Just How Good Is Rafael Nadal?

First topic message reminder :

Personally I think he's very good indeed. I'm curious to know how he is regarded here on 606v2. I know that certain posters don't rate him that highly... but they could be the vocal minority. The overall consensus may be very different.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Nah just inexperience and temperment. Fed slayed his Henman demon at what was it wimbledon 2006. The other players, well he was young and inexperienced then. Not everyone can be a tennis machine from 17 years of age like Rafa.

Come on, Henman was a pretty washed up 32 year old in 2006 who retired not long afterwards.
Federer was on his best season ever, plus Sw19 in 2006 was alient to the courts Henman grew up on.
Had Federer played Henman in the mid-late 90s he would have really struggled - even Sampras was pushed by him at Wimbledon, and remember it was only the fast-grass genius of Sampras (and rain of 2001) in the 90s that pretty much kept Henman away from the finals. Otherwise he had great records against the other 90s fast court players like Kafelnikov and Krajicek.

lydian wrote:Maybe emancipator, and there is validity to your argument of course.

However, I genuinely believe Nadal is a different beast to Muster (who only got to FO final once and won it - his record at the other clay 'majors' wasnt that great either). Nadal is clearly a clay courter but his ability to win at Queens (fast court) and SW19 (no matter how much they have slowed they're still a fast-ish court) shows he has ability far beyond Muster/other 90s clay specialists. He's no true fast court player, and never will be, but he's got the talent to adapt his game nonetheless.

No matter what your style of play, talent is talent...and great talent finds a way to win.

Yes.. I think that's a fair assessment. I was being overly harsh on Rafa. I do however stand by my statement that he has been a bigger beneficiary of the prevailing conditions than Federer simply from an understanding of their respective styles.

That may well be emancipator (Nadal being bigger beneficiary), but I think Federer - having a clay base to his game - has also benefitted greatly too. Whereas for example slowing down was the death knell for guys like Henman and others brought up the true S&V way.

lydian wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Nah just inexperience and temperment. Fed slayed his Henman demon at what was it wimbledon 2006. The other players, well he was young and inexperienced then. Not everyone can be a tennis machine from 17 years of age like Rafa.

Come on, Henman was a pretty washed up 32 year old in 2006 who retired not long afterwards.
Federer was on his best season ever, plus Sw19 in 2006 was alient to the courts Henman grew up on.
Had Federer played Henman in the mid-late 90s he would have really struggled - even Sampras was pushed by him at Wimbledon, and remember it was only the fast-grass genius of Sampras (and rain of 2001) in the 90s that pretty much kept Henman away from the finals. Otherwise he had great records against the other 90s fast court players like Kafelnikov and Krajicek.

Henman was a good fast court player unlucky not to make the Wimbledon finals but Fed turned the head to head back around and I'm sure he did this in fast conditions before 2006. If we're to believe that players' skill keeps on improving then Henman still had something in him on the surfaces that remained quick.

Just out of interest, how do we define fastness of court? Will it be ratio of