Tennis much more interesting without Rafa

I certainly wouldn't wish an injury on anyone but as I'm not a fan of his style of play, Nadal's absence has (for me) meant some very interesting matches of late.

Risk-taking, attacking tennis is shining through at the later stages of tournaments, and I for one am grateful for that.

I hope I'm not alone in feeling this way!

Perfect interpretation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8TPXFoXO5A

I'm sure you're not.

Personally I feel he's good for the game. I'm heavily involved in junior coaching, tournaments and their tennis and can say Nadal has brought far more youngsters into the game than anyone else...and who knows the next Federer may be ironically amongst those.

As a technician of the game (from coaching, etc) I find all players games interesting to watch (except a few, inc. snooze-Granollers who plays agricultural tennis). I find Nadal's game for all the grunt about his physicality also interesting. For all the grief he gets he actually plays with more variety than most of them...no other DHBH player plays as many slices as him for instance, and that includes Murray. His ridiculous stretch shortening cycle FH is still a wonder in the game with no other player able to replicate it. Even Federer in recent years has started to technically emulate it (he finishes his FHs in a wiper motion above his head much more often now albeit at a much lower RPM).

Personality wise he brings a lot to court, hence why the kids look up to him and his style appeals to them, and others. So while I can see others don't like him and have made this abundantly clear on forums for years I think he is a loss to the game....ok others get their chance to shine without him but they're not exactly doing so are they. You just don't get talented players like Nadal coming along often...remember this is the guy who beat Federer in his prime as #1 ranked player on his favoured HC as a 17 year old. Why would the game not miss this type of talented player? It's practically the same as saying the game is better without Federer in it, IMO.

remember this is the guy who beat Federer in his prime as #1 ranked player on his favoured HC as a 17 year old

Fed was injured doesn't count.

Big asterisk for that match.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

remember this is the guy who beat Federer in his prime as #1 ranked player on his favoured HC as a 17 year old

Fed was injured doesn't count.

Big asterisk for that match.

Despite Federer saying if your fit enough to make it on court your fit enough to play?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

remember this is the guy who beat Federer in his prime as #1 ranked player on his favoured HC as a 17 year old

Fed was injured doesn't count.

Big asterisk for that match.

Despite Federer saying if your fit enough to make it on court your fit enough to play?

Never believe a word he says anyway

This isn't a thread about Federer, there's plenty of those elsewhere people!

Lydian, all I'm saying is that I'm happy to see more of the style of tennis I enjoy in the tournaments I watch, that's all. Fair enough, right?

Oh not that one again.
The injury you refer to was sunstroke from Indian Wells. But it's a red herring for the Miami match and Federer said as much himself. Infact he had just breezed through the Indian Wells event barely losing games, except to Agassi, and won the final vs Henman in easy straight sets for loss of 6 games. Didn't seem like much sunstroke had affected him there.

About that Miami 2004 Nadal match (that BTW Tenez always said Nadal played well within 20 sec as the basis of his Nadal-Thesis but he never did on timed examination) Federer said:

“I came with a sunstroke from Indian Wells, fine, but I was starting to feel better and I was like ‑‑ didn't quite understand what just quite happened. You don't just come out and beat world No. 1 four and four,” (scoreline was actually 6-3, 6-3) “It just doesn't happen. You have to have something special to do it. Of course he was still a clay‑court player at that point, but that was hard court. I knew he was very good, so I didn't underestimate him in any way, shape, or form. He just got me. So that was impressive".

Fair enough reckoner but I interpreted it as the game doesn't miss him much which I don't agree with.

I was very careful to say it was a subjective opinion, lydian - sorry you misunderstood!

Just trying to redress the balance after a series of increasingly bitter articles from hawkeye.

Personally I prefer for Nadal to be in the draw but to get a good hiding in a relatively early round like vs. Rosol or Ferrer at the Aus Open a while ago.

I know reckoner
HE at times gives us Nadal fans a bad name...but she's pretty tongue in cheek.

However, there is a subtext of quite a number of people seemingly rubbing their hands with glee at Nadal being out. I doubt know whether that's because they feel it gives 'their' Federer a better chance at silverware or just just plain hate the guy. Either way, in the longer term for me it's a shame he's out...if nothing else he creates column inches in media or on forums, so where would we be without him!

