More shameless excuse making from Nadal

This is just getting ridiculous.

------------------------------

In an interview with El Pais, Rafael Nadal admits that he lost a little drive in 2011 because of many years of playing, and says that it's natural. "Over the years you'll lose a little intensity," he said. "You burn with the [amount of] competition. I practically had seven years without losing to the first two [ranked players] and that’s how it works in tennis. It's like when it’s said that I get hurt a lot. I do not get hurt much. It is impossible that I've been hurt a lot. Many people write from an emotional sense and not with pure [facts]. I have had hard times, problems, but not harsh injuries."

Nadal also said that he was too predicable this year and needs to regain the strength in his legs, drive and concentration. "Many times I had the feeling that I had no control of my matches," he said.

The 10-time Grand Slam champion also ran off a long list of things he did wrong against Novak Djokovic, whom he lost to in six finals this year.

"I failed in our first match at Indian Wells, where I should have won because the match was up to me at all times, until I started to play very badly. If I had won that match it would have lessened the anxiety in many other [matches]. In Miami, I got heat stroke, and yet I fought until the end. There was very little [that kept me from winning]. The final that really hurt me was Rome. What have I done wrong? In the third set of the U.S. Open final I went further [inside the court]. I went to my limit and made him go to his limit. I had cramps after the match against [David] Nalbandian, I left the tournament limping ... I took [Djokovic] to the limit. If I'm good in the beginning of the fourth set, we would have seen what would have happened. He was half groggy."

Nadal added that in order to be more successful in 2012, he needs to play inside the court more, be a more overwhelming player and not wait until he plays the top players to be aggressive, so he can get used to playing that way. "From Indian Wells to Wimbledon and the Olympic Games in London, that’s where I have to be my best," he said.

-------------------------------------

Mmm... so now he lost in Miami (to Novak) because he had heat stroke (but of course like the true warrior that he is he 'fought until the end'). Does he even know what heat stroke is?

The Indian Wells defeat made him 'too anxious' and that's why he lost the other five matches.

He lost the USO final because he had cramps (remember the amateur dramatics at the press conference) after the match against Nalbandian. Wasn't that a round 3 match?

And of course, he already has his excuse lined up for the January events - a phantom shoulder injury!

This is clear evidence if needed that the myth of Rafa Nadal's perpetual fitness issues is created by the player himself and his continued lamentations off court (as opposed to being just a creation of the more deranged segment of his fans).

I thought he was supposed to be this humble champion who constantly gave praise to his opponent. Imagine if Roger or Andy produced a litany of woes such as this after ALL of their losses.. all hell would break loose.

Memo to The Nadull: You need to grow a pair buddy.



emancipator - May the serve (not the Serb) be with you.

Very intriguing read.

I wouldn't call it shameful excuse making. I still recall Federer calling Melzer a shanker, despite being outplayed and that in itself was a disgrace.

The one comment that I find intriguing more than anything else and what must've been music to Federer's ears was his comment "I need to play more inside the court and dominate play"

That will get him burnt time and time again against Federer and Djokovic who can both hit harder strokes than himself. The reason he is a 10 time Grand Slam champion is ability to open the court up and use every square inch. For him to shorten that would take his stamina as weapon right out of the equation. Federer would gladly bash him off the court like he did in London recently.

If anything Nadal and those comments come across quite 'confused' for some reason or another he is questioning his own 'desire' yet was somehow convinced that even his less intense tennis was enough to win matches and tournaments. Bizarre mindset. The only comment that rings true is the comment he made about being hurt by the defeat in Rome.

I agree LK, he sounds completely confused - doesn't know what to do against Djoker, hence the poor attempts at explaining away his defeats.

Memo to who? Who is Nadull?

Do you have a reliable link to the transcript? An article is no use, of course the media will change it and twist the words to make a story worth reading, they have been doing so for years. If you show the whole original transcript then only can you really judge what he said.

amritia3ee wrote:Memo to who? Who is Nadull?

That kind of language is not allowed on here.

Oh child Amrit you are banished to the naughty corner where you will find some water and a bar of soap.



emancipator

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=15483&zoneid=25

enjoy!

The measure of a champion is the ability to analyse, to explain and to improve. Some people say explanations are shameful excuses, but then again some people are idiots. It's all very intriguing. Whatever happens, it is certain that 2012 will be a new year.

emancipator wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Memo to who? Who the f*ck is Nadull?

