Nadal: under-appreciated or overrated ?

Nadal remains probably the most polarising figure in tennis today. He's one of the most popular sports stars in the world, a global icon who has fans in every corner of the earth, and along with his arch rival Roger Federer has brought tennis to new heights.



Of course the answer to the title of this thread will depend largely on people's opinion of Nadal. Huge fans of him like Emancip me might say he's vastly under-appreciated, while people who hate his guts will say he is hugely overrated by tennis fans in general.

Now I think it's time to set a few things straight, I'll be frank. I'll try to simply stick to stats here, this isn't really an opinion piece.
Firstly in terms of Grand Slams Nadal has the second most of all time of male singles. He is joint with Sampras, but only Federer has more Slams than him.
Few people don't have Bjorn Borg as one of the greatest of all time. Well Nadal has won as many slams off clay as Bjorn Borg, and more Slams overall. Yes it is true that the surfaces are more similar in speed compared to the past, but that is not Nadal's fault- and it really is speculation to assume how he would do if he had to adjust his game radically to adapt. He has good hand-eye coordination, and fantastic mental strength, so that isn't a bad place to start anyhow.
I hear talk of 'Federer era' followed by a short 'Nadal era' and then another longer 'Djokovic era'. Let's get another thing clear. As of this point, Nadal has 7 more Grand Slams than Djokovic, double him; while Federer has 3 more Grand Slams than Nadal. The gap between Djokovic and Nadal will narrow, but at the moment Djokovic needs 4 more slams to even get to the point where's he's 3 slams away from Nadal.

Staying away from opinion based era debates, I don't think anyone will be too quick to argue that Nadal has had very easy opponents. Infact in 12/14 slams he's won he's had to beat Djokovic or Federer, and sometimes both. Off clay, 4 out of his 5 Slams he's had to face either Djokovic or Federer.
Not only that but he's had to do all of this facing injury every few years; which as a fan really is annoying. The reasons for the injuries are probably a mixture of playing style and congenital factors, and they have taken previous time away from Nadal's career. Consequently this has meant that for his titles his ranking record has not been great. A crucial part of having a good ranking is being able to stay healthy for the whole year, and even the most deluded person will not argue that Nadal's strength is 'keeping healthy for the whole year'. So to rub the salt in the wounds people could point to his poor ranking record and his 0 pointers in USO 2014, AO 2013 etc.
When he does play he does a good job though, as I've said before his W/L ratio isn't too shoddy.

So what do people think ? Under appreciated by tennis fans, especially those who don't like his style of play, or overrated ?

(btw I must add, if you simply want to discuss whether he is or is not GOAT or someone else is, there is a sticky for that; this is a more Nadal centric thread and hope people can stick to that)

Its due to the extreme minority that it seems that Nadal isnt as liked as he actually is. Public opinion for the most moderate part see him and Federer as Batman and The Joker, Bonnie and Clyde etc. Theyre mostly respected and adored, they care not for whether he hasnt got a "classical style" or whether injuries should reduce his importance, they just see a phenomenal hitter of a tennis ball, one of the few people who can make shots that not even Roger could claim, who gives everything... everytime... often at the expense of himself.

Massively overrated with 14 slams, massively.

Underrated due to style of play, overrated due to H2H with Federer. I think people rate his various records very highly, as they rightly should. I don't see anybody denigrating him as a one-trick pony anymore, which is nice.

So basically, right in the middle. I think his current standing (in with Laver, Fed, Borg) is about right.

Ah. Monsieur Nadal.

It's quite simple for me. Many of his detractors on many forums strike me as never played with a modern racquet let alone a wooden one from the 80's with natural gut! It's this. If his game is so simplistic, why aren't their Nadal clones all over the tour? Simple. No-one can play like him. They can try and run and move like him, but they'll never play like him. Will they hit a ball like him? Never. It's the same with most of the greats. If in nature their game's were so easy and so simple, the game would be littered with them. The fact is the game isn't littered with them.

Nadal is well respected by pro's and ex-pro's alike. I don't think that is under-appreciation. I think praise from thos quarters are worth more than ours, and if you attract praise from them then you must be good.