Another subtext is the sheer dominance of the top4...in that it needs one of them to go AWOL to open up options for other players going deep. In this respect I'm with those who want to see more variety on tour, in finals, via surfaces, calendar, etc, etc....in a way it's all part of the shame issue. People do get tired of the same people winning eventually, and Nadal has won a lot, so I understand the sentiments here. The issue is why are the top4 so dominant that they can create these feelings....I don't believe these are the best ever 4 players so something else is the issue...either non-golden era outside top4 or surface slowing, racquet tech breeding physicality,etc....or a combo of all of the above!

Maybe Nadal being absent might make the ATP rethink things a little...who knows.

lydian wrote:I know reckoner
HE at times gives us Nadal fans a bad name...but she's pretty tongue in cheek.

However, there is a subtext of quite a number of people seemingly rubbing their hands with glee at Nadal being out. I doubt know whether that's because they feel it gives 'their' Federer a better chance at silverware or just just plain hate the guy. Either way, in the longer term for me it's a shame he's out...if nothing else he creates column inches in media or on forums, so where would we be without him!

Another subtext is the sheer dominance of the top4...in that it needs one of them to go AWOL to open up options for other players going deep. In this respect I'm with those who want to see more variety on tour, in finals, via surfaces, calendar, etc, etc....in a way it's all part of the shame issue. People do get tired of the same people winning eventually, and Nadal has won a lot, so I understand the sentiments here. The issue is why are the top4 so dominant that they can create these feelings....I don't believe these are the best ever 4 players so something else is the issue...either non-golden era outside top4 or surface slowing, racquet tech breeding physicality,etc....or a combo of all of the above!

Maybe Nadal being absent might make the ATP rethink things a little...who knows.

Your top 4 point is a good one - I agree that the ATP needs to look at the lack of variety on tour. The main culprits are modern strings, size and fluffiness of balls, and surfaces - in particular making hardcourt surfaces slower and more abrasive. The trouble with doing much about the strings is that light powerful carbon racquets with gut strings create a different imbalance which tends to favour the serve unduly.

I'd like to see the year organised with medium-slow hardcourts from Aus Open through to a Clay season which plays like clay, a slick low-bouncing grass season, and the US Summer through to the indoor circuit offering medium fast and fast surfaces.

The ATP are unlikely to do that because they don't want to go back to a tour when clay court specialists didn't take the likes of Wimbledon seriously and vice-versa with fast court specialists at RG.

Re Nadal's absence - I am not a fan of the guy but like any reasonable person I recognise that any draw with him in it is better than one without him and I would never wish an injury on any sportsman. That said, I would like to see more and more people learning to combat and beat his style of play, especially on faster surfaces (assuming we ever see any) and him getting beaten more often without the need for attritional slugfests like his last two HC Slam finals with Djoko.

Agree Barrystar - if you look at the racquet specs of the top pros you can see that they all use poly strings and low tensions too - creating enormous power gains. But that gain comes at the expense of subtlety and variation of play. The issue with strings is the spin and low tensions (power). You can't do this with gut in the same way as gut breaks under such low tensions.

I posted about this and a few other points a few weeks back here:
https://www.606v2.com/t32948-is-the-future-of-the-game-in-jeopardy#1420822
...and also linked it to the dearth of new talent coming through.

In my opinion ATP/ITF need to impose a racquet spec charter, my recommendation would be:
+ racquets no bigger than 95sq.in - smaller sweet spot
+ no less than 18 x 16 crosses - less spin and trampolining
+ no less than 55lbs tension - less power and spin
+ ban use of luxilon (poly) strings or at least only in combo - less spin
+ racquet beam no greater than 19mm - less power, more control
+ no lighter than 300g - less spin
+ ITF 1/2 spec balls - faster in the air
These specs would make a HUGE difference to the game overnight without even slowing the surfaces down.

Agree also on the specs for the calendar and the resistance of ATP...they seem to prefer a top heavy tour rather than evenly spread, hence passing the doubling of points for events that really only benefitted the top players.

Yep faster play would be good, and you know I hav a feeling that Nadal has/had the talent to adjust. After all he has won Queens and Dubai (beating Fed in final in 2006), 2 of the fastest events on tour. When he came on tour in 2003/2004 he was a much more aggressive player taking the ball much earlier...again that match vs Federer at Miami 2004 is an eye opener for his aggression and pace of hitting. I think it's a little bit of a myth that he cant be, or isnt, a fast court player. He just adapted his game from an aggressive base to conditions that slowed even more post 2006 turning him, sadly, into a more defensive player - same went for Murray.

