Rafa - Do you accept his game?

Murray fans like Nadal fans in all honesty do what they don't do so much on the court and that is go on the attack if any criticism is levied at their favourite player.

Brings me to Nadal.

Nadull, time wasting server, moonballer. I think I have seen it all. Rafa turned pro in 2001 at the tender age of 14 and whether you like him or not, that is something that is quite remarkable. At 14 I was at school still. I would imagine Roger and Novak were too. He achieved a lot in his career. Golden Career Slam and positive H2H against his rivals in the top 4.

For me the game will never see another like him. Like Federer, Nadal is unique. A tennis machine. I accept parts of his game are not 'enthralling' but in all honest Novak, Andy, Roger don't play stunning shots every rally. Nadal yes can take nearly an hour to win a set 6-2, but he can really floor it and take a set in under 40 minutes. Nadal for me is clever. He plays the game to his strengths. That is the genius of him. Others have done it. Wilander, Lendl, Sampras. Played to their strengths. To win a Slam at 18 again is stunning.

Take the Nadal of now. Yes he has a quite the thorn in his side that is Djokovic. Federer had it with Nadal and Murray has it with all 3!!

There are some that just won't be a fan of the brand of tennis. Nadal's main strength is to blunt the weapons of his opponent. He seldomly finds himself in a position where he has to go for his shots, like he does with Djokovic now.

Nadal deserves some form of credit. Whether you like him or not. No-one wins titles alone with lungs.

legendkillar

Its you and me against the world... but I hope you weren't saying that Nadal can't go on the attack?

HE,

He can go on the attack. However, he does it when in a winning position. Clever tennis nonetheless.

OK then with that qualification... Its you and me against the world.

Of course - he deserves a truck-load of credit - a Tonka truck! Just kidding - it was too good a joke to pass up.

He is, along with Borg, the greatest clay-courter ever, and anyone who likes clay court tennis has to marvel at what he can do on that surface. The epitome of clay court tennis is about in many ways.

And he's made the most of his strengths to power to 4 non-clay slams as well. A slam is a slam, in any era, on any conditions - it's something most players can only dream about.

I love watching Rafa on clay, and actually anywhere when his game is really firing and he is in the zone. He is a fearsome competitor and I love his never say die attitude. I must admit I find it hard to see him play Fed over bo5 now just because I think that it is impossible for Fed to recover in the same way after a gruelling set, and so I prefer, as a TMF fan primarily, to watch them over bo3. I did find the AO final a little tedious just because it was taking so long to finish every point - but I appreciate that it is not the same for everyone.

One caveat I do have (sorry HE) is that Rafa's tactical MTOs and time wasting do spoil the pleasure of watching him for me. I dislike like it against the other top players, but I must confess I think it is even worse when he behaves like this against a much lower ranked player on the rare occasion one has the better of him for a bit.

I think if the No 2 behaves like this on occasion, then you cannot expect any better in the future from the rank and file.

Lovely article LK
Superb piece.

JuliusHMarx

When Nadal is called "the greatest clay-courter ever" that for me is too much qualification. If he had just won titles on clay fair enough but he is one of the elite players who has won a personal grand slam. Too much of a back handed compliment is an insult.

time please

You don't have to apologise to me! Everyone is entitled to their own views.

On the MTO's. Nadal has had a few career threatening injuries. I think he has even admitted to getting a bit panicky about injuries. Anyway I'm not sure he takes more than other players and an MTO can only be taken with an umpires permission.

I can understand how you may feel when watching Nadal play Federer. I like both players. Both players are separate though. Because Nadal is great it doesn't make Federer less so... and vice verca. Their rivalry is such that IMO they add to each others legacy. I think they understand this. Its a shame that so many tennis fans feel that its impossible to appreciate them both...