I think with Nadal he would be the last player on any list that Federer fans would like to see as his conqueuer. Like Borg with McEnroe and Agassi with Sampras. Though the latter is more to do with personality (or lack of). With Nadal I think it's more his game, than personality. His game to some is scruffy, un-tidy and decidingly limited compared with Federer's. Also the antics or ticks. Like the time between serves, butt picking and any other mannerisms you can think of. Put Nadal against Djokovic or Murray or any other player and Nadal looks quite supreme.

This whole issue with talent. People can sit and pi$$ and moan about how more 'talented' players never won the titles Nadal has. Simply if you were that talented, and I mean really talented, you would've won the big ones. As Stan alluded to. It's well and true saying it, but doing it is another thing. Connors said tennis is 90% mental and it is. Like with all sports. Those with the fortitude in mental strength go the distance. Nadal a lot like Sampras. Just a winner.

In terms of conditions, equipment. It's the same for Nadal like it is the other thousand of players on tour. In terms of his limitless energy and stamina, that's another discussion with endless speculation. Nadal pushed himself to the limit to be where he is. If others want success that much, push yourself. It's of no surprise that Djokovic and Murray done that and reapped the rewards.

I don't like any of the tennis players nowadays. I support Murray, being a Brit and all, but I don't warm to any of the players. None of them have any personality. I remember watching that hit for Haiti and it was Sampras/Federer/Nadal/Agassi and it was painful viewing. No personality. I watch the Champions Tour and it is a delight seeing Leconte and Nastase 'entertain' the crowd. That's why I loved the past players and the 80's. The diverse characters and cavalier style tennis it encourage. The big players on court had big personalities. Nowadays players are just robots. Too much professionalism has killed the game for me. Not Nadal.

What Federer lacks in personality, he makes up with insane talent. I make exceptions for him and Murray when watching tennis, but there's just no personality or charisma in the game. Bar Fognini no-one actually makes me laugh.

How does one overrate 14 Slams?

I don't think he is over-rated. He is one of the most successful players ever, arguably the best clay court player ever and gets appropriate recognition for that.

It's pretty clear though that his style of play attracts as much dislike as it does love. Generally I'm a disliker. The exception to this is how he played last year when he was positioned on the baseline, playing aggressively, hammering that forehand down the line. I enjoyed his approach to the game in that period.

The big gripe I've always had with him is that the high-bouncing, top spinning, lefty crosscourt forehand into a players backhand is a very tedious weapon. For a lot of years it was the same shot over and over again until it forces an error.

The reason he lost his first MP at W08, when Federer produced that amazing backhand pass, was because he bizarrely went to the backhand. Not because it was the best shot but because that was 'The Plan'.

That is emblematic of why I disliked watching him for all those years. He has the ability to hit amazing shots but chose carry out the same bludgeoning plan over and over.

I don't blame him for doing it. It was clearly effective. I just found it drab.

Then, when Djokovic 2.0 emerged in 2011, and he finally had an opppnent against whom Plan A didn't work, we found out that there wasn't a Plan B. He spent an entire year doing the same thing. The only tactical 'adjustment' was to the same thing but more aggressively.

To give credit where it's due, I think he has been more expansive in the last couple of years and I've warmed to him more (this is made easier by the fact that I think he is a thoroughly nice guy off court).

I also suspect that this change is partly a result of him becoming more of his own man. I think Toni had excessive influence over him for a lot of years and it was him dictating the approach taken on court. As Rafa has grown, so has his game. (Pure speculation of course, but that's how I see it).

kingraf wrote:How does one overrate 14 Slams?

By appending other stats to it to make it appear greater than 17 slams.

legendkillarV2 wrote:This whole issue with talent. People can sit and pi$$ and moan about how more 'talented' players never won the titles Nadal has. Simply if you were that talented, and I mean really talented, you would've won the big ones.

Well said, sir!

I'm not a fan of Rafa but the whole "he's not talented, he's just fit" argument is tripe.

HM Murdoch wrote:I don't think he is over-rated. He is one of the most successful players ever, arguably the best clay court player ever and gets appropriate recognition for that.

