Nadal: under-appreciated or overrated ?

First topic message reminder :

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)

It Must Be Love wrote:Cheese fest ?

Also people are entitled to criticise Nadal and say how overrated he is on this thread, be my guest

The cheese was added by Tempo21, rightly so as I could not find a appropriate word and used a nasty one.

Will send a selection of some Swiss cheeses to tempo21 for xmass

As for Nadal, I've stated at the start of OP, that he is right where he belongs, not overrated nor underrated

Jahu wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Cheese fest ?

Also people are entitled to criticise Nadal and say how overrated he is on this thread, be my guest

The cheese was added by Tempo21, rightly so as I could not find a appropriate word and used a nasty one.

Will send a selection of some Swiss cheeses to tempo21 for xmass

As for Nadal, I've stated at the start of OP, that he is right where he belongs, not overrated nor underrated

 You forgot to add the rest of your comment "in my opinion".
  Like the rest of us you have one.. thanks for yours

In my opinion? Well I represent only my opinion, no point stating it.

Is this some Canadian advanced flirt model, as I never seen it before?

Behave yourself or it's all cheese again

overrated? underrated?

14 grand slam (winning all of them)
27 masters 1000
1 olimpic gold
4 davis cup
141 weeks as number 1
3 year end number 1

one of the greats of the sport, at least by his numbers

also

10 years in a row, winning at least 1 slam and 1 master 1000

and surely the best claycourter ever (9 roland garros, 8 montecarlo, 7 roma, 8 barcelona, 4 madrid/hamburg...)

and a title in CHILLEEEEE

LuvSports! wrote:and a title in CHILLEEEEE

He lost to Zeballos

legendkillarV2 wrote: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!

From his training yesterday

way overrated. He benefits from the fact that hardly any of the tour is on faster courts. If court speeds were how they should be, he would be shown to be poor outside of clay and slow hard.
Imagine Federer vs nadal on a fast grass court.... . the matches we will never see so the myth that nadal dominates fed on 'all surfaces' will continue.

^ I reckon Federer is way overrated. If they dug up all those cheap concrete courts and replaced them with clay (a surface that tennis was meant to be played on) there would be no GOAT discussion

But things are what they are and they are the conditions that players train for. Not fantasy ones.

Or replace them with grass courts given that's where tennis's true roots lie.

Either way it doesn't add anything to this discussion.

^ That was my point

Just seen this video. Nadal doesn't do all the pre serve routine here aged 17 I think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX30JIMNITk
When did it start? The short pull is there but after that there is no other shenanigans with the hair, face etc.

I watched highlights of the 2008 Wimbledon final yet again last night and I defy any tennis lover to tell me that either Federer or Nadal are overrated.. !! only those who are totally opposed to either player for their own personal reasons can make such claims. I will never forget that match and I doubt most of us on 606 will do either. And bearing in mind that Rafa had won Queens the week before; beating both Djokovic and Federer within a week on the green stuff !!!!

I can actually remember when a "fast court" was considered the cheaper, dirtier, less valuable surface to have, back in the 90's when people said you could win things with just one shot on it. Th idea that a slower court is somehow less valuable and requires less skill and tennis ability than a fast one is a relatively new concept, perhaps unsurprisingly it came up when Rafa and Roger appeared.

Wow, talk about missing the point spectacularly. My point is that if we had a proper variety of surfaces, Nadal would be doing a lot worse relative to how Federer would do. Can anyone honestly say nadal would beat Federer on 2000 grass?

To the people saying this is irrelevant, would you then consider pete the ultimate goat if the French open had been grass in 90's?

Nope, didn't think so. Favourable conditions have to be taken into account when assessing a players merit, at least for those us who think grass should be fast and clay should be slow.

Nadal might well beat Federer on 2000 grass. For a start Federer didnt play much on that grass either. Secondly Nadals shown to be able to apply is trade to Federer on a number of different surfaces.

Also Rogers won 17 slams on these slow surfaces, clearly it favours him too. Faster surfaces would put him at a more vulnerable position of being dumped out by a dangerous opponent.

Its a case of moving golposts, first he couldnt beat him on grass, then it was hardcourt, then it was indoor hardcourt, now its all these surfaces are basically clay anyway, I respect the difference of opinion on this but I dont personally agree.