That kind of language is not allowed on here.

Oh child Amrit you are banished to the naughty corner where you will find some water and a bar of soap.



emancipator

Who are you? What have you done in your life? Are you a 10 time Grand Slam Champion?

amritia3ee wrote:Do you have a reliable link to the transcript? An article is no use, of course the media will change it and twist the words to make a story worth reading, they have been doing so for years. If you show the whole original transcript then only can you really judge what he said.

You can't really dismiss every interview Nadal gives as 'the press cherry-pick what they want and twist' I mean christ we could do that with all the interviews every player gives.

Nadal is in a slump and really and honestly is facing the first 'test' in his career. 2012 will give us a rough idea what Nadal is made of. Federer has had the same asked this year as it has been slamless and yet has turned the corner in the latter stages of the year and looks back to some of his best form.

The OP is simply giving his view on Nadal and feels he needs to toughen up.

Myself I think he needs to decide where he takes his game from here on out and what he can do to get back to his best form which was 2010. If any Nadal fan out there was honest, they would say that at this moment in time he is behind Federer and Djokovic in terms of favourites for Slam success in 2012.

What would you be saying to Nadal if you were in his corner?

Nore Staat wrote:The measure of a champion is the ability to analyse, to explain and to improve. Some people say explanations are shameful excuses, but then again some people are idiots. It's all very intriguing. Whatever happens, it is certain that 2012 will be a new year.

Firstly the media have twisted his words, secondly he was only giving explanations. All throughout the year he has said one main thing: and that is Djokovic has played better tennis and he needs to improve.

Nore Staat wrote:The measure of a champion is the ability to analyse, to explain and to improve. Some people say explanations are shameful excuses, but then again some people are idiots. It's all very intriguing. Whatever happens, it is certain that 2012 will be a new year.

Indeed.. and where is the analysis in heat stroke, anxiety and cramps? Sounds like excuses to me. After all, it wouldn't be the first time now, would it?

Please refrain from calling people idiots. You don't have to agree with an opinion piece. You can offer your alternative; I'm not going to label you an idiot for disagreeing.

Amrit.. I..am..the..emancipator

Edit that back to Nadal, then maybe we can talk.

emancipator

"Memo to The Nadull: You need to grow a pair buddy."


Ha ha! No matter what Nadal does on a tennis court he just doesn't fit the image of what some expect of a sporting star. He is just not manly enough (whatever that means) for some tastes. noleisthebest used to have way too much to say about this...

amritia3ee wrote:Edit that back to Nadal, then maybe we can talk.

Oh dear, you are beginning to sound hysterical.

The term 'The Nadull' encapsulates my view of his game (again, just an opinion, feel free to disagree).

However, I repeat, please refrain from using profanities.

clink, clink



emancipator - universal and intergalactic tennis correspondent and goodwill ambassador for the WHO

emancipator wrote:

emancipator - universal and intergalactic tennis correspondent and goodwill ambassador for the WHO

What on earth are you talking about? Are you mad?

The humour has certainly flown out of this thread.

legendkillar wrote:The humour has certainly flown out of this thread.

Agreed, LK.

Emancipator... Public analysis of failures can be interpreted as 'excuses' or 'brutal honesty'. You as the universal and intergalactic tennis correspondent can interpret it as you wish.

Amritia... Edit that back to Nadal, then maybe we can talk." Edit that back, and then perhaps a more civilised dialogue can follow.

One thing he doesn't need any excuses for, his straight set win over Federer today - phew - guess he does something right, on occasion.

yloponom68 wrote:One thing he doesn't need any excuses for, his straight set win over Federer today - phew - guess he does something right, on occasion.

Did you watch the Ferrer-Nadal match. I did not get a chance to. Not sure what happened in that one. Did he look physically all right?

laverfan wrote:

yloponom68 wrote:One thing he doesn't need any excuses for, his straight set win over Federer today - phew - guess he does something right, on occasion.

Did you watch the Ferrer-Nadal match. I did not get a chance to. Not sure what happened in that one. Did he look physically all right?

He played rubbish against Ferrer, improved against Federer.

amritia3ee wrote:

laverfan wrote:

yloponom68 wrote:One thing he doesn't need any excuses for, his straight set win over Federer today - phew - guess he does something right, on occasion.