It's pretty clear though that his style of play attracts as much dislike as it does love. Generally I'm a disliker. The exception to this is how he played last year when he was positioned on the baseline, playing aggressively, hammering that forehand down the line. I enjoyed his approach to the game in that period.

The big gripe I've always had with him is that the high-bouncing, top spinning, lefty crosscourt forehand into a players backhand is a very tedious weapon. For a lot of years it was the same shot over and over again until it forces an error.

The reason he lost his first MP at W08, when Federer produced that amazing backhand pass, was because he bizarrely went to the backhand. Not because it was the best shot but because that was 'The Plan'.

That is emblematic of why I disliked watching him for all those years. He has the ability to hit amazing shots but chose carry out the same bludgeoning plan over and over.

I don't blame him for doing it. It was clearly effective. I just found it drab.

Then, when Djokovic 2.0 emerged in 2011, and he finally had an opppnent against whom Plan A didn't work, we found out that there wasn't a Plan B. He spent an entire year doing the same thing. The only tactical 'adjustment' was to the same thing but more aggressively.

To give credit where it's due, I think he has been more expansive in the last couple of years and I've warmed to him more (this is made easier by the fact that I think he is a thoroughly nice guy off court).

I also suspect that this change is partly a result of him becoming more of his own man. I think Toni had excessive influence over him for a lot of years and it was him dictating the approach taken on court. As Rafa has grown, so has his game. (Pure speculation of course, but that's how I see it).

I would go along with that. Sometimes it does seem when 'The Plan' doesn't work that he is not much in the way of a thinker out on court. Lacks a proactiveness. Similar to Murray in that sense when really under the cosh and the opponent is showing no sign of let up, they just go with it. Djokovic used to do that, but I feel in more recent time he clicks into the gears and goes up a level. With Nadal I feel it has to be right off the bat. Either he dominates from the start or the other guy loses his nerve. I can't say in my memory I remember a peformance where Nadal really dug himself out of a hole with a proactive approach.

That's not saying he isn't a great player. In a way he is a lot like Sampras. Just a beast of a front runner.

legendkiller wrote:I can't say in my memory I remember a peformance where Nadal really dug himself out of a hole with a proactive approach.

Check out FO 2013 semi 5th set against Djokovic After he was a set down
I have to say I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment, I always feel that after Nadal goes down he's such a player that he will fight so he's still not 'out'.
Djokovic I've seen mentally waver when he goes down in a match, but I've not seen Nadal do that at all really. He seems to step his game up when the going gets tough and he's in trouble. Obviously he's not going to be able to morph with a big server like Isner and Federer and suddenly hit many aces; but in the context of the baseline counter puncher that he is, he does up his game when needed I feel.

HM Murdoch wrote:To give credit where it's due, I think he has been more expansive in the last couple of years and I've warmed to him more (this is made easier by the fact that I think he is a thoroughly nice guy off court).

Djokovic has really helped Nadal's game, it may have statistically made Nadal a worse player, but in reality he's a lot better because of Novak.

As for comments on his game early on, if you get the time watch highlights of him vs Coria, you may be surprised with what you see

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkiller wrote:I can't say in my memory I remember a peformance where Nadal really dug himself out of a hole with a proactive approach.

Check out FO 2013 semi 5th set against Djokovic After he was a set down
I have to say I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment, I always feel that after Nadal goes down he's such a player that he will fight so he's still not 'out'.
Djokovic I've seen mentally waver when he goes down in a match, but I've not seen Nadal do that at all really. He seems to step his game up when the going gets tough and he's in trouble. Obviously he's not going to be able to morph with a big server like Isner and Federer and suddenly hit many aces; but in the context of the baseline counter puncher that he is, he does up his game when needed I feel.

Couldn't disagree more.

Djokovics failings against Nadal at RG in recent times have been down to: the magnitude of the moment and a little fear during pressure moments.

As Tom Wilkinson said in Batman Begins: that's power you can't buy.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Djokovics failings against Nadal at RG in recent times have been down to: the magnitude of the moment and a little fear during pressure moments.

As Tom Wilkinson said in Batman Begins: that's power you can't buy.

