Just How Good Is Rafael Nadal?

Personally I think he's very good indeed. I'm curious to know how he is regarded here on 606v2. I know that certain posters don't rate him that highly... but they could be the vocal minority. The overall consensus may be very different.

I enjoy watching him play, but predicting the future is fraught with pitfalls.

There is this Djokovic guy, who may have a say in this.

I think he's very good indeed. Though I'm not a huge fan of his game I admire him very much both as a person and for what he's accomplished on the tennis court. I don't think he'll surpass Federer, simply because of the quality at the top of the game at the moment.

Somewhere between 1 and 2 for me. Were he to retire right now, he'd still make my open era top ten, so for me he's already one of the very best (and probably THE best on clay).

Not enough options Hawkeye. I would agree with MFC that he is somewhere between 1&2. I actually like watching him play for his fighting qualities (although these have been missing a few times recently) but don't think he will overtake Federer for winning slams. If Tsonga and Del Potro kick on strongly into next year its going to be even harder to win slams than this year.

Beware Nadal fangirls thread

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Beware Nadal fangirls thread

Beware!

No hardcore Nadal fans left on 606v2! Funny how a straight forward thread like this is greeted with "Beware Nadal fangirls thread" but the "Insane Achievements of Roger Federer" isnt...

Definitely option 3 for me. I really dislike his style. Like today, he exhaust the attacking player by bringing balls back. That's not why i watch tennis, that's actually when i stop watching tennis.

Have to say statement 3 is too strong, i'm wouldn't suggest his best is probably over, i would say: possibly.

Ha ha! I forgot the option

I rate him highly but if I say so people might think its because I think he's cute and not because I rate his tennis abilities.

Mmm now that I think about it... Could that be why some rate him so lowly?

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! I forgot the option

I rate him highly but if I say so people might think its because I think he's cute and not because I rate his tennis abilities.

Mmm now that I think about it... Could that be why some rate him so lowly?

Rate him lowly because of his looks? He looks ok i guess but i couldn't care less about how he looks, his game looks ugly as hell to me, that's all

Some like to watch him play. So do I. I actually like to watch him be beaten. Seeing him running out of gas gives me great pleasure anf I feel he still has some runing to do so I look forward to it.

I'd say between 2 and 3. I recognise his achievements and if the time came would consider him amongst the best, even now I suppose. Having said that I dislike his style and contrasting that with Fed who in his prime blitzed all before him at wimbledon whereas I remember Nadal being taken to 5 by Haase and Petzchner and needing MTOs to overcome them. I also don't think it's even close between him and Fed really (at least not tennis wise), just the unfortunate way things worked out. I admire his dedication and spirit but not his tennis in general with the exception of a couple of shots he hits.

To be honest one of the most startling things to me when I started checking tennis forums out was that anyone could prefer Nadal's style to Federer's. It's been an eye opening experience into how truly diverse peoples' opinions are. With Nadal I can only watch him if he's playing someone else who's good as well; his game alone doesn't do it for me in the way many other players' do. I do however recognise good shots of his when he makes them often at crucial points in the match and in general believe him to have more skill than many would credit him for; he's not just an average player with amazing fitness, he's at least a very good player. He's not past his best either, every year he gets stronger and adds things to his game.

gallery play wrote:Like today, he exhaust the attacking player by bringing balls back.

Errors from Del Potro at 5-3 in the fourth set.

Tenez wrote:Some like to watch him play. So do I. I actually like to watch him be beaten. Seeing him running out of gas gives me great pleasure anf I feel he still has some runing to do so I look forward to it.

Since you watched 15 matches, and missed the other 67+, perhaps UTube can help.

gallery play wrote:Definitely option 3 for me. I really dislike his style. Like today, he exhaust the attacking player by bringing balls back. That's not why i watch tennis, that's actually when i stop watching tennis.

Have to say statement 3 is too strong, i'm wouldn't suggest his best is probably over, i would say: possibly.

