Either you lied or you didn't read the sources. In fact, multiple sources in the article listed Laver as one of the greatest players.

That said, my point is indeed proven. TheLou75 (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just proved how biased you are on this subject... Not to mention your actions on human penis size and micropenis, appalling censorship, against Wikipedia rules... even including removing posters' comments on talk pages:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMicropenis&diff=323122136&oldid=321642211

Mrmarble (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you failed to refute all three claims once again:

Did you prove that my edits did not grammatically correct the sentence? No.

Did you prove that my edits were not accurate per the sources? No.

I am still waiting for you to prove your statement "despite several references telling otherwise."

Maybe you should be focusing on the topic at hand. I guess you can't since you have already lost this argument. This statistic and record of Rafael Nadal remains as you can not determine what is an ATP record and what is not. Also, thank you for showing an example of me cleaning up trolling on Wikipedia 3 years ago. TheLou75 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"This statistic and record of Rafael Nadal remains as you can not determine what is an ATP record and what is not."

The burden of proof is on you to prove that it is - apparently you can not despite claiming multiple times that it is an ATP record. Tell you what, Grand Slams are run by ITF, not ATP to begin with.

"Also, thank you for showing an example of me cleaning up trolling on Wikipedia 3 years ago."

You removed comments by several users on talk page because they disagreed with your agenda. I think you should probably be banned for good from editing Wikipedia, ALONE on that breach of integrity and freedom of opinion. I probably should report you to admin noticeboard, considering that your behaviour here is still hugely disruptive. Mrmarble (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof to prove it is a record? Ok:

http://espn.go.com/tennis/aus12/story/_/id/7515950/2012-australian-open-novak-djokovic-outlasts-rafael-nadal-longest-grand-slam-final

"He was trying to avoid becoming the first man to lose three consecutive Grand Slam finals -- and seeing his losing streak in finals stretch to seven against Djokovic, who beat him for the Wimbledon and U.S. Open titles and took his No. 1 ranking last year."

Also:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/tennis/australian-open-djokovic-outlasts-nadal-in-longest-grand-slam-singles-final-ever/2012/01/29/gIQAYDHgaQ_story.html

"Nadal became the first man in the Open Era to lose three straight major finals. He was beaten in four sets by Djokovic at last year’s Wimbledon and U.S. Open."

Also:

http://gigawave.vislink.com/news/news/newsdetail.php?ID=341

"Rafael Nadal also made history by becoming the first player in the Open Era to lose three consecutive Grand Slam finals."

I'll gladly add these references if you like.

Now why did you ignore my refutations to your accusations, including:

Did you prove that my edits did not grammatically correct the sentence? No.

Did you prove that my edits were not accurate per the sources? No.

I am still waiting for you to prove your statement "despite several references telling otherwise."

I'll wait for your response to each of these 3 claims you made and don't ignore them this time when responding. As for disruptive editing, I think most are in agreement that you are causing it as evidenced by the reverts being imposed on your edits and the opposition against it. TheLou75 (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You have claimed several times that it is "ATP record" - hard to see how quoting those links makes it "an ATP record". Papers print all kinds of statistics. Mrmarble (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So you are causing all this stir because it's an ITF record? Doesn't matter, it's still a record that's in the record books whether or not you agree with it is not for you to decide, a fact is a fact. TheLou75 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not ITF record either, just an unimportant stat bettered even by Nadal himself with 4 consecutive finals (ongoing streak). Mrmarble (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, it is a record. I've done my part to prove it. By the way, 4 consecutive finals is not a record. Now go ahead and find one single male tennis player who has finished with 3 or more consecutive runner up positions in the Open Era. I'll be waiting and interested to see who you come up with. I'm also waiting for your response to each of these 3 claims you made which you keep ignoring now. TheLou75 (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed the so called record. It's not impressive or worth mentioning even as a rare curiosity: Rod Laver, Fred Stolle and Jack Crawford have done it in the past - Crawford lost in fact 4 in a row. Mrmarble (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove this without consensus. This is an Open Era record and Laver, Stolle, and Crawford have not achieved this in the Open Era. Furthermore, it is POV to state that it's a con rather than an achievement. Still an achievement when you consider what it takes to get to 3 consecutive finals. It is a record as backed up by the sources and should be presented in the article, readers can make their own conclusions as to the value of it, but the information shouldn't be hidden or omitted. GreenTree998 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of career achievements by Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325052656/http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/players/playerprofiles/rankhistory.asp?playernumber=N409&selyear=2004 to http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/players/playerprofiles/rankhistory.asp?playernumber=N409&selyear=2004

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)