In the context of the example I was talking about (5th set of FO 2013), I think it's a combination of that as well as Nadal stepping his game up to gears he had not reached.
I can't access Nadal's '1-set down' records- but from what I've seen over the decade- it can't be too bad right ?

Anyway we'll agree to disagree on this

It Must Be Love wrote:As for comments on his game early on, if you get the time watch highlights of him vs Coria, you may be surprised with what you see

I found him much more interesting early on his career.

His performance against Federer in Miami 04 was incredibly dynamic. His backhand was a better weapon back then, in my opinion.

It's the period from, I'd guess, about 2006 through to 2011 that I didn't like. 2012 was interrupted and then I thought 2013 was much better.

The guy has great hands and insane hand-eye co-ordination. It frustrates me that he's spent so much of his career 6ft behind the baseline.

I don't think he is underrated. I think most tennis fans and experts would put him in the category of All Time Great. Obviously, there will be supporters of other players who will seek to say its all physical not "talent" but they obviously have an agenda.

For me, I don't like his style of play at all. Its too focussed on making the opponent play badly rather than the other way around and I would be delighted if the more unsporting parts of his game would be clamped down on. However, it can't be denied that, when fit, he is a truly exceptional player.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Djokovics failings against Nadal at RG in recent times have been down to: the magnitude of the moment and a little fear during pressure moments.

As Tom Wilkinson said in Batman Begins: that's power you can't buy.

In the context of the example I was talking about (5th set of FO 2013), I think it's a combination of that as well as Nadal stepping his game up to gears he had not reached.
I can't access Nadal's '1-set down' records- but from what I've seen over the decade- it can't be too bad right ?

Anyway we'll agree to disagree on this

Look at the H2H between Novak and Rafa. Novak has beaten him just about everywhere, bar RG.

To topple Nadal at RG you need a great big can of Soderling and more!

See you say you need to access Nadal's records. You don't. As fan you should know by memory the performances I am talking about. It's not just about comebacks, but the manner and nature of them. I mean where an opponent has had Nadal dead to rights and out of nothing and no gimmie he has turned the match around completely. See what I mean?

Nadal is a great player. Not having that proactiveness in the locker is not a big negative.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Look at the H2H between Novak and Rafa. Novak has beaten him just about everywhere, bar RG.

To topple Nadal at RG you need a great big can of Soderling and more!

See you say you need to access Nadal's records. You don't. As fan you should know by memory the performances I am talking about. It's not just about comebacks, but the manner and nature of them. I mean where an opponent has had Nadal dead to rights and out of nothing and no gimmie he has turned the match around completely. See what I mean?

Nadal is a great player. Not having that proactiveness in the locker is not a big negative.

Djokovic would have beaten him probably if they had played in the FO 2011. Roger saved Nadal's butt.

As for your other point, ok I think it can raise an interesting discussion. I probably won't make you change your mind, but perhaps you can see where I'm coming from:
-Let's say Nadal is up against an attacking player; Berdych, Tsonga etc.
-He goes a set down and seems in big trouble; but then manages to turn things around. We've seen it many times before, no one can seriously claim we haven't see Nadal come back many times from being down in a match.
-However as Nadal isn't the aggressor, I suppose an opinion could be something like this:
"Early on in the match Nadal was being outplayed. However then the level of Tsonga/Berdych dipped and Nadal was able to come back. Credit to Nadal for fighting hard as he does better than anyone, and it is true he tightened things up with less UEs, hit his forehand DTL winners more, and started to anticipate his opponent better meaning he could get more balls back into play BUT I still felt Tsonga/Berdych was in control of the play in the match as he was the aggressor."
-The issue I have with this is that it's a bit too simplistic. When Nadal does start to anticipate better as the match goes on and gets more ball back into play, combined with hitting the forehand DTL more to get the opponent out of position more often; these sorts of factors combine to make the 'barrier' an attacking opponent has to reach even higher. They already have to hit 3 'winners' in a row to get a one point against Nadal, but when the percentages are made even harder- it's just too much for most attacking players to sustain. So despite it looking like it's the opponent who's giving it away in UEs, it's Nadal who's forcing him to play an even higher risk strategy- and most players cannot sustain that.
-So despite not being aggressive like Llodra or Federer, Nadal can still step his game up while still being a counter-puncher. This, combined with his incredible mental fortitude, is why he's hard to beat. You don't see Nadal go a set down and think 'ah that's it, game over, this Nadal isn't one for fighting back'.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Look at the H2H between Novak and Rafa. Novak has beaten him just about everywhere, bar RG.