Death of tennis.

hawkeye wrote:JuliusHMarx

When Nadal is called "the greatest clay-courter ever" that for me is too much qualification. If he had just won titles on clay fair enough but he is one of the elite players who has won a personal grand slam. Too much of a back handed compliment is an insult

Not in any way intended as a back-handed compliment. People said it about Borg, too, despite 5 Wimbys and I doubt he took offence.

noleisthebest wrote:Death of tennis.

Ha ha! you sound like a sulky teenager.

Nitb, I don't get your Nadal dislike. Now honestly not one of my top 5 players to watch. But he does do jaw dropping things on a tennis court quite often. And he is such a tough fighter. I think it is interesting that those that champion variety so much have such a low tolerance of the different unique style that Nadal brings.

I think NITB must still be upset after the Dubai semi.
16-14

amritia3ee wrote:I think NITB must still be upset after the Dubai semi.
16-14

lol... 8-0

spuranik wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:I think NITB must still be upset after the Dubai semi.
16-14

lol... 8-0

Learn how to count to 7 then we can continue this discussion

And I'm not listening to haters again in their predictions. Before the AO semi they tried to convince me that fed was huge favourite and would 'hammer nadal.' On 606v1 I was looking at the match thread of 2007 Wimby final.
'NADAL WILL NEVER WIN A SLAM OUTSIDE CLAY. FACT.' This was a post by a certain fed fan after the match finished. The same set of people who said that now say'NADAL WILL NEVER BEAT DJOKOVIC AGAIN,' and has claimed every year after the age of 20 that he wouldnt be able to play past the age of 24.

It's not a discussion, it's playgound bickering, so let's get back to the topic shall we?
It's not about Nole, Fed or Fed fans.

Forget who said it. One reason I like nadal is how he proves his hatahs wrong.
'Nadal will never win a slam outside if clay. Fact.'
I still remember that post.
The title is do you accept rafa's 'game.' But it's more than that, he's a fighter, an inspiration. Nadal is my hero.

I think if Federer never existed i would like Nadal more, its just he always beats him which makes me support others against him more often that not.

Soz 2 say amritia but i want rafa to lose more than i want novak to win in their encounters.

Understandable

amritia3ee wrote:

spuranik wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:I think NITB must still be upset after the Dubai semi.
16-14

lol... 8-0

Learn how to count to 7 then we can continue this discussion

lol... So be it... take 7-0... in 13 months...

Interesting. First you couldnt't count to 8 and now youre struggling with 13. The first win was in IW so it can't possibly be 13 months even if we count it until now and not AO.
There are 12 months in a year (12= wins for fed against nadal on grass and outdoor HC x games fed won in FO 2008 final)

It's 10-2, with one of the two caused by a faulty contact lens, since early 2009.

It's ownership.

16-14 I wouldn't say it's an ownership but nadal is leading H2H.
And Novak really thrashed him in the last GS final. How many games did nadal win? 4?

Anyway I apologise, this is off-topic.

Apart from the puerile bickering that besets 606v2 when Nadal is mentioned, he is a very good player and has the current winningest record on clay.

Will there be some one to overhaul his records? Yes. Till Tennis dies, the proclamation of 'greatest' is rather naive.

He is part of a rivalry which will be written in the annals of Tennis history. Are there other rivalries which have captured imaginations? Yes, there are. The 'business' of tennis survives and thrives on marketing such.

He is unique, of which, there is no doubt, and hence a treasure to Tennis.

I may not be around to see it, but I can imagine, Nadal and Federer, at W Center Court, being present and watching players, who will erase Fedal records.

Does he have his detractors? Yes, he does.

It is wonderful to have a player like him.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Of course - he deserves a truck-load of credit

But so does his team, coach and his doctors.

Nadal is a team work. Him alone would not have done much. We know that McEnroe, Federer, even Djoko woudl have done well without their teams. I cannot say the same of Rafa.

laverfan wrote:Apart from the puerile bickering that besets 606v2 when Nadal is mentioned, he is a very good player and has the current winningest record on clay.

Will there be some one to overhaul his records? Yes. Till Tennis dies, the proclamation of 'greatest' is rather naive.