In any case, this particular line would be better done on the sticky GOAT instead.

temporary21 wrote:Nadal might well beat Federer on 2000 grass. For a start Federer didnt play much on that grass either. Secondly Nadals shown to be able to apply is trade to Federer on a number of different surfaces.

Also Rogers won 17 slams on these slow surfaces, clearly it favours him too. Faster surfaces would put him at a more vulnerable position of being dumped out by a dangerous opponent.

Its a case of moving golposts, first he couldnt beat him on grass, then it was hardcourt, then it was indoor hardcourt, now its all these surfaces are basically clay anyway, I respect the difference of opinion on this but I dont personally agree.

In any case, this particular line would be better done on the sticky GOAT instead.

Depends on ones biased view I suppose

Just popping in, good to see the fangirls are still in full force.

bogbrush wrote:Just popping in, good to see the fangirls are still in full force.

Thanks bogbrush, where would we be without this useless insightful contribution...

OMG think its time for me to go to Church and pray for those who are looking for a life !!!!

temporary21 wrote:Nadal might well beat Federer on 2000 grass. For a start Federer didnt play much on that grass either. Secondly Nadals shown to be able to apply is trade to Federer on a number of different surfaces.

Also Rogers won 17 slams on these slow surfaces, clearly it favours him too. Faster surfaces would put him at a more vulnerable position of being dumped out by a dangerous opponent.

Its a case of moving golposts, first he couldnt beat him on grass, then it was hardcourt, then it was indoor hardcourt, now its all these surfaces are basically clay anyway, I respect the difference of opinion on this but I dont personally agree.

In any case, this particular line would be better done on the sticky GOAT instead.

'clearly it favours him to'... er no it just shows he was able to win 17 slams on current conditions. We have to look at their gamestyles to judge how they would do faster conditions.

By the by they slowed the aussie open in 2008. Could that have made a difference in 09 final?

Haddie-nuff wrote:OMG think its time for me to go to Church and pray for those who are looking for a life !!!!

Yes I expect the church suits you very well, both having beliefs which won't be relinquished no matter what the evidence

greengoblin wrote:Wow, talk about missing the point spectacularly. My point is that if we had a proper variety of surfaces, Nadal would be doing a lot worse relative to how Federer would do. Can anyone honestly say nadal would beat Federer on 2000 grass?

To the people saying this is irrelevant, would you then consider pete the ultimate goat if the French open had been grass in 90's?

Nope, didn't think so. Favourable conditions have to be taken into account when assessing a players merit, at least for those us who think grass should be fast and clay should be slow.

Might be worth having a look at Federer's record on 2000 grass before answering that.

greengoblin wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:OMG think its time for me to go to Church and pray for those who are looking for a life !!!!

Yes I expect the church suits you very well, both having beliefs which won't be relinquished no matter what the evidence

àà

You are treading a fine line here gg.

greengoblin wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:OMG think its time for me to go to Church and pray for those who are looking for a life !!!!

Yes I expect the church suits you very well, both having beliefs which won't be relinquished no matter what the evidence

To be fair, at least Nadal exists. Doesn't compare to religious belief.

bogbrush wrote:

greengoblin wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:OMG think its time for me to go to Church and pray for those who are looking for a life !!!!

Yes I expect the church suits you very well, both having beliefs which won't be relinquished no matter what the evidence

To be fair, at least Nadal exists. Doesn't compare to religious belief.

You never said a truer word BB However I did say one especially for you

>

Keep the religious remarks out please gentleman, theyre not for here.

temporary21 wrote:I can actually remember when a "fast court" was considered the cheaper, dirtier, less valuable surface to have, back in the 90's when people said you could win things with just one shot on it.

Is that true?  From what I remember Wimbledon was rated well above RG in the 90s and, in fact, RG was not very much rated at all - the media was portraying players that were successful there as oddball clay courters (Bruguera, Muster, Moya etc) who were almost playing a different sport.

Of course, part of my perception may be due to the fact I was living in North America in the 90s and Americans were never any good on clay, so the media coverage may have been different here from elsewhere.

I remember that back in the 80s, when I was growing up in Europe, I had a feel (presumably based on what I saw and read in the media there) that Wimbledon was #1 and RG #2.  But when I was in America in the 90s, the pecking order here had the USO above RG (Wimbledon being viewed as tops here too).