Did you watch the Ferrer-Nadal match. I did not get a chance to. Not sure what happened in that one. Did he look physically all right?

He played sh*t against Ferrer, improved against Federer.

Very thorough analysis there....

legendkillar wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

laverfan wrote:

yloponom68 wrote:One thing he doesn't need any excuses for, his straight set win over Federer today - phew - guess he does something right, on occasion.

Did you watch the Ferrer-Nadal match. I did not get a chance to. Not sure what happened in that one. Did he look physically all right?

He played sh*t against Ferrer, improved against Federer.

Very thorough analysis there....

I watched both matches fully, if you want I can PM you and describe both matches in detail.

For now I'll just rate forehand, backhand and serve:
Against Ferrer:
FH=5
BH=7
Serve=5

Against Federer:
FH=7
BH=7
Serve=6

Should his shoulders stay as it is and not cause any more problems (fingers crossed) and he can get some valuable playing time in Doha he should be OK for the Australian. For some reason Nadal always tends to perform poorly just before a slam, then raise his level when he gets there.

I think that is an honest appraisal for the most part.

Clearly victory at IW would have changed how the year panned out, and Nadal was close in that match but served poorly. Not much to quibble there, even for the most anti-Nadal folk on here.

Miami was again close, and Jim Courier said how physically shot Nadal was after that match, so it is reasonable to assume he was wilting somewhat during the match.

By Rome, Djokovic had momentum and belief and that was a comprehensive defeat, and no excuse is made. At the US Open it was almost a case of last man standing, and if Nadal had been fit himself he could have cantered home as Djokovic was on his last legs. Several posters here have said precisely this, non-Nadal fans amongst them. Again, don't see the 'shameless excuse making' here.

Much ado about nothing here.

legendkillar wrote:Very intriguing read.

I wouldn't call it shameful excuse making. I still recall Federer calling Melzer a shanker, despite being outplayed and that in itself was a disgrace.

The one comment that I find intriguing more than anything else and what must've been music to Federer's ears was his comment "I need to play more inside the court and dominate play"

That will get him burnt time and time again against Federer and Djokovic who can both hit harder strokes than himself. The reason he is a 10 time Grand Slam champion is ability to open the court up and use every square inch. For him to shorten that would take his stamina as weapon right out of the equation. Federer would gladly bash him off the court like he did in London recently.

If anything Nadal and those comments come across quite 'confused' for some reason or another he is
questioning his own 'desire' yet was somehow convinced that even his less intense tennis was enough to win matches and tournaments. Bizarre mindset. The only comment that rings true is the comment he made about being hurt by the defeat in Rome.

I agree, LK, that it is not excuse-making. Also, playing inside the court more does not mean playing there exclusively so I don't think it will be as stark as how you see it.

I don't see it as being confused either. He is saying he perhaps lacked the intensity he had in years gone by; perhaps due to having got the career GS the previous year or complacency after getting back to #1 after losing it in 2009. His tennis was good enough to win matches and tournaments, a radical change is not required.

From another post, disagree that Federer is a more likely slam winner this year. Federer is magnificent indoors, but I would hesitate before drawing too many conclusions re this year's slams from his end-of-season run. Nadal is a bigger favourite at RG than Federer is anywhere I would suggest. Federer has a chance to grab a slam this year, but I'd say his chances are lesser than Nadal, who, in turn, is behind Djokovic. Murray is tough to predict, the Lendl appointment is interesting and could go either way - good to see him be proactive though.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Very intriguing read.

I wouldn't call it shameful excuse making. I still recall Federer calling Melzer a shanker, despite being outplayed and that in itself was a disgrace.

The one comment that I find intriguing more than anything else and what must've been music to Federer's ears was his comment "I need to play more inside the court and dominate play"

That will get him burnt time and time again against Federer and Djokovic who can both hit harder strokes than himself. The reason he is a 10 time Grand Slam champion is ability to open the court up and use every square inch. For him to shorten that would take his stamina as weapon right out of the equation. Federer would gladly bash him off the court like he did in London recently.

If anything Nadal and those comments come across quite 'confused' for some reason or another he is
questioning his own 'desire' yet was somehow convinced that even his less intense tennis was enough to win matches and tournaments. Bizarre mindset. The only comment that rings true is the comment he made about being hurt by the defeat in Rome.

