Talk:Rafael Nadal

Longevity should no longer be an issue

Under "Playing Style", Rafa's longevity is questioned. This is outdated and is no longer a viable statement. Of all Grand Slam Champions Rafa has the second longest span between Majors at 15 years. Only Federer has a longer span at 16. The average is less than 10. Rafa in fact enjoys one of the most protracted careers in tennis history. BTW, you can easily make the case that Rafa has been "Plagued by injuries during his long and illustrious career." Longevity is really out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dystopia1984 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It is though. He has had many injuries throughout his careers. He had to withdraw from numerous major tournaments (either before or during matches or tournaments). He had to take long injury breaks on multiple occasions. His spells of continuous activity have been considerably shorter than other of his peers.Tvx1 21:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It should probably be reworded a bit. In tennis history, most players have long since retired by Nadal's age, yet he's still playing. It should now be worded in more of a past tense. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Dystopia1984. Also, his injuries have not prevented him from winning 19 major tournaments, spanning over 15 years and second in the history of this sport only to Federer.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reworded the statement and added today's view on his longevity. No question it dogged him for years in the press and was part of his persona... but really not anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The longevity question was not solely about until which age he would play but also about how long he could play uninterrupted without serious injuries. I don't think it is really questionable he could have won many more majors if it hadn't been for the many injuries he incurred partly because of his playing style.Tvx1 12:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. The longevity issues I recall throughout the 2000s was that he was a star that would burn out and retire in his mid-late 20s, not that he'd play till 35 with brief periods of illness. And I don't think he would have won any more majors, exactly because of his build and playing style. They go hand and hand. He would have needed to change his playing style and physique to compete, and by doing that he would have lost more majors than he would have gained. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2019

Change text to reflect Nadal getting married to his long-time girlfriend. Anirban2406 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done In future, please make precise edit requests (in the form of change X to Y) and include reliable sources. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 21:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Year-End Number 1

All of Nadal's records from 2017 have been beaten this year, and need to be updated. Can someone do this? Rmehtany (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

5th Davis Cup

There is one Wikipedia editor 4TheWynne that keeps deleting that "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles with the Spain Davis CUp team" to put "Nadal has constributed to 5 Davis Cup titles". Other Wikipedia editors like Hitius or myself (James343e) strongly disagree with him and have tried to convince him that such changes are not justified. Yet, he keeps editing the "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles with the Spain Davis Cup team", ignoring the general consensus. The general consensus is that Nadal has indeed won 5 Davis Cup titles and the wording "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles" is the correct one.

1. In the Michael Jordan's Wikipedia page it is said that he has won 6 championships with the Chicago Bulls. So it is correct to assert that a player has won X times a team even with the X team. There is even a Twitter from the offical ITF account asserting that "Nadal hopes to win his 5th Davis Cup title", so there is nothing wrong in saying that "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles with the Spain Davis Cup team".

2. Nadal played the quarterfinals and semifinals of the 2008 Davis Cup, but skipped the final due to injury. However, it does not mean he did not win the 2008 Davis Cup title with the Spain Davis Cup team. Pele injured himself in the second match of the 1962 World Cup, and did not participate in the rest of the tournament. Yet, in the Wikipedia page for Pele it is said that "During his international career, he won three FIFA World Cups: 1958, 1962 and 1970". In other words, Pele is recognized as having won the 1962 World Cup with Brasil, despite the fact that he only played a match in the group phase. Analogously, Nadal is recognized as having won the 2008 Davis Cup despite only having played the qaurterfinals and semifinals in 2008. You do not need to play the final to win the title in a team event, you only need to contribute to the victory.

3. Since the Davis Cup is an ITF tournament, ITF sources have priority over ATP sources for the Davis Cup. The ITF is the only official source for ITF events. So, cherry-picking an ATP source giving Nadal 4 ITF titles does not mean he has 4 rather than 5. The ITF acknowledges that Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles.