He is part of a rivalry which will be written in the annals of Tennis history. Are there other rivalries which have captured imaginations? Yes, there are. The 'business' of tennis survives and thrives on marketing such.

He is unique, of which, there is no doubt, and hence a treasure to Tennis.

I may not be around to see it, but I can imagine, Nadal and Federer, at W Center Court, being present and watching players, who will erase Fedal records.

Does he have his detractors? Yes, he does.

It is wonderful to have a player like him.

Doesn't Nadal have one of the best "winningest" career records. Of course this includes all surfaces. At the moment his career wins losses stand at 550-118 (.823) Federer is behind him with 818-188 (.813)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Overall-Current-List.aspx

You call him a "very good player". Is Federer merely a very good player? Does that mean Djokovic is simply "a good player". Where does that put Murray? By those standards you would have to say average. You are usually more passionate about tennis than that.

Go on. I challenge you. Admit that Nadal is a great player.

Bet he never thought his greatest strength could end up being his biggest liability in more ways then one
I agree he is a unique talent,theres never been a player like him before ,probably because he isn't the conventional idea of what talent in tennis is and I doubt anyone considered the possibility of being a successful tennis player through athleticism rather then shotmaking ability
He has changed the game a lot more then he is given credit for,cause to beat him you have to be faster,fitter,stronger,more powerful and endure longer
His style of play is obviously not to everyones taste but variety is the spice of life,the game would be rather boring if every player was a clone of Federer

The great Laver recently hinted that Nadal ( among others) is manufactured by technology,so I guess I understand where some of the negative commits are coming from
But this is something I will always value and admire about Roger over Nadal,if you took technology away from him and gave him a wooden racket he would be more or less the same player or a least similar or close to it,unfortunately the same cant be said for Nadal

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:Apart from the puerile bickering that besets 606v2 when Nadal is mentioned, he is a very good player and has the current winningest record on clay.

Will there be some one to overhaul his records? Yes. Till Tennis dies, the proclamation of 'greatest' is rather naive.

He is part of a rivalry which will be written in the annals of Tennis history. Are there other rivalries which have captured imaginations? Yes, there are. The 'business' of tennis survives and thrives on marketing such.

He is unique, of which, there is no doubt, and hence a treasure to Tennis.

I may not be around to see it, but I can imagine, Nadal and Federer, at W Center Court, being present and watching players, who will erase Fedal records.

Does he have his detractors? Yes, he does.

It is wonderful to have a player like him.

Doesn't Nadal have one of the best "winningest" career records. Of course this includes all surfaces. At the moment his career wins losses stand at 550-118 (.823) Federer is behind him with 818-188 (.813)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Overall-Current-List.aspx

You call him a "very good player". Is Federer merely a very good player? Does that mean Djokovic is simply "a good player". Where does that put Murray? By those standards you would have to say average. You are usually more passionate about tennis than that.

Go on. I challenge you. Admit that Nadal is a great player.

Federer has been around much longer then Nadal,he is older,his career has been longer,he has played more matches,so its a bit of a silly comparison,not everyone plays the same amount of matches throughout their career.Nadal is almost 300 matches behind
Win loss % doesn't prove anything, ie. how is it possible to say a player who has played 3 matches in a season and won all 3 is better or greater then a player who played 10 matches and won 7?

Veejay

You don't have to be so defensive about Federer. He is a great player. As Nadal says I'm sure he even smells of roses. Like it or not Nadal is great too. What makes them great is their ability to run about and hit a ball. This requires similar levels of skill and physical fitness.

Veejay wrote:I agree he is a unique talent,theres never been a player like him before ,probably because he isn't the conventional idea of what talent in tennis is and I doubt anyone considered the possibility of being a successful tennis player through athleticism rather then shotmaking ability

Maybe you do not remember how a 17yo Wilander dismantled Clerc, Lendl an Vilas finishing them convincingly in the 5th or even 4th set by moonballing them to death. There is nothing new in Nadal's game....bar the string and diet technologies which has allowed the rebirth and success of an old style.

hawkeye wrote:Veejay

You don't have to be so defensive about Federer. He is a great player. As Nadal says I'm sure he even smells of roses. Like it or not Nadal is great too. What makes them great is their ability to run about and hit a ball. This requires similar levels of skill and physical fitness.