To topple Nadal at RG you need a great big can of Soderling and more!

See you say you need to access Nadal's records. You don't. As fan you should know by memory the performances I am talking about. It's not just about comebacks, but the manner and nature of them. I mean where an opponent has had Nadal dead to rights and out of nothing and no gimmie he has turned the match around completely. See what I mean?

Nadal is a great player. Not having that proactiveness in the locker is not a big negative.

Djokovic would have beaten him probably if they had played in the FO 2011. Roger saved Nadal's butt.

As for your other point, ok I think it can raise an interesting discussion. I probably won't make you change your mind, but perhaps you can see where I'm coming from:
-Let's say Nadal is up against an attacking player; Berdych, Tsonga etc.
-He goes a set down and seems in big trouble; but then manages to turn things around. We've seen it many times before, no one can seriously claim we haven't see Nadal come back many times from being down in a match.
-However as Nadal isn't the aggressor, I suppose an opinion could be something like this:
"Early on in the match Nadal was being outplayed. However then the level of Tsonga/Berdych dipped and Nadal was able to come back. Credit to Nadal for fighting hard as he does better than anyone, and it is true he tightened things up with less UEs, hit his forehand DTL winners more, and started to anticipate his opponent better meaning he could get more balls back into play BUT I still felt Tsonga/Berdych was in control of the play in the match as he was the aggressor."
-The issue I have with this is that it's a bit too simplistic. When Nadal does start to anticipate better as the match goes on and gets more ball back into play, combined with hitting the forehand DTL more to get the opponent out of position more often; these sorts of factors combine to make the 'barrier' an attacking opponent has to reach even higher. They already have to hit 3 'winners' in a row to get a one point against Nadal, but when the percentages are made even harder- it's just too much for most attacking players to sustain. So despite it looking like it's the opponent who's giving it away in UEs, it's Nadal who's forcing him to play an even higher risk strategy- and most players cannot sustain that.
-So despite not being aggressive like Llodra or Federer, Nadal can still step his game up while still being a counter-puncher. This, combined with his incredible mental fortitude, is why he's hard to beat. You don't see Nadal go a set down and think 'ah that's it, game over, this Nadal isn't one for fighting back'.

It's not a case of being simplistic is it? You have gone around the houses when you needn't had. Let's keep the discussion simple without the need to over-egg the omelette

Me and HM both touched on and agreed on that Nadal isn't a thinker on court in pressure situations. What we are talking about is this. Nadal has a set gameplan and when that doesn't work, what does he do differently to reverse the match or take it out from his opponent. Look at his Wimbledon defeats. What did he do differently in those matches to try and turn them?

Point in case take the Wimbledon Final 2012. Murray for the first set all out attack. Second set both players tentative exchanging breaks and then Federer right at the killer moment of that set produces two points of attacking tennis and boom just like completely turns the match. Federer unusually played to Murray's beat in those two sets before becoming proactive.

That's what I am getting at. Just that "This isn't working, I shall do this instead now" spark.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It's not a case of being simplistic is it? You have gone around the houses when you needn't had. Let's keep the discussion simple without the need to over-egg the omelette

I don't think so, I think I raised some fair and necessary points. I think your analysis is incomplete, Nadal does 'step up his game' when he's down in a match- and that's what makes him tough to beat.

Anyway we've both made our points, we'll have to agree to disagree; people can judge a conclusion after reading the last few posts.

Provide me with some examples off the top of your head if it is that obvious.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Provide me with some examples off the top of your head if it is that obvious.

I could list quite a lot, but one tournament in particular which sticks in my mind is Nadal vs Berdych Aus Open 2012, and then Nadal vs Federer Aus Open 2012. Comes back from behind on both those matches.

And in your opinion what did he do in those matches that you would class as being 'proactive'? Any shots spring to mind or changes in play?

IMBL - LK and I are not arguing that Nadal does not 'up his game'. He does.