That said, he's a very hard player to beat whatever the surface, this is where we should recognise he is a quality player come what may. The best players are always those that adapt the best...Nadal and Federer are probably the two guys who have shown that ability most consistently in recent years. It takes talent to adapt - even in these more homogenised conditions we have today and I know people will point to his lack of wins off clay in recent times but if you look at the finals he's been in its very consistent.

While it would be nice to see faster surfaces etc I don't think the ATP are showing any inclination to change things right now or for the foreseeable future. If they do react it will be in the way large intitutions tend to - way after the fact.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a rapid decline in standards after Nole / Nadal's generation fizzle out, accompanied by J-Mac pontificating about how everything is the greatest it's ever been in tennis.

lydian wrote:Yep faster play would be good, and you know I hav a feeling that Nadal has/had the talent to adjust. After all he has won Queens and Dubai (beating Fed in final in 2006), 2 of the fastest events on tour. When he came on tour in 2003/2004 he was a much more aggressive player taking the ball much earlier...again that match vs Federer at Miami 2004 is an eye opener for his aggression and pace of hitting. I think it's a little bit of a myth that he cant be, or isnt, a fast court player. He just adapted his game from an aggressive base to conditions that slowed even more post 2006 turning him, sadly, into a more defensive player - same went for Murray.

That said, he's a very hard player to beat whatever the surface, this is where we should recognise he is a quality player come what may. The best players are always those that adapt the best...Nadal and Federer are probably the two guys who have shown that ability most consistently in recent years. It takes talent to adapt - even in these more homogenised conditions we have today and I know people will point to his lack of wins off clay in recent times but if you look at the finals he's been in its very consistent.

You may be right - I'd like to have a chance of seeing if you are.

Not sure you can have "more interesting" tennis when one of the greatest players ever is not playing in tournaments. Rafa may not be everybody's cup of tea but he is the ultimate competitor and the guy everyone has to get past to win the big ones.
His absence, hopefully, will not be a long one. We don't want to go too long with any big win by the other big three being subject to the "I wonder what would have happened if Rafa had been playing?" question.

sirfredperry wrote:Not sure you can have "more interesting" tennis when one of the greatest players ever is not playing in tournaments.

It's my honest opinion - I'm free to hold it and express it.

In honesty though it could mark a change in the game for the better in the long run. By no means am I saying that injury to Rafa is a good thing. What it does do is send home the stark message that being survival of the 'fittest' may not the mantra or the code that young tennis players aspire to be. They will look at a Federer and think well if I could have half the game he has, I could be in with a chance of success in the future. It is sad to see any player let alone Rafa blighted by injury, but sometimes the lessons it may teach future generations is the limit to which one can push their body. Is Rafa even going to be standing when he is 32. Health may well be the currency in the future for tennis.

legendkillarV2 wrote:In honesty though it could mark a change in the game for the better in the long run. By no means am I saying that injury to Rafa is a good thing. What it does do is send home the stark message that being survival of the 'fittest' may not the mantra or the code that young tennis players aspire to be. They will look at a Federer and think well if I could have half the game he has, I could be in with a chance of success in the future. It is sad to see any player let alone Rafa blighted by injury, but sometimes the lessons it may teach future generations is the limit to which one can push their body. Is Rafa even going to be standing when he is 32. Health may well be the currency in the future for tennis.

I hope it goes that way too, lk. Way back when Nadal stormed onto the scene there were those who held the opinion that his style of play came at a cost and I guess we are now seeing that cost manifest itself. Perhaps you're right and newer players will be dissuaded from going the uber-physical route, but I worry that ever improving sports science and the lure of guaranteed results may yet lead to 6 hour slugfests becoming the norm.

I think we're all agreed things need to change and hence my parting shot of hopefully ATP will reconsider approaches.

My 2-penneth is that Nadal is a product of his environment not that he's the creator of the environment. The slugfests are due to the conditions primarily, his style of play has become more attritional as a result. Like I said earlier he used to be a much more aggressive player and has the skills to be a faster court player (as his doubles, volleying and slicing prowess shows) but modern conditions give zero reward for a faster play style outside of having a good serve. We also cannot be categorical that his knee condition is due to the style of play per se - it may instead always have been secondary to the underlying Hoffa's condition. We dont know. After all for all his gruelling style of play he's never had bad hip, back, arm or shoulder problems. Also Djokovic has if anything a very similar style and his body hasn't been to break down yet - albeit Nadal has been at the top longer. For all the talk of injuries where is the evidence that players are any more injured than 10 yrs ago considering average ralley and match length has gone up due to slower conditions? If anything the argument is somewhat scuppered by the ageing players doing better than ever. So I wonder if Nadal is the exception not the rule, and his knee problem maybe due to another issue.