Well my opinion has nothing to do with Roger,you mentioned Roger,I was merely responding to comment itself,I would have said the exact same thing if you were talking about any other player.Nadal could go on to play till he is 80 and never lose a match,Im not bothered
My point is using win loss percentage isn't a good way of comparing players,some careers are shorter then others,some players play more matches in a season then others
I do agree that if you look at a players win loss % individually that does give you a very good idea of how the player faired against the draw but even then there ways around it/to cheat.I know Nadal only competed on clay for the first few seasons when he turned pro which does help the statistic as he clearly won far more on clay then he would have on other surfaces,but in fairness he was still just a teenager,even if he did play on other surfaces and lost more those loses don't take anything away from the kind of player he is today.this another reason why I don't think win loss % tells the whole story

I never said Nadal isn't great,just because I don't think win loss % is a good and realistic way to compare players careers doesn't automatically mean I don't think Nadal isn't good

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:I agree he is a unique talent,theres never been a player like him before ,probably because he isn't the conventional idea of what talent in tennis is and I doubt anyone considered the possibility of being a successful tennis player through athleticism rather then shotmaking ability

Maybe you do not remember how a 17yo Wilander dismantled Clerc, Lendl an Vilas finishing them convincingly in the 5th or even 4th set by moonballing them to death. There is nothing new in Nadal's game....bar the string and diet technologies which has allowed the rebirth and success of an old style.

Well that was before my time so I never witnessed it myself,but I do think Nadal is the most unique pure athlete I have seen in the game.More so then Monfills
I have seen video footage of Wilander and Lendl,I wouldn't say their style of play is quite as explosive as his,unless Im missing something but thats really what I was trying to say when I said theres never been a player like him
I shouldn't have used the word "never" cause I havent been around forever,but I have heard similar comments from various professionals in the sport

Nadal, Toni rather, has certainly based his game on the principle that Like Wilander, Sundstrom, Nystrom, Carlsson, there is a way to blunt the edge of an attacking player and bring the game down to a physical battle.

To make those old styles successful, one had to make the most of the current technologies and diets cause it would have been impossible to be successful in this era just moonballing like Wilander did. The moonball has to have lots more pace and power....and Nadal still has to run faster than Wilander ever did.

Tenez

You know when Federer hits the ball with talent, skill, style, intelligence not to mention looking quite pretty whilst doing so (just like Nadal) he still has to scamper about to do so. Last time I looked Federer (just like Nadal) looked very fast, can last 5 sets and has no problem with going deep into every tournament he plays. How do you think he manages to do this? Please don't try and say he's developed a new style of running that doesn't rely on calories and muscle.

You do realise that tennis is a sport.

Veejay, you should read Nadals (auto)biography to learn mire about him, especially as a person.
His injuries arent fake, he's not pretending anything.

amritia3ee wrote:Veejay, you should read Nadals (auto)biography to learn mire about him, especially as a person.
His injuries arent fake, he's not pretending anything.

That's cute.

amritia3ee wrote:Veejay, you should read Nadals (auto)biography to learn mire about him, especially as a person.
His injuries arent fake, he's not pretending anything.