Haddie-nuff wrote:I watched highlights of the 2008 Wimbledon final yet again last night and I defy any tennis lover to tell me that either Federer or Nadal are overrated.. !! only those who are totally opposed to either player for their own personal reasons can make such claims. I will never forget that match and I doubt most of us on 606 will do either.   And bearing in mind that Rafa had won Queens the week before; beating both Djokovic and Federer within a week on the green stuff !!!!

Interestingly, even though this describes both you and socal, neither of you have ever claimed that Federer is overrated (or boring, or a poor player) which is to your credit

You just really don't like him! And think that Nadal is GOAT, which is fair enough (and for a different thread of course).

Silver wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:I watched highlights of the 2008 Wimbledon final yet again last night and I defy any tennis lover to tell me that either Federer or Nadal are overrated.. !! only those who are totally opposed to either player for their own personal reasons can make such claims. I will never forget that match and I doubt most of us on 606 will do either.   And bearing in mind that Rafa had won Queens the week before; beating both Djokovic and Federer within a week on the green stuff !!!!

Interestingly, even though this describes both you and socal, neither of you have ever claimed that Federer is overrated (or boring, or a poor player) which is to your credit

You just really don't like him! And think that Nadal is GOAT, which is fair enough (and for a different thread of course).

Thank you Silver I hope that your comments are noted by others. You are right in saying I dont like Federer but never have I, or would I, suggest for one moment he isn't a great player, same for Novak. It is the one thing that goads me when I see posts suggesting that Nadal is overrated and doesn't deserve to be considered amongst the greats. His style of play is not to everyone's liking and I fully understand that.. he doesn't play like Fed for which I am personally grateful.. Whether I think he is the GOAT??? Ill let you know if he can manage to reach 33yrs plus in his career.. some way to go yet  with my fingers crossed  so "stand by your bed" !!!!!

I would say it's quite obvious that here on 606v2 Nadal is very much under-appreciated. The top three articles on this site are 1) A GOAT discussion where his claim to be included is constantly being disputed 2) An weaselly argument to negate his achievements on non clay surfaces and 3) A thread that invites views on why he is overrated.

Nadal may be under-appreciated here by some for his play but as far as being the most popular player to talk about he is the GOAT

I would say he is a polarising figure that's for sure. However, sadly this day and age with all the social media and power of the internet the attention is on athletes that are disliked more than the athletes who are well liked. I have no doubt that if we lived in a time without these outlets that maybe Nadal would be appreciated much more. I know Bleacher Report are not keen on Nadal and any success is credited to rather ehanced 'favourable' conditions.

As a guy. I have no problem with him. He seems nice, well spoken and respectful. I don't take personal offence to his tennis like some do.

He just needs a man hug!

hawkeye wrote:I would say it's quite obvious that here on 606v2 Nadal is very much under-appreciated. The top three articles on this site are 1) A GOAT discussion where his claim to be included is constantly being disputed 2) An weaselly argument to negate his achievements on non clay surfaces and 3) A thread that invites views on why he is overrated.

Nadal may be under-appreciated here by some for his play but as far as being the most popular player to talk about he is the GOAT

Your absolutely right HE .. there is always SOMETHING to say about Nadal. As I have remarked before..
love him or hate him but you cannot ignore him

You can't gnore him, but you can ignore his horny fans and also his Academy

hawkeye wrote:I would say it's quite obvious that here on 606v2 Nadal is very much under-appreciated. The top three articles on this site are 1) A GOAT discussion where his claim to be included is constantly being disputed 2) An weaselly argument to negate his achievements on non clay surfaces and 3) A thread that invites views on why he is overrated.

Is that a reference to CAS's thread?

If so, you quite bewildered.

Great clip:

It Must Be Love wrote:Great clip:

It never ceases to surprise me that his opponents, some of which have played him numerous times, get caught out by the infamous forehand passing shot down the line.. (not to be viewed by Jahu or others of a nervous disposition !!! )

I am the most chilled spiteless friendly person here.

Keep mentioning my name every day here, just cause I'm not dating you

How can anyone who loves tennis not appreciate a guy who works as hard as he does?