But I agree we don't want slugfests. It's boring and reduces the range of skills on display. Aside from physical injury I wonder if it causes mental burn and so reduces the overall sharpness of players so we see reduced quality in general?

However, it stands t

It is just speculation on my behalf on the extent of Nadal's injury, but what we are seeing is someone at the age of 26 potentially physically spent. It begs the question of when not if that Murray and Djokovic start to develop physical problems that could pose long term problems. I think people will start to look at your Federer's, Haas's, Stepanek's and think well they played into their 30's and still played to a high level, ok Federer much higher, but it hopes it encourages coaches to focus more on the talent of ball striking and not the talent for running. As you rightly say Sports Science will favour the bulked up warrior, but that being the picture of the future may become distorted pending the outcome of Rafa and his injuries.

Well, I'm not a great fan of Rafa's style of play, either, and these marathon slugfests are not to everyone's taste. But just having a player like Rafa around means players have to come up with something special.
They have either to produce quite brilliant tennis or they have to outlast him stamina-wise and will-to-win wise - as Djoko did in 2011.
It all adds up to some thrilling match-ups - heads to heads that are sadly not happening at the moment. At least there are three top players around. It would have been very predictable if Rafa has missed large chunks of 06 and 07 when Fed was in his prime and hardly losing to anyone but Rafa.

I'm in 2 minds about that LK. Logic tells us the players must wear out earlier in these more physical times. But we're seeing older players do well...and not just faster counters but guys like Ferrer too. Their progress seems to confound what we expect from the tour slowing since early-mid 2000s.

My take is - and I've argued this before - that slowing conditions may actually result in less injuries because the style of play is much slower, less explosive, so matches are reduced to more of a stamina exercise than explosive, tendon torsional feats of skill. When it comes to stamina-fests the lungs don't get injured. So older players can compete better when less explosive movement is needed...for this is what usually starts to go with age. It also means younger guys need years to build up their conditioning to compete plus their explosive advantage is minimised by the conditions. So I think when it comes down o straight running around with more time to get to the ball the athletes are getting less chronically injured in general.

lydian, this is because the older guys do not play the uber physical style where one runs down all balls at all times and extends the point where possible - it's the grinding style of play that knackers your knees. The slow conditions encourage this sort of safe play, with respect rather think you're putting the cart before the horse here.

Don't necessarily disagree with that, guess I'm putting an alternative thought out there for discussion. With 100-200 top quality players all playing more grinding tennis than before due to slower conditions and racquets that keep ralleys going we're not seeing a lot of knackered knees?

BAck to the original question - I think it's really intereting that 11 out of 17 agree that tennis is indeed more interesting without Rafa.

I no longer feel alone in my opinion, which seems to be the majority view - so I thank all those who voted!

lydian wrote: My take is - and I've argued this before - that slowing conditions may actually result in less injuries because the style of play is much slower, less explosive, so matches are reduced to more of a stamina exercise than explosive, tendon torsional feats of skill. When it comes to stamina-fests the lungs don't get injured. So older players can compete better when less explosive movement is needed...for this is what usually starts to go with age. It also means younger guys need years to build up their conditioning to compete plus their explosive advantage is minimised by the conditions. So I think when it comes down o straight running around with more time to get to the ball the athletes are getting less chronically injured in general.

If you are right that would go to show how self-interested Nadal was on the ATP council when he wanted 2-year rankings and less tournaments in the context of a style of play that is less risky for the players; it would seem he wanted the tour tailored solely for his own benefit no?

Being in the, seeming, minority camp on this one, it's perhaps worth noting the reaction to the Rafa-less USO draw, with the absence of the Spaniard prompting a number to say that Nole has a clear path to the final and could win the whole thing.
This could suggest that Rafa's injury is already making things less interesting. It's a funny business. I don't like Rafa's style of play. I care not for his court manners. BUT I STILL WANT TO SEE HIM PLAYING.

'Tennis much more interesting without Rafa' directly translates into 'how much of a chance does Roger have of winning a Grand Slam' and then 'of course Roger's chanced triples if Nadal is not there' and finally 'Yes, definitely.'

13 Roger fans, and 7 neutrals so far

13 Roger fans, and 7 neutrals so far

13 scholars and 7 peasants.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

13 Roger fans, and 7 neutrals so far

13 scholars and 7 peasants.