So is he not meant to return the ball. Del Potro was absolutely smashing the ball in the first set and won it easily. As soon as Nadal broke back from the early break in the second he dominated until mid-way through the fourth. Then that set could have gone either way but Nadal again dominated the tiebreak. If you didn't enjoy watching that match maybe you should stop watching tennis.

Tenez wrote:Some like to watch him play. So do I. I actually like to watch him be beaten. Seeing him running out of gas gives me great pleasure anf I feel he still has some runing to do so I look forward to it.

Ha ha! But that doesn't happen very often. So most of the time when you watch him he wins. No wonder your so crabbit...

Looking at the options again, I agree with most of 1 even though I'd be more tempted to vote for 3. Him beating Feds record is a very realistic possibility though that has nothing to do with liking his game. I think the options have mixed subjectivity and objectivity. He could be the best player ever with an ugly game in some peoples' eyes.

Certainly not a fan, but his determination and will to win and hardwork have to be learned,.

Whether he surpasses Fed or not, he is already in the list of greatest players to have taken the raquet. Somebody to beat Fed so many times deserves better treatment.

Don't like to watch most of his games coz they bore me, but would love to see him play against my fav. Del Boy, Murray or Nole.

I want to change my vote - can I do that? I voted 3 but I am hung between 2 and 3 slightly leaning to 2 now....

Fedex_the_best wrote:I want to change my vote - can I do that? I voted 3 but I am hung between 2 and 3 slightly leaning to 2 now....

Don't worry! Trust your first instinct!

Rafa must already be considered one of the game's greats due to his GS count.
He's tops for stamina, guts and determination. I've never been a great fan of his style but if you needed someone to play for your life, he's your man.
Some will always argue that he's a tad short of true greatness due to his lack of success on fast/indoor courts. You could also say that he might not have won as much as he has in an earlier, lighter balls/quicker courts era.
But he's already achieved much, with power to add. How many more GS he can rack up will depend on his body and whether he continues to have energy-sapping match-ups with Djoko.

How anybody can claim Nadal was just returning the ball against Del Potro is beyond me. Tennis certainly wasn't meant for everyone. Either that or some people are incapable of seeing beyond their bias.

His game provided a good contrast to that of Federer. Battles between him and Federer remind those between Borg and McEnroe. One grew up loving Federer’s game and then yearning for someone to beat him when he became invincible for a few years. Nadal provided an alternative. His athletic abilities added up to his tennis abilities to provide a winning package. Determination in his eyes and body language brought charisma. It is indeed nice to watch him play tennis as it is to see Federer, Djokovic or Tsonga. His declining athletic abilities and the familiarity of his game have made his game vulnerable in last one year. Perhaps he may not dominate as much even on clay, going by the struggle he had with JMDP in Davis Cup finals. But he has established himself in the list of all time greats.

Eskay. Well said. It's the contrast in styles that has led to the great Fedal rivalry. Also, we know have a Rafa-Djoko rivalry based on the premise - Last Man Standing !

laverfan wrote:

gallery play wrote:Like today, he exhaust the attacking player by bringing balls back.

Errors from Del Potro at 5-3 in the fourth set.

Well spotted, Rafa's strategy paid off. Delpo got tired of hitting against that wall.

Eskay wrote:His game provided a good contrast to that of Federer.

And what is this contrast about? What makes them so different?

I know it's taboo for some to define it like this but when those 2 meet it's a clear battle of Talent v Physique. "Talent" fights to keep a step ahead of "Physique", while "Physique" tries to break down "talent".

I agree it makes for some interesting battles but rarely does it bring tennis to high levels like Talent v Talent can do.

How good is Nadal?
Good enough to have won 10 slams.

Don't ask me how.....

Calder106 wrote:

gallery play wrote:Definitely option 3 for me. I really dislike his style. Like today, he exhaust the attacking player by bringing balls back. That's not why i watch tennis, that's actually when i stop watching tennis.