What we are saying is that this usually manifests itself as increased intensity and fewer errors. It does not manifest itself as a change of approach. It's the same plan, the same patterns, just played better.

By contrast, Federer and (increasingly) Djokovic are more able to change their tactics. They'll adjust where they're serving, they'll come into the net, they'll mix the pace up, they'll target another part of an opponents game.

This is the kind of thing I don't think I see from Nadal.

He said this after losing to Djokovic in Miami this year:

"The things that I can be same level than him or better than him is when the point, when the rally is going and when the point is becoming intense, and I was able to hit maybe with a little bit high intensity sometime as I did last year in the US Open or in Canada.
Was not that day, you know.  On the rally points I feel I was in tough conditions, in negative conditions, and this is impossible to play against him when you have that feeling."

He sees his attack as built on intensity. If he's not able to summon that, or it's not working, he doesn't have anywhere to go. It's "impossible to play".

It is what I explained @ 10:19am a few posts above.
He improves his play in general, so better mental intensity in every point, then starts to anticipate the opponent's attacking shots better so gets more balls back into court, and he starts to use his forehand down the line and backhand cross court to move his opponent out of position more frequently; and a combination of all of this means that for an attacking player to beat Nadal the percentages are even smaller- so they have to play and sustain even higher risk tennis which is exceptionally difficult and impossible for most to deal with.

HM- Djokovic is the only exception in terms of a player being able to consistently match Nadal.
And even against Djokovic, Nadal upped his game in Slams after his bad run, using the forehand down the line more and playing more aggressive.

I think a lot of this is simply based on the the very nature of being a counter attacking player. You can actually make changes to basically mean that you are in control of the set/match (https://www.606v2.com/t55634-whose-hands-is-it-in-for-nadal-vs-berdych) without ever having to be in control of an average point.

It Must Be Love wrote:HM- Djokovic is the only exception in terms of a player being able to consistently match Nadal.
And even against Djokovic, Nadal upped his game in Slams after his bad run, using the forehand down the line more and playing more aggressive.

This is true. But I think the Nadal of 2013 was far more tactically astute. (Interestingly, his incredible hard court form and tactics emerged when Toni was not there).

He won the tactical battle with Novak that year and sent him back to the drawing board. I heard reports at the time that, prior to the WTF final, Novak was having his hitting partner blast balls down the deuce court which Novak had to run onto from the ad court side and get a running forehand onto, which he hit cross court. This was clearly a response to what Rafa did to him that year.

But your first point above is what I think is at the heart of the issue. Because so few players can hold up against Rafa's Plan A, he rarely has any need to venture beyond it. That's why I think he is either reluctant or less capable of changing his approach during a match.

HM Murdoch wrote:
He won the tactical battle with Novak that year and sent him back to the drawing board. I heard reports at the time that, prior to the WTF final, Novak was having his hitting partner blast balls down the deuce court which Novak had to run onto from the ad court side and get a running forehand onto, which he hit cross court. This was clearly a response to what Rafa did to him that year.

I've not heard this report before, but I really hope it is true. I do like these sort of things, mini-battles emerging in rivalries- I know because of Djokovic Nadal had to force himself to do all sorts of things which improved his game.

HM Murdoch wrote:IMBL - LK and I are not arguing that Nadal does not 'up his game'. He does.

What we are saying is that this usually manifests itself as increased intensity and fewer errors. It does not manifest itself as a change of approach. It's the same plan, the same patterns, just played better.

By contrast, Federer and (increasingly) Djokovic are more able to change their tactics. They'll adjust where they're serving, they'll come into the net, they'll mix the pace up, they'll target another part of an opponents game.

This is the kind of thing I don't think I see from Nadal.

He said this after losing to Djokovic in Miami this year:

"The things that I can be same level than him or better than him is when the point, when the rally is going and when the point is becoming intense, and I was able to hit maybe with a little bit high intensity sometime as I did last year in the US Open or in Canada.
Was not that day, you know.  On the rally points I feel I was in tough conditions, in negative conditions, and this is impossible to play against him when you have that feeling."

He sees his attack as built on intensity. If he's not able to summon that, or it's not working, he doesn't have anywhere to go. It's "impossible to play".