It Must Be Love wrote:'Tennis much more interesting without Rafa' directly translates into 'how much of a chance does Roger have of winning a Grand Slam' and then 'of course Roger's chanced triples if Nadal is not there' and finally 'Yes, definitely.'

13 Roger fans, and 7 neutrals so far

Nope not at all - that was not the meaning of my article IMBL and it certainly does not "translate" to what you've said above.

It's more a question of enjoyment of the game and a counterpoint to hawkeye's incessant carping as I'm sure you understand.

reckoner wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:'Tennis much more interesting without Rafa' directly translates into 'how much of a chance does Roger have of winning a Grand Slam' and then 'of course Roger's chanced triples if Nadal is not there' and finally 'Yes, definitely.'

13 Roger fans, and 7 neutrals so far

Nope not at all - that was not the meaning of my article IMBL and it certainly does not "translate" to what you've said above.

It's more a question of enjoyment of the game and a counterpoint to hawkeye's incessant carping as I'm sure you understand.

Yes, I'm sure on the surface your intentions are to express your opinion about Nadal's game and a Holly Wilaboobie for tat response to Hawkeye.
However deep down inside, subconsciously in the soul of all Federer fans, I believe that they are genuinely relieved Nadal is not there. The last time Federer beat Nadal in a slam Liverpool actually reached the Champions League Final

Holly Wilaboobie? Nicely filtered v2.

Some say Nadal's grunting is the main factor for the ice caps melting.

It Must Be Love wrote:

reckoner wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:'Tennis much more interesting without Rafa' directly translates into 'how much of a chance does Roger have of winning a Grand Slam' and then 'of course Roger's chanced triples if Nadal is not there' and finally 'Yes, definitely.'

13 Roger fans, and 7 neutrals so far

Nope not at all - that was not the meaning of my article IMBL and it certainly does not "translate" to what you've said above.

It's more a question of enjoyment of the game and a counterpoint to hawkeye's incessant carping as I'm sure you understand.

Yes, I'm sure on the surface your intentions are to express your opinion about Nadal's game and a Holly Wilaboobie for tat response to Hawkeye.
However deep down inside, subconsciously in the soul of all Federer fans, I believe that they are genuinely relieved Nadal is not there. The last time Federer beat Nadal in a slam Liverpool actually reached the Champions League Final

I can't speak for the subconscious of other Fed fans or indeed their souls - but I for one would LOVE to see Federer play Nadal at the USO. I think Fed would have torn him a new one at his prime and still fancy his chances now.

I think it's a bit sad that 13 people professing to be "tennis fans" actually think the game is more interesting without one of its leading stars

reckoner wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

reckoner wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:'Tennis much more interesting without Rafa' directly translates into 'how much of a chance does Roger have of winning a Grand Slam' and then 'of course Roger's chanced triples if Nadal is not there' and finally 'Yes, definitely.'

13 Roger fans, and 7 neutrals so far

Nope not at all - that was not the meaning of my article IMBL and it certainly does not "translate" to what you've said above.

It's more a question of enjoyment of the game and a counterpoint to hawkeye's incessant carping as I'm sure you understand.

Yes, I'm sure on the surface your intentions are to express your opinion about Nadal's game and a Holly Wilaboobie for tat response to Hawkeye.
However deep down inside, subconsciously in the soul of all Federer fans, I believe that they are genuinely relieved Nadal is not there. The last time Federer beat Nadal in a slam Liverpool actually reached the Champions League Final

I can't speak for the subconscious of other Fed fans or indeed their souls - but I for one would LOVE to see Federer play Nadal at the USO. I think Fed would have torn him a new one at his prime and still fancy his chances now.

Oh I would absolutely love Nadal and Federer to play at USO too.
9-2 sounds slightly better than 8-2.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I think it's a bit sad that 13 people professing to be "tennis fans" actually think the game is more interesting without one of its leading stars

I know. I am surprised 13 people would rather not see Nadal in the slams. It's not like he ever wastes 45 seconds between points, fist pumps every point, calls the trainer when he's in a tussle. Strange.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I think it's a bit sad that 13 people professing to be "tennis fans" actually think the game is more interesting without one of its leading stars

I know. I am surprised 13 people would rather not see Nadal in the slams. It's not like he ever wastes 45 seconds between points, fist pumps every point, calls the trainer when he's in a tussle. Strange.

He doesn't fist-pump when he loses the point.
GSM.

It Must Be Love wrote:

reckoner wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

reckoner wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:'Tennis much more interesting without Rafa' directly translates into 'how much of a chance does Roger have of winning a Grand Slam' and then 'of course Roger's chanced triples if Nadal is not there' and finally 'Yes, definitely.'

13 Roger fans, and 7 neutrals so far

Nope not at all - that was not the meaning of my article IMBL and it certainly does not "translate" to what you've said above.

It's more a question of enjoyment of the game and a counterpoint to hawkeye's incessant carping as I'm sure you understand.

Yes, I'm sure on the surface your intentions are to express your opinion about Nadal's game and a Holly Wilaboobie for tat response to Hawkeye.
However deep down inside, subconsciously in the soul of all Federer fans, I believe that they are genuinely relieved Nadal is not there. The last time Federer beat Nadal in a slam Liverpool actually reached the Champions League Final

I can't speak for the subconscious of other Fed fans or indeed their souls - but I for one would LOVE to see Federer play Nadal at the USO. I think Fed would have torn him a new one at his prime and still fancy his chances now.

Oh I would absolutely love Federer to play at USO too.
9-2 sounds slightly better than 8-2.

Flukes have to end sometime. Just like Nadal getting easy draws in Wimbledon everytime. Rosol

Is it me or is it really obvious that Federer can't stand playing Nadal? I'm sure that wouldn't be true even 2 or 3 years ago, but Nadal is clearly the better competitor these days. That said, the tour is definitely more exciting without Nadal, kind of the way golf has been without a dominant Tiger. Two different sports surfaces, two similar results. Nadal will be back in action next year, and I think he'll get a Grand Slam once again.

It is just you I think Margaret. I think we Fed fans shrink a little each time he faces Rafa in a slam, but I don't think Fed feels that way otherwise he would probably have walked away when Rafa ruled the World.

Margaret are you Tammy Wilson as you both have the annoying habit of bumping old threads!!!

harris.margaret9 wrote:Is it me or is it really obvious that Federer can't stand playing Nadal? I'm sure that wouldn't be true even 2 or 3 years ago, but Nadal is clearly the better competitor these days. That said, the tour is definitely more exciting without Nadal, kind of the way golf has been without a dominant Tiger. Two different sports surfaces, two similar results. Nadal will be back in action next year, and I think he'll get a Grand Slam once again

That said, the tour is definitely more exciting without Nadal, kind of the way golf has been without a dominant Tiger.
yeah we know that Fed fans would say that... thanks for the laugh

Maybe it would be more interesting if Rafa had been replaced in the top 4 by Tsonga (who is the one of the next guys who is really different), but instead we got Ferrer - someone who does what Rafa does in defensive terms but isn't quite as good at them and who doesn't have as much ability to counter-attack. However, Ferrer is very consistent when it comes to beating those below him in the rankings and in losing to those above him.

Once Rafa comes back and regains his match sharpness, things will get more interesting, as he is going to be outside the top 4 for a while (has little scope to gain points until after RG).

Haddie-nuff wrote: yeah we know that Fed fans would say that... thanks for the laugh

Perhaps you might consider not type casting us all. You could do this by addressing the poster rather than some kind of arbitrary group because it is unclear to me whether Margaret is a Fed fan or not - she doesn't seem to have much belief in his courage or determination when facing Nadal and she clearly calls Nadal 'the better competitor.

I could say that I think it's this kind of ya boo comment and tribalism that marks out a certain kind of (Rafa) fan. But thanks for confirming my gut feeling

Yes well it doesn´t say much for Tsonga then does it.. ?? Rafa has been missing from the game for 7/8mths yet still he remains at No.5. Ferrer, whatever you may think of him as a tennis player, he has earned his pòsiiton in the rankings by sheer hard work and determination and Good Luck to him. Tsonga is a much younger man who according to his fans has far more talent... pity then that he doesn´t use it... I personally like him, he has a great presence on court.. but he like Berdych gets a bit flakey on the big points.. Ferrer loves to move the big men around the court.. and that is one of his strengths.. Ferrer´s age will catch up with him in the next 12mths. if it isnt already doing so . but for now I take my hat off to him for an incredible year he has had.

Rafa, as we all realise, has much work to do to regain his old form.. if his knee holds up then I think we can safely say he will fight his way back.. though it will take some time imo

Yes tp and you fall into the same category of Fed fans. The comment was that the tour is more interesting with Rafa and I responded accordingly. "tribalism" oh you are joking me right ??? You cannot mention Federer´s name on this forum without the high horses come out....and close ranks.. Is it cold in that glass house ???