Actually someone who has read his book told me that in it he claims he has an injury in his foot or knee that can resurface anytime but apparently he has it under control...i don't know whether to laugh or laugh
Apparently the injury was so serious he went into deep depression and thought his career was over when it happened back in 05 or 06,cant remember
Well he has won 10 majors in that time frame so I guess the injury wasn't career threatening and it certainly didn't stop him
I gotta say kudos to him for cashing in on his injuries by writing book about it

He also supposedly has serious career threatening injuries during matches but somehow miraculously he fights through the pain by running and jumping around for another 3 +hours risking not only his career but millions in prize money and endorsements,when under normal circumstances anyone with a similar sort of injury would be limping off court in agony
Theres no point in arguing over this cause theres no way you will ever believe it,I just find it strange that for someone who is literally injured all the time,he never looks remotely injured and the time he takes off tour due to these supposed injuries is at the exact same time every year like clock work.
The players he faced when taking his tactical medical time outs have all said they don't think he was injured,you cant blame them for being suspicious.He has an injury in a specific match at a specific time then the injury completely disappeared by the following match only to find him in the finals of the tournament or winning it
When Del Potro was injured he was sidelined for the entire season.Of course his injury was more serious but Nadal always has a new injury on the horizon and every time he recovers from his injuries virtually in days not weeks or months
Last year he recovered from his hamstring injury in just over a week! It may only have been a strain but hamstring injuries are extremely dangerous,cause they never heal properly.I find it hard to believe his physio would have given him the green light after a few days rest
Its not unfair to assume that he wasn't really injured if he can recover from injuries in record time

You're talking BS.
Just read the book instead of depending on your friend to read it for you.

amritia3ee wrote:You're talking BS.
Just read the book instead of depending on your friend to read it for you.

I never asked anyone to read it for me, but Im not surprised it's all about his injuries considering how injured he always is
That kinda put me off reading it,you're going to have to make to more appealing to get me really interested

Besides,its an autobiography right? Which means he wrote it himself..that means unfortunately for you,you never really learned much about the real Nadal by reading his book,you only learned more about the image Nadal wants to portray
Of course his biography is going to portray him in the best possible light

Im curious to know why you think Im talking BS? What do I have to gain out of thinking the above?

WTF are you on about.
The book isn't 'all about injuries' you clearly haven't read it.
I've read the book many times, and as far as I am aware most of it is about his life in general and his 2008 Wimby final experience. Maybe your friend can't read English, or he just read a few pages.

Ha ha! Someone should get Tenez Rafa's book. It would make a lovely christmas present! The thing is I have a sneaky suspicion he may have read it already...

amritia3ee wrote:WTF are you on about.
The book isn't 'all about injuries' you clearly haven't read it.
I've read the book many times, and as far as I am aware most of it is about his life in general and his 2008 Wimby final experience. Maybe your friend can't read English, or he just read a few pages.

Theres a joke wasted on you..
So how did Nadal write the book in English if his English is pretty limited?
Wasn't there some kind of scandal about the book originally written in English and then translated into Spanish?
So if you've read the book so many times and its so wonderful why aren't you giving it a better review?

In terms of the book I thought it was too soon for him to release one. Take this period of time where he finds himself in a period of transition. It requires change and if he is to remain successful in Slams, it will be interesting to see the mindset he has and how he has managed to accustom change given the signs of OCD he has on court. Creatures of habit find change extremely difficult to accept change.

hawkeye wrote:You call him a "very good player". Is Federer merely a very good player? Does that mean Djokovic is simply "a good player". Where does that put Murray? By those standards you would have to say average. You are usually more passionate about tennis than that.

They are all wonderful players. To bestow 'greatness' is not mine to do, it is his peers, who seem to look at it that way.

hawkeye wrote:Go on. I challenge you. Admit that Nadal is a great player.

Sometimes my children expect to hear a sentence which they have already formulated as the correct response as part of the conversation. They do not like it when my responses are not 'verbatim', as they expect.

I am curious if that is what your mindset is, with the question that you are asking.

I have enjoyed every player's contribution to my enjoyment of Tennis as a sport. Is it all right if it stays that way, rather than being more specific? I enjoy Fedalovicurray as a player, and I think 'he' is a great player.

Veejay wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:WTF are you on about.
The book isn't 'all about injuries' you clearly haven't read it.
I've read the book many times, and as far as I am aware most of it is about his life in general and his 2008 Wimby final experience. Maybe your friend can't read English, or he just read a few pages.