As for those who don't like him, I believe this hard work ethic is one of the reasons why he's away from the game so much with injuries.

erictheblueuk wrote:How can anyone who loves tennis not appreciate a guy who works as hard as he does?

As for those who don't like him, I believe this hard work ethic is one of the reasons why he's away from the game so much with injuries.

Spot on.. sometimes I wonder if the love of tennis is a priority here.. its not a prerequisite to like a player in order to appreciate what he contributes to the sport

HM Murdoch wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I would say it's quite obvious that here on 606v2 Nadal is very much under-appreciated. The top three articles on this site are 1) A GOAT discussion where his claim to be included is constantly being disputed 2) An weaselly argument to negate his achievements on non clay surfaces and 3) A thread that invites views on why he is overrated.

Is that a reference to CAS's thread?

If so, you quite bewildered.

I guess it is, was a genuine question and something I had thought about for a while as I feel its quite close. Don't appreciate being called 'weaselly' some people are so defensive of their favourite player on here they refuse to have an open mind. The silly thing is, if I phrased it "is Nadal better on hard than Novak and Federer are on clay?' There would be no issue, despite it being the same question.

erictheblueuk wrote:How can anyone who loves tennis not appreciate a guy who works as hard as he does?

As for those who don't like him, I believe this hard work ethic is one of the reasons why he's away from the game so much with injuries.

Can I just ask if you are implying that his work ethic is higher than all others on tour and hence this accounts for the injury record?

See I don't buy that the harder you work, the more injury prone you become. All tennis pro's work equally as hard as each other.

I for one, won't speculate that Nadal's injuries are just a direct result of his style of play. There could be any number of 'natural' weaknesses in his body we simply don't know about. All players play with niggles and injuries. It is just a case some injuries are more severe than others and how it is managed by the players and their staff. Some even aggrevate and worsen an injury. Given the ambition of most of the tennis pro's, the thought of missing tournaments where they are defending/gaining points is a scary prospect.

I believe tennis does not allow much in the way of a recovery period for the players.

I don't think all tennis pros put the same work in. I would be amazed if Gulbis trains as hard as Rafa. However, whilst that is to be admired I don't see it as a reason to appreciate him. Otherwise, we would all have to appreciate Ferrer more than probably any other player.

In this article, I think the reference to under-appreciation was querying whether his talent/ability levels are fully appreciated. There are definitely a lot of people around who say he has only been as successful due to slowing conditions and his freakish stamina and therefore don't regard him as even in the same league as Fed.

Why would that be a surprise? Given the year he has had breaking the top 10, that doesn't come without the hard yards.

Born Slippy wrote:I don't think all tennis pros put the same work in. I would be amazed if Gulbis trains as hard as Rafa. However, whilst that is to be admired I don't see it as a reason to appreciate him. Otherwise, we would all have to appreciate Ferrer more than probably any other player.

In this article, I think the reference to under-appreciation was querying whether his talent/ability levels are fully appreciated. There are definitely a lot of people around who say he has only been as successful due to slowing conditions and his freakish stamina and therefore don't regard him as even in the same league as Fed.

O we know there are definitely a lot of people around who would make such ridiculous claims .. some of which are on this forum.. they are called FED FANS

A minority of them though Haddie

It Must Be Love wrote:A minority of them though Haddie

I did say some  IMBL

nadal has always been underrated by some

first saying he was only a claycourter, then when he started winning offclay slams, saying it was all due to all surfaces being only different colours of clay.

he has also been overrated by those who say he is the goat. he cant be, as he has never dominated fully. untill 2008 it was federer the clear king, and since 2011 it is djokovic the one in charge (except for 2013)

for me nadal is already one of the top 5 alltime greats, but some may think that is overrating him...

Djokovic dominated 2011 no doubt but after 2011 Nadal has won more Slams than Djokovic, despite being injured for prolonged periods.

If you see till 2014 (this year):
2005-2014 (the last decade) Nadal has won most Slams
2006-2014 Nadal has won most Slams
2007-2014 Nadal has won most Slams
2008-2014 Nadal has won most Slams
2009-2014 Nadal has won most Slams
2010-2014 Nadal has won most Slams
2011-2014 Djokovic has won most Slams
2012-2014 Nadal has won most Slams
2013-2014 Nadal has won most Slams