Have to say statement 3 is too strong, i'm wouldn't suggest his best is probably over, i would say: possibly.

So is he not meant to return the ball. Del Potro was absolutely smashing the ball in the first set and won it easily. As soon as Nadal broke back from the early break in the second he dominated until mid-way through the fourth. Then that set could have gone either way but Nadal again dominated the tiebreak. If you didn't enjoy watching that match maybe you should stop watching tennis.

Well said Calder. It would seem some posters would like to see a bunch of out-of-shape guys who can't get the ball back, where one decent shot means the end of the point. Clay-court tennis has always had a large element of endurance about it, and long may that continue.

He's an all-time great but I don't think he'll overhaul Fed's slam tally - having said that next year is absolutely crucial.

If he's really playing history Nadal needs to win two slams next year - something he's capable of, but something about which Djoko and others will want a say. If he wins only 1 or less then I think matching 16 is beyond him. If Fed gets another one in 2012 than all bets are close to being off unless Nadal gets 3. Nadal has said he's not playing DC next year, so he obviously means business.

I'm not a big fan of Nadal's play (I am a "2" from above), but I think he's picking up a bit more of a slating from people here than he really deserves.

But even if Delpo had won the 4th set, he was a spent force for the 5th. So once again, like we see in slams teh fitter wins.

It's only normal as tennis fans to be wanting to watch a shot maker shake off a ball retriever.

Nadal was a again waiting patienly for Delpo to fatigue. Yes he has bigger lungs, we know that...but shot making wise he is very poor!

I watched Nadal against Del Potro at Wimbledon and Nadal was the clear dominant player and shotmaker: the reason I found claims about his medical timeout's dubious aim in that first set as rather preposterous. And yesterday, Nadal for long stretches of the match was dominant as well.

Someday, some people here have to eventually get rather exhausted with this talk of physicality. Tennis is no different from other athletic sports which have witnessed great changes in the level and standard of athleticism. Even golfers these days are fitness buffs with a higher physical standard than was obtainable just over a decade ago.

Perhaps, some would be better off sticking to darts and snooker.

I agree mthierry. The timing of it as well made it clear that it was not for tactical or psychological reasons, Nadal has just played the shot of the match to bring up set-point - he had all of the momentum. Claiming otherwise just shows up a poster's bias really.

The fact is more than 3 out of 5 of us are not a fan. I can only assume we are dealing with his game and not his personality. So something about his game must be grating.

mthierry wrote:
Perhaps, some would be better off sticking to darts and snooker.

True, like some better stick to MMA, Wrestling or Marathon.

Personally, i'll stick to attacking tennis

Like others have said somewhere between 1 and 2.

I don't know if he'll beat "Federer's slam count" and after winnning the AO and USO why does he need more "hardcourt titles" ?

I mean does Sampras need more claycourt titles to be considered one of the very best ?

erictheblueuk wrote:Like others have said somewhere between 1 and 2.

I don't know if he'll beat "Federer's slam count" and after winnning the AO and USO why does he need more "hardcourt titles" ?

I mean does Sampras need more claycourt titles to be considered one of the very best ?

That's a good point eric. To be considered the best, yes, more titles away from RG, but not to be one of the best. As you point out with Sampras, even those at the very top often have imperfect cvs. Federer has spoilt us in many ways by being so good at each slam and winning 3 of them at least 4 times but that is not a yardstick right now as it contains a group of exactly one.

Yes, we dont hear Sampras being denigrated as an all time great for not winning the FO. Nadal has won his won mix of records that stand alone and therefore with his slam count too there's no doubt he's already an alltime great. I think to say he isnt a shotmaker is to not watch his matches properly. I;ve lost count of the number of times he pulls of amazing shots at key moments - like that running FH against JMDP that curved in 2 dimensions, or the number of BH winners when Delpo attacekd the net. And he's done this in countless previous matches. When Nadal is on form he's an aggressive player, and yes he can be a brickwall too but I dont see how that has to be a negative - its just another of his attributes he brings.