Theres a joke wasted on you..
So how did Nadal write the book in English if his English is pretty limited?
Wasn't there some kind of scandal about the book originally written in English and then translated into Spanish?
So if you've read the book so many times and its so wonderful why aren't you giving it a better review?

It was written with a bi-lingual (half-Scottish, half-Spanish) collaborator. I'm not aware of any scandal, unless I missed it.

socal1976 wrote:Nitb, I don't get your Nadal dislike. Now honestly not one of my top 5 players to watch. But he does do jaw dropping things on a tennis court quite often. And he is such a tough fighter. I think it is interesting that those that champion variety so much have such a low tolerance of the different unique style that Nadal brings.

Nadal does pull a couple of brilliant "gets" and shots per match but all that is massively drowned by the tedium of grunting moonballs, scowling, backside-picking, toweling, zooming from one end of the base line to the other, belting the life out of the ball. It's the bludgeoning brutality and nothing nice or easy on the eye when he's on the court, bar his speed/movement which is outstanding.
I don't like the element of physicality he brought to tennis and took it to unhealthy levels.

That style encourages scrambling, chasing down balls, which are a pain for me even when Nole plays them. That is not his game, but he plays it as an efficient game to beat Nadal and I'm glad if it means he's going to stop the rot and end the trend.

That is why I think he's death of tennis. His style kills the beauty of tennis, it's quite savageing by nature and I hate watching it.

Of all the slam matches he plays against Novak, I saw maybe 10% of all the play. Tennis should be played within the court, not chasing the ball in the stands and doing acrobatics. I don't mind a small amount, but it's gone way over the top and is living a life of its own.

In addition, I don't find Nadal either physically attractive, humble, cute or anything that a lot of his fans seem to draw their support for him from, so there's my answer for you.

Djokovic's scrambling and acrobatics from way of the court on his backhand is one of his key strengths.

laverfan

I wasn't asking you to "bestow" greatness on Nadal or any other player. How could you do that... I was curious to know why in an article entitled "Rafa-Do you accept his game" you were not able to be a little more generous. For a player of his quality being called a "great player" rather than "very good" is what would usually be expected.

But I wasn't surprised that you didn't call Nadal "great" and so I wasn't questioning why you didn't because I expected you to do so. I have to confess I was (gently) teasing you as I'm not sure your as un-biased as you like to appear. So maybe I deserved the put down of being likened to one of your children...

As for your children. I expect you are a real handful for them...

noleisthebest wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Nitb, I don't get your Nadal dislike. Now honestly not one of my top 5 players to watch. But he does do jaw dropping things on a tennis court quite often. And he is such a tough fighter. I think it is interesting that those that champion variety so much have such a low tolerance of the different unique style that Nadal brings.

Nadal does pull a couple of brilliant "gets" and shots per match but all that is massively drowned by the tedium of grunting moonballs, scowling, backside-picking, toweling, zooming from one end of the base line to the other, belting the life out of the ball. It's the bludgeoning brutality and nothing nice or easy on the eye when he's on the court, bar his speed/movement which is outstanding.
I don't like the element of physicality he brought to tennis and took it to unhealthy levels.

That style encourages scrambling, chasing down balls, which are a pain for me even when Nole plays them. That is not his game, but he plays it as an efficient game to beat Nadal and I'm glad if it means he's going to stop the rot and end the trend.

That is why I think he's death of tennis. His style kills the beauty of tennis, it's quite savageing by nature and I hate watching it.

Of all the slam matches he plays against Novak, I saw maybe 10% of all the play. Tennis should be played within the court, not chasing the ball in the stands and doing acrobatics. I don't mind a small amount, but it's gone way over the top and is living a life of its own.

In addition, I don't find Nadal either physically attractive, humble, cute or anything that a lot of his fans seem to draw their support for him from, so there's my answer for you.

But but... What about Rafa's legs? I know you are a legs woman and you must be in total denial if you can't admit that Rafa has the cutest legs.