I agree, LK, that it is not excuse-making. Also, playing inside the court more does not mean playing there exclusively so I don't think it will be as stark as how you see it.

I don't see it as being confused either. He is saying he perhaps lacked the intensity he had in years gone by; perhaps due to having got the career GS the previous year or complacency after getting back to #1 after losing it in 2009. His tennis was good enough to win matches and tournaments, a radical change is not required.

From another post, disagree that Federer is a more likely slam winner this year. Federer is magnificent indoors, but I would hesitate before drawing too many conclusions re this year's slams from his end-of-season run. Nadal is a bigger favourite at RG than Federer is anywhere I would suggest. Federer has a chance to grab a slam this year, but I'd say his chances are lesser than Nadal, who, in turn, is behind Djokovic. Murray is tough to predict, the Lendl appointment is interesting and could go either way - good to see him be proactive though.

I think it is confused though P4S. It was a season review he was giving. To me it sounds he was 'fatigued' at the start of the season, Through the Clay and Grass season his form seemed to have deserted him and then the end of the season he seemed lost given he thought he played well at the US Open to win the tournament. In the Final he got back into the match and then faded out in the 4th.

I think Federer is favourite for Melbourne in my eyes. All the momentum is with him. Roland Garros it has to be Nadal. Wimbledon and US Open I would make Djokovic favourite.

It is a very intriguing season coming up. I am hoping Murray can crash the party. If he won the Australian Open, he would be homing in on the 2nd spot in the world given Nadal is taking February off which means losing points for Miami and Indian Wells. Both Murray and Federer have a lot of motivation if they are to launch an assault on the no.1 spot in the world.

There is no question Nadal is feeling the pressure mounting for the upcoming season. His aura of invicibility, that he and his team had so meticulously inculcated in the press lies in tatters and now the number of excuses they need to come up with to justify his defeats is getting close to grotesque.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote: now the number of excuses they need to come up with to justify his defeats is getting close to grotesque.

ikr

I am somewhat surprised people are calling it 'excuse making'

When he blamed fatigue for his defeats in Indian Wells and Miami. He acknowledged he didn't play well enough and fatigue is a sign of bad preparation.

Excuses are like 'He shanked the ball and fluked some shots'

The boy is confused. He doesn't know what his best tennis is if he thinks his tennis at the US Open.

I don't think we will see the 'real' Nadal until the Clay season. He is conceding points in February. If he doesn't feel like he is at 100%, I would sooner see a 'focused' and 'fit' Nadal than someone who will 'flop' in matches.

I wish Murray had taken a month out after the Australian Open defeat last year.

He will not be missing Indian Wells and Miami, they are played in March.

I think the only tournament he will be missing is Dubai, which he doesn't always play anyway.

I thought they were in February

I still hope he does sort himself out. We may see another Davydenko in the making

legendkillar wrote:I thought they were in February

I still hope he does sort himself out. We may see another Davydenko in the making

Yes if Nadal was Davydenko then that point is highly accurate.

amritia3ee wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I thought they were in February

I still hope he does sort himself out. We may see another Davydenko in the making

Yes if Nadal was Davydenko then that point is highly accurate.

Not all bad. Davydenko has the best W/L record in finals amongst active players

Emanci you rule , nice fun article, yea excuse making ig going out of bounds however a good player he is.

legendkillar wrote:I think Federer is favourite for Melbourne in my eyes. All the momentum is with him. Roland Garros it has to be Nadal. Wimbledon and US Open I would make Djokovic favourite.

It is a very intriguing season coming up. I am hoping Murray can crash the party. If he won the Australian Open, he would be homing in on the 2nd spot in the world given Nadal is taking February off which means losing points for Miami and Indian Wells. Both Murray and Federer have a lot of motivation if they are to launch an assault on the no.1 spot in the world.

I'm not so sure, would make Djokovic favourite but can understand where you are coming from.

Agree about the season ahead. It will be interesting, as ever, to see how the draw pans out. It seems that every slam these days has a number of compelling side-stories, be it Murray's quest to break his duck, Federer aiming to show he can still land slams or whether Djokovic can be as stellar this year as last. Roll on the Australian Open!

legendkillar (yesterday at 1:44 pm) wrote:... Nadal is in a slump ... I think he needs to decide where he takes his game from here on out and what he can do to get back to his best form which was 2010. ...