Tennis is a combative physical sport, its not a beauty pagent of gracefully hit strokes. Its about attack, defence, tactics, breaking down your opponent and even wearing them out or outlasting them through fitness (since when wasnt stamina/fitness important in any physical sport?)...just like many other sports. To keep judging how tennis should be played by what Federer has done is not right because the game is bigger than any 1 player. Nadal deserves credit for emerging as a claycourter who's adapting his game to win titles across all surfaces including all the slams, OG (on hard), DC - on various, even a title at Queens! Cant believe that a purely defensive player with no shotmaking ability could achieve all this by age of 24!

Whats so impressive about Nadal is that, with his absurd style he still manages to win a lot of tournaments outside clay. Yes he has an extra-ordinary physical prowess to run the whole day and retrieve shots of unimaginable levels but his game is boring to death when he plays a non attacking player.

If you see the match yesterday against Del Boy, its Del Boy who made it interesting, Nadal's match against Monaco was a pain killer.

But yes Tennis is not just attack or defense its about mix of all players, if not for Nadal we could not have seen defensive game at the highest level, so he do deserve credit for it.

Finally its more credible to win so many Slams and tournaments with his style of play at such a young age.

I voted number 2.

However I would say that Rafa is the foremost beneficiary of the prevailing slow and uniform conditions and undoubtedly they have aided his success.

Unlike Federer, who has the repetoire to play in varying conditions and had demonstrably done so earlier in his career (s&ving to a W title in 2003), I do not believe the The Nadull would have been half as successful had the conditions varied substantially throughout his career.

He has a limited but effective game that his enhanced by the uniformity of the conditions.



emancipator - It is the truth

Tenez wrote:The fact is more than 3 out of 5 of us are not a fan. I can only assume we are dealing with his game and not his personality. So something about his game must be grating.

Have just read through the comments and viewed the poll results so far. All interesting and some (for me anyway) surprising. This comment in particular I find interesting...

Emancipator, I have mixed feelings about the slower conditions.

Federer went on tour when conditions were faster no doubt, but he lost alot of matches to fast court players too.

By 2003 SW19 conditions had already slowed down markedly - remember Henman's previous comments of per se "I'm sat at change of ends on a grass court and cant believe what surface I'm playing on".

Federer was brought up on and developed his game on clay courts lets not forget - back-court play is in his blood.
Indeed nearly all of his slams have been won from the back of the court on much slower conditions (SW19 & USO have slowed markedly from early 00s).

Federer likes the slower conditions as just about anyone else on your - his record at the Hamburg TMS shows this. Hamburg is just about the slowest surface out there - like Monte Carlo with treacle poured on top.

He commented early in his career that he hated going to the net, indeed he once said basically "the only time I go to the net is when I'm panicing"...this highlights his comfort-zone at the back of the court.

The other point is that uniformity of the conditions creates a dichotomy in that:
a) it makes the tour more competitive as a whole as just about any player can have a go at each surface without having to change their game much - reducing the variety and specialists
b) if you are a leading player from the back of court then its easier to dominate them all vs. yesteryear. This is why it was so hard to win all slams...after Laver in 1969 it took until 1999 for the next occurence and since then we have 2 more players, and arguably a 3rd of Nole can win FO.

Surely on balance its got easier to achieve this feat?

Lydian - You mention Henman and Federer in the same thread. Interesting. Tim, of course, had the measure of the young Rog before Fed evened things up considerably later on.
It's always interesting to work out just who would have done well in which age. Would Henman have reched four Wimby semis if he'd started his career later? Praps not.
Would Rafa have been so prolific if he'd started 10 years earlier? On clay, probably yes. Elsewhere, maybe not.