Check out this tweet from the offical ITF Twitter account: https://twitter.com/ITF_Tennis/status/1196799309393604608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196799309393604608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mytennis.info%2Farticle%2F5dd48a2b6b7a1f27892bf1e2%2Fdavis-cup-finals-25-0-siege-die-mega-story-des-rafael-nadal%2F

It is explicitly said that "Nadal hopes to win his 5th Davis Cup title" before the final was played. As ITF sources have priority over ATP sources for ITF events, Nadal has indeed won 5 Davis Cup titles.

Please stop changing the "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles with the Spain Davis Cup team" unless there is some kind of consensus that it should be changed. James343e (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

How a newspaper describes a result and actuality can be two different things. Spain won Davis Cup in 2019, not an individual player. Back in 2011 Marcel Granollers played only in the quarterfinals vs the United States. He lost his doubles match. He didn't really win Davis Cup but his team did. You win or lose a Davis Cup match. Yes Michael Jordan's text says he has six NBA titles, but in reality the Bulls have six titles and Michael Jordan contributed or was part of that team. Jordan has six NBA title rings. And in Davis Cup a player doesn't always play in every round. In the NBA they do. In 2011, when Nadal didn't even play in the quarterfinals, if Spain had lost to the USA you wouldn't write today that Nadal lost the 2011 Davis Cup. So I see where 4TheWynne has a point. As for the actual sentence I don't really care much since it gets used that way in the press, but the "5" should be spelled out and there is no reason to use Davis Cup twice in one sentence in the lead. If it stays, it should be "Nadal has won five Davis Cup titles for Spain." Further additions in prose can fill in any details. Personally I think better choices would be: "Nadal has been part of five Spanish Davis Cup championships" or "Nadal has helped bring five titles to the Spanish Davis Cup team. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comprehensive reply. You argue that: "How a newspaper describes a result and actuality can be two different things."

The ITF is not a "newspaper", but rather the offical body gobernment of the Davis Cup. I found a source of the ITF saying that "Nadal aims to win his 5th Davis Cup title". If the ITF itslefs puts it that way, then there should be no probelm putting it that way.

https://twitter.com/ITF_Tennis/status/1196799309393604608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196799309393604608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mytennis.info%2Farticle%2F5dd48a2b6b7a1f27892bf1e2%2Fdavis-cup-finals-25-0-siege-die-mega-story-des-rafael-nadal%2F

You also argue that: "Spain won Davis Cup in 2019, not an individual player"

It is false that individual players do not win the Davis Cup. All individual players of the 2019 Spanish Davis cup team won the title. The ITF itself oficially says that Nadal has, indeed, won 5 Davis Cup titles with Spain:

https://twitter.com/ITF_Tennis/status/1196799309393604608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196799309393604608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mytennis.info%2Farticle%2F5dd48a2b6b7a1f27892bf1e2%2Fdavis-cup-finals-25-0-siege-die-mega-story-des-rafael-nadal%2F

The whole Spanish team won the Davis Cup, including Nadal. Nadal won the Davis Cup WITH the Spanish team. It is pretty common to say that "X player has won Y tournament with Z team, despite it being a collective achievement".

In the Wikipedia page for Cristiano Ronaldo it is said that he won 4 Champions League titles. In the Wikipedia page for Michael Jordan it is said that Michael Jordan won 6 rings with the bulls.

I fail to see what is the big deal in "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup WITH the Spanish Davis Cup team". In the phrase it is explicitly siad that he won the titles WITH the Spanish team.James343e (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I do see a difference. It is really not correct to say Michael A Taylor won the World Series this year. You would write that the Washington Nationals won the World Series this year. Individual players do not really win Davis Cup... they are part of a team that wins Davis Cup. The team that includes Nadal won the Davis Cup in 2019. And in the lead we try summarize as much as possible so I fail to see why we "need" Davis Cup to be mentioned twice in one sentence. Shorten things for the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

And just because some are sloppy with their choice of words doesn't mean we can't be better. When you look at the Tennis Hall of Fame at a player like Roy Emerson, who lived and died Davis Cup (it's why he wouldn't turn pro), it doesn't say he won Davis Cup. it says "Member of the Australian Championship Davis Cup Team 1959-1962, 1964-1967." It says "popularly known as “Emmo,” especially among his Aussie Davis Cup teammates, who he helped win eight championships from 1959-67 while compiling a stunning 34-4 record." That's what we should probably be striving for. Same with John McEnroe's Hall of Fame bio. It says "He played Davis Cup for 12 years, helping the Americans win the Cup five times (1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1992)." And "Member of the U.S. Championship Davis Cup Team 1978-1979, 1981-1982, 1992." I would think that as an encyclopedia, that's more in line with the actuality of the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

James343e, don't make out that I've been edit warring with you, as you and I have not been editing at the same time (I have not edited your version of the sentence); is it also incorrect to say that any version is the consensus yet, as this is only a very new topic of discussion and no consensus has been reached. You tried to canvass Tvx1, which backfired, and – whether it's your intent or not – your behaviour suggests that you think you own the article. I don't see why we need to compare with other sports, personally, as terms/lingo and the sports themselves can work differently and this is about tennis, but I also think it would be more accurate to say that the team won the title/championship/whatever it may be, rather than the player. This goes back to the most recent point that I've been trying to make – I'm not arguing the number of Davis Cup titles that Nadal's been involved in, but he has contributed to the team winning (particularly given he wasn't involved in the 2008 final) on five occasions, not won five titles himself; "contributed to", "been involved in/part of", "helped bring", it doesn't matter – they all mean the same thing. I personally think that my most recent wording – "Nadal has contributed to five Davis Cup titles with Spain" – is the most succinct without saying that he "won" (and editing my own wording doesn't constitute a revert, James343e), but that's just my opinion. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me set things straight. I wasn't canvassed at all. I have this article on my watchlist, noticed the high volume of changes, checked the situation and decided to make a copyedit.Tvx1 15:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to James343e's notification on your talk page about this discussion and how it was worded – I wasn't insinuating that this person influenced your actions at the article. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Reposting this link since it is being ignored. https://twitter.com/ITF_Tennis/status/1196799309393604608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196799309393604608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mytennis.info%2Farticle%2F5dd48a2b6b7a1f27892bf1e2%2Fdavis-cup-finals-25-0-siege-die-mega-story-des-rafael-nadal%2F

Id go with the ITF, the organization that is responsible for the Grand Slams, Davis Cup, Challengers and Futures, rather than Hall of Fame Bios.Hitius (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Because everyone uses the proper terminology in a tweet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you feel that way about the tweet, Hitius, as it has literally been added three times to this discussion alone by James343e. Let me summarise: we currently have four options that have been presented as to how we can word the Davis Cup sentence (James343e's current version, my version prior to James343e full-on trying to take ownership of the article, and the versions presented by Fyunck(click)). I think that we should at the very least change "...singles matches at the Davis Cup" to "...singles matches at the event" to bring the Davis Cup mentions in the current sentence down to two, leaving us with these options to open the sentence:

A. "Nadal has won five Davis Cup titles for Spain..." (Fyunck(click)'s edited version)

B. "Nadal has contributed to five Davis Cup titles with Spain..."

C. "Nadal has been part of five Spanish Davis Cup championships..."

D. "Nadal has helped bring five titles to the Spanish Davis Cup team..."

I've already mentioned which one I prefer, so it's up to you guys. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

1st - I would go with A. All the others just seem abnormal to me even in terms of the language used. You would never say Jordan contributed to bringing 6 championship titles to the Bulls. Usain Bolt wins the relay Gold at the Olympics. It is implied and understood that it is past of a 4-man team. This becomes expecially clear in tennis doubles or beach volleyball where there are teams of 2. Mike Bryan wins the US Open doubles title, he doesnt 'contribute to the Bryans' winning the US Open. What we are arguing is basically whether anyone in any team sport ever can be said to have won any title. Where this is getting disengunuous is that earlier, the ATP article was being cited to argue 4 titles instead of 5, and once it was made clear that it was indeed a 5th title as per the ITF, the same ATP article that uses the language 'titlist' is ignored in favour of the hall of fame's 'contributes'.

2nd - I dont think the 29-1 and 29-0 streak need to be mentioned in the intro parts of the article at all. I think it is better suited in the body somewhere and mention of the titles alone is enough, unless if the streak or the win-loss rate is a record. I dont think it is. Someone can correct me here.Hitius (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree with that. I don't think your comparisons hold up. At the olympics these athletes are individually credited with a gold medal by the governing body. True team events (e.g. football) are treated different there. Also, doubles events at tennis tournaments are not team events. These players still primarily play for themselves and are individually recognized as winners. Hence why Mike Bryan won more doubles titles than his twin Bob. The Davis Cup, Fed Cup and Hopman Cup are treated differently entirely. During the matches, whenever the scores are announced only the nations are named. Only the nations appear on the scoreboard and the titles are officially credited to the nations, not the players. Thus I prefer a variation on D: "Nadal helped the Spanish Davis Cup team win five titles...". That is the most encyclopedically correct wording.Tvx1 15:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Doubles at the Olympics are team events.The Bryans are representing the USA. Repeating this again, the ITF (the governing body) and the ATP credited the title to Nadal. Clearly the governing body crediting the title to Nadal should be enough.Hitius (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Something along the lines of C & B are the best of these four choices. Maybe C is the very best choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Hitius that the option A is probably the most suitable. After all, one can see how in the Wikipedia article for Cristiano Ronaldo, it is said that "Cristiano has won 5 Uefa Champions League titles". Only because he won the titles with Manchester and Real Madrid, it doesn't follow he didn't win those titles as did all of his teammates. The same situation applies to Nadal, and we even have a confirmation from the ITF, which is the Davis Cup organization body.James343e (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

We also have the ITF saying that Spain won the title and Nadal is part of the team. It depends from article to article. I see "Spain defeat Canada to win sixth Davis Cup title" as a headline for the ITF. We also have from the ITF "Nadal anchored the Spanish team to a 2-0 victory over Canada... the results secured a sixth Davis Cup crown for Spain." More Davis Cup info "Rafael Nadal has been invincible in Madrid this week and so it proved once again as the world No. 1 notched up two more victories to help Spain reach the Davis Cup title." So cherry picking one ITF article doesn't really cut it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a false dichotomy. It only indicates that BOTH the individual players and the Spanish team as an entity won the Davis Cup. Just like both Cristiano Ronaldo and the Real Madrid won many Champions league titles, Nadal and the Spanish team won the Davis Cup. No need to put that he "helped" to win the title (as suggesting he did not win the title), when we have the ITF confirmation that it is perfectly valid to say that Nadal won his 5th Davis Cup with Spain.James343e (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You mean where it says he helped Spain reach the Davis Cup title? I'm saying if that was the ITF article we were going with it would be opposite of the other ITF article. The bottom line is Nadal did not win Davis Cup, Spain or the Spanish team did. Nadal won Davis Cup matches. Shapovalov did not lose Davis Cup, Canada did. Shapavolov lost his Davis Cup match. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Fyunck, you are presenting statements in isolation. There is a difference between 'Nadal won 5 Davis Cup titles' and a very clear 'Nadal won 5 Davis Cup titles WITH the Spanish Davis Cup team'. Also, don't see where the danger of the statement 'Shapovalov losing the Davis Cup' being used anywhere comes from. Repeating this over and over again, we have both the ITF (the organizer) and the ATP referring to Nadal as a titlist. NOT any newspaper. You can help a team win a title and be a titlist. As James343e has said above, this is a false dichotomoy. .Hitius (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)