What is your definition of a slump?

legendkillar (yesterday at 7.42 pm) wrote:... I wish Murray had taken a month out after the Australian Open defeat last year.

I thought he took 2 months out judging from his results

Positively 4th Street" (yesterday at 8.25 pm) wrote:... Murray's quest to break his duck ... Australian Open!

... and Djokovic's quest to cook his goose

[quote="Nore Staat"]

legendkillar (yesterday at 1:44 pm) wrote:... Nadal is in a slump ... I think he needs to decide where he takes his game from here on out and what he can do to get back to his best form which was 2010. ...

What is your definition of a slump?

7 Final defeats in 2011. 15 defeats overall in 2011. He had 14 in 2009. 15 again in 2007. Some would argue that it seems normal given that when ranked no.2 he has conceded more than 10 defeats.

Some may argue that 'Slump' is generous. When considering the season he had before in 2010 and that this year on Clay he has looked vulnerable like never before.

legendkillar (yesterday at 7.42 pm) wrote:... I wish Murray had taken a month out after the Australian Open defeat last year.

I thought he took 2 months out judging from his results

True, but still if he had taken the time out he would not have been a big scalp for 2 players outside the top 100.

]

I don't get the problem here, he was probably being asked why he lost so he just said why. Nothing wrong with what he said; it all seems reasonable. I mean what else was he supposed to say?

On another note, I disagree with some of what you said LK. He hasn't had a poor year. That's like saying if Djokovic only gets one slam next year then his year is poor. Feds excuse you used is just the same as Nadal's, I mean how repetitive must it get having to explain your losses time and time again. Also how long were you expecting him to be invulnerable on clay for?

It's also arguable that Fed's 2010 WTF victory was better than this years yet he didn't go on to win the AO.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I don't get the problem here, he was probably being asked why he lost so he just said why. Nothing wrong with what he said; it all seems reasonable. I mean what else was he supposed to say?

On another note, I disagree with some of what you said LK. He hasn't had a poor year. That's like saying if Djokovic only gets one slam next year then his year is poor. Feds excuse you used is just the same as Nadal's, I mean how repetitive must it get having to explain your losses time and time again. Also how long were you expecting him to be invulnerable on clay for?

7 defeats in finals for a World no.2 is not poor????

Feds excuse like Nadals? Post me a link where Nadal has accused a player of being lucky or a shanker.

6 of them to the world no.1 though. He won a slam this year and made all those finals in the first place. I don't think he's at a level where 1 slam in a year is a bad result. He's only had 2 multi slam years.

It was some random routine loss, he probably gave some credit and he was in one of the best positions to judge whether the ball was shanked or not. It's not like he said every shot Meltzer hit was shanked perhaps some though that could have changed things. It's similar to Nadal feeling in control through the Indian Wells match though I'll give you that in this instance Fed's excuse looks slightly worse.

Considering that Nadal had a better H2H against Djokovic before 2011, I still think it is a poor year for him. 15 defeats in 2011.

His comments are of someone who is confused and even admittedly not playing at his very best. If he thinks his lower performance level is worth more than 1 Slam in a year, then he must have super high standards.

I suppose the few months he had this year to make major changes to adjust to Djokovic weren't enough. A few shots could have changed things. I'd hope that he wasn't confused though as that would be a sign that he doesn't understand his own game. It's as simple as someone was better than him this year and all those 'excuses' he gave were just to pad out the interview and give the journalist something.

Not from me but quite my thoughts.

"Rafael Nadal, the world's second ranked tennis player, will be injured January 3-15 and again from January 30 through March 7. The Spaniard will play with a heavier racquet during the Australian Open to put less pressure on his soon to be uninjured and reinjured shoulder.

"Because of my injured shoulder, I cannot play in February. But I am okay for January and March. This makes sense, no?" said Nadal.

When asked how he is able to schedule his injuries around the Grand Slams, Nadal said, "this is really amazing, no? My body is very funny. You guys all believe me, no?"

Isn't it obvious how to schedule injuries around Grand Slams? Just play less before and after them.

Nore Staat wrote:What is your definition of a slump?

6-0 ownership by your rival, including two straight-sets schoolings on your favourite surface?