I have voted for option 2. I would have liked more options between 1 and 2, and between 2 and 3.. If the word well was taken out of the first line, I would have been temped. But first instinct was to vote for option 2. This aside, I don't think the questionnaire will meet standard criteria for research. I think it won't get validated in its current form, but maybe we are all such great tennis afficionados that we are above all this!

I agree that Federer has also benefited from the slower conditions, but I still maintain that with diverse conditions he is one of the few players on tour that would still succeed at a high level.

In fact I think it would give him an even greater edge as he has the all court game and tools at his dosposal to adapt.

Whether or not he is a great baseliner is not the point. He is still better on fast courts than slow courts. His weapons are sharper and carry more penetration.

As for losing to serve and volleyers early on in his career, most of those defeats came prior to 2003, before he became the colossus that he was to become. Clearly he was still learning and developing. Don't forget, he beat Sampras at W using s&v when the courts were still quick.

My point is that out of the current top 10 players he has the game most conducive to success on varying conditions. I can see Nadal and Novak struggling were the conditions less divergent.

Yes sfp, but to be fair Federer only started racking up wins against Henman when Tim was getting into the autumn/winter of his career. When court conditions were much faster, say pre-2003, Federer did not like playing aggressive players like Henman, Kafelnikov, Rafter and had a losing record against them. Ok Federer wasnt the guy he is today but his record against these fast-court, aggressive players is interesting nonetheless.

Yep...Henman was an out and out fast court player...of course he would have struggled in todays conditions. Nadal would also have struggled more back in the days of super fast SW19 and USO.

I agree that Federer is adept on today's 'fast' courts but then he doesnt have the depth of fast court competition of yesteryear does he...most of the guys today are younger than him so fast courts are alien to them as they learnt their craft on slower courts...so its not really surprising he's able to do well on them still (in addition to the obvious talent he has). He's a unique player in a way because he's one of the few left on tour who have staddled the evolution of fast to slow conditions - and maybe this unique time period in tennis has also been to his overall benefit than had the conditions stayed the same and he had to battle true specialists of fast and slow courts???

In fact it's just a case of styles.

Defensive, retrieval type players will always have an edge on slower conditions. It is hardly surprising that rafa is close to unbeatable on the slowest conditions ie, clay.

Now, it appears that the conditions have become uniformly slow, apart from RG. This enhances the chances of Nadal and makes it tougher for the more attacking players like Federer.

In other words, on faster conditions, Nadal would lose most of his advantages whereas Federer would arguably lose only a little and may in fact gain more.

This is where I believe uniformity of conditions (with a clear trend towards slower conditions) has favoured Nadal.

I actually believe that, had he had played in the nineties conditions, he would have been a great clay courter with very little to show outside of the clay. Similar to say Muster.

But you're right Lydian in stating that the competition of today has adapted to the prevailing conditions and therefore it is very perilous to predict how a certain player would have fared in a different era without having had the benefit of playing against those players and the opportunity to grow up on those conditions.

Nah just inexperience and temperment. Fed slayed his Henman demon at what was it wimbledon 2006. The other players, well he was young and inexperienced then. Not everyone can be a tennis machine from 17 years of age like Rafa.

Maybe emancipator, and there is validity to your argument of course.

However, I genuinely believe Nadal is a different beast to Muster (who only got to FO final once and won it - his record at the other clay 'majors' wasnt that great either). Nadal is clearly a clay courter but his ability to win at Queens (fast court) and SW19 (no matter how much they have slowed they're still a fast-ish court) shows he has ability far beyond Muster/other 90s clay specialists. He's no true fast court player, and never will be, but he's got the talent to adapt his game nonetheless.

No matter what your style of play, talent is talent...and great talent finds a way to win.

emancipator wrote:I agree that Federer has also benefited from the slower conditions,

Of course, Stepanek and Llodra woudl be ruling the game otherwise!!! You have been arguing with Lydian a bit too much!