Superbly put

It's not about how many matches he has won from a set down or his record in 4/5 set matches. It's a case of if the A Plan isn't working, what would he do differently? Look at Murray. Set in the same ways as Nadal. The differences are in the shots available. I would say Nadal's much more devastating, but also the consistency. Like I said on the Murray thread CC made. Nadal is the ultimate baseliner. His consistency ridiculously high. Murray's on the other scale. Nowhere near enough consistency and hence why one is an all time great and the reason the other isn't that and the mentality.

I think as Nadal's career draws to an end and 'if' his consistency falls, we might see him become proactive. Whilst he is producing the results he has, why would he stray from that formula?

Interesting opinions all round
I wrote a post which included something about Djokovic as well as Nadal on this issue as well, added it to the relevant thread which was meant to be about this discussion

In terms of this thread- HM & LK, what aspect of Nadal do you see as his biggest strength, and what is his biggest weakness ?

HM Murdoch wrote:The reason he lost his first MP at W08, when Federer produced that amazing backhand pass, was because he bizarrely went to the backhand. Not because it was the best shot but because that was 'The Plan'.

That is emblematic of why I disliked watching him for all those years. He has the ability to hit amazing shots but chose carry out the same bludgeoning plan over and over.

I don't blame him for doing it. It was clearly effective. I just found it drab.

Then, when Djokovic 2.0 emerged in 2011, and he finally had an opppnent against whom Plan A didn't work, we found out that there wasn't a Plan B. He spent an entire year doing the same thing. The only tactical 'adjustment' was to the same thing but more aggressively.

This is very astute, and I would agree. That MP is the perfect example.

The most frustrating thing about Nadal, for me, is that he has so very many tools in his locker but refuses to use a lot of them. He has excellent hands at the net, but so rarely displays this. While he has gotten much better in the last year or two, his great weakness is that he's a poor tactical player and there still isn't really a Plan B. 'Play harder' doesn't count.

Doesn't stop him from being a player who truly does inspire wonder at times. Maybe more than anyone else. That forehand is just outrageous.

Edit: LK's post already covers most of this

Biggest strength: probably that forehand. It's powerful but, more importantly, it's unique. It must feel unlike any other player's shot on the receiving racquet.

Biggest weakness: probably the serve. I don't think his backhand is great either. It's not awful but his inclination to run around it has cost him against Djokovic a few times (leaves the deuce court open for Djokovic's BHDTL).

Silver, my reply to you would be similar to my reply to LK, but I want to pick up on something else.

Silver wrote:He has excellent hands at the net, but so rarely displays this.

But should he go to the net ? Yes it is true he has great reflexes and good hand-eye coordination. But given how effective his baseline play is, and his great record in coming back as well, would coming into the net improve his win percentage ?

Silver wrote:Doesn't stop him from being a player who truly does inspire wonder at times. Maybe more than anyone else. That forehand is just outrageous.

Some of the forehands DTL against Djokovic in the US Open final last year was ridiculous, you could hear the crowd gasp

Well some would say his biggest strength is lungs

However we have seen other players increase their lung capacity and thus not dislodging Nadal.

For me his strength is that topspin. It is at times unplayable. I have seen him hit balls that loop and I think that's going out surely and wham it lands about 3 inches in and kicks up like a mule. No other player has done that before and none will after. It's the ultimate weapon.

Weakness? I would say the lack of an all court game has certainly found him wanting at Wimbledon of late. Not hitting flatter than his opposition. It's minuscule to be honest.

All the top players have minor weaknesses covered up by their amazing strengths.

Yes, I was thinking along those lines when I typed it. And the answer is...no, for the most part he doesn't need to come to net, and therefore shouldn't. But when Plan A fails, as it did against Novak in 2011, then this could've been a strategy to change things up.

I don't blame him for not changing, though. I said the same thing about Murray, frustrated though I was by his lack of variety. Whatever works, players should stick with. Sampras did this very well!

You mentioned DTL forehands - they can be incredible, and pretty much the perfect approach shot as well. But he so rarely comes in off them. Could Rafa kill off the rally earlier in many instances? Food for thought!

It Must Be Love wrote:

Silver wrote:He has excellent hands at the net, but so rarely displays this.

But should he go to the net ? Yes it is true he has great reflexes and good hand-eye coordination. But given how effective his baseline play is, and his great record in coming back as well, would coming into the net improve his win percentage ?

I agree with Silver completely here. On the rare occasions I've seen Rafa play doubles, or sometimes in exhibition matches, he does things at the net that are brilliant.

IMBL - your argument could be applied to Djokovic. He could have ticked along quite nicely anchored on the baseline but he has worked on his net play and is definitely a better player for it.

It's not as if Rafa would need to become a SVer but surely it would be a good option to have in the locker?

I respect Nadal's dedication to sticking with his game, and I consider him as the original powerplayer, moonballer, 5 metres behind the Baseline player, he brought that kind of Tennis first to courts, so he gets the Medal for it, while Djoko is "sometimes" a better copy of him.

Now, I am not a fan of his safe predictable game style, but he remains a joy to watch when in form, thought he nearly kills that joy with slow time between points, scratching and rubbing himself and being an ass with those bottles.

Under-appreciated or over-rated, I think he is somewhere in the balance of both those elements.

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Silver wrote:He has excellent hands at the net, but so rarely displays this.

But should he go to the net ? Yes it is true he has great reflexes and good hand-eye coordination. But given how effective his baseline play is, and his great record in coming back as well, would coming into the net improve his win percentage ?

I agree with Silver completely here. On the rare occasions I've seen Rafa play doubles, or sometimes in exhibition matches, he does things at the net that are brilliant.

IMBL - your argument could be applied to Djokovic. He could have ticked along quite nicely anchored on the baseline but he has worked on his net play and is definitely a better player for it.

It's not as if Rafa would need to become a SVer but surely it would be a good option to have in the locker?

Fair point, next time if I see Uncle Toni I'll suggest it to him

I think Rafa has missed a trick not utilising the volley more. Given his near inch perfection on serving to the BH. He could be a real menace as a S&V at times. The amount of energy he could save over a Slam by doing it more.

He has the safest overhead in the game.

It screams out he should surf the net more!

Speaking of lacking a plan B.... How about that Novak who's plan B for the Roland garros semis last year was to ask for the clay to be watered?

I dont think my input is necessary in this discussion, or indeed to answer the question overrated ???    

I only know what Fed once said about him "you can never say you have won against Rafa until you play your last shot" active/proactive ?? Ill leave you to decide

No, we are deciding on IMBL question, not on Feds courteous sentences about his friend

In the youtube video link in the OP, there's a few interviews from players about Nadal.

Jahu wrote:No, we are deciding on IMBL question, not on Feds courteous sentences about his friend

Fed's opinion is considered paramount on 606v2 Jahu and is relevant

No body cares what Fed says, only those who are not Fed fans.

Fed fans enjoy the play, others his words

Am I poetic or what?

Jahu wrote:No body cares what Fed says, only those who are not Fed fans.

Fed fans enjoy the play, others his words

Am I poetic or what?

In short??? NOPE Are you right??? in short NOPE

Haha, we agreed so you would be gentle with me, be nice to me

Btw, agree with Feds words, Rafa is a cheeky little fighter

Jahu wrote:Haha, we agreed so you would be gentle with me, be nice to me

Btw, agree with Feds words, Rafa is a cheeky little fighter

Im always nice to you I just dont agree with you

Leave the flirting on PM's now, don't ruin my Mega serious poster status here

I agree with temporary21 that generally Nadal is respected liked and appreciated. His and Federer's names go together and will always be linked. Generally there isn't much of a GOAT debate as they are both considered great. Simple as that.

There are some very vocal tennis fans, commentators and journalists who continue to under appreciate his talent, unique game and tactical skills. Some say its because of the threat to Federer? Maybe it is but the way his game is belittled and some of the outright nasty things that are said about him can leave a sour taste. I've sometimes wondered if there is some insidious racism going on. The way not just "fans" but those in the media are constantly referring to English not being his first language inferring he's less intelligent and some of the ways his game is described have left me feeling a little uncomfortable. I would hope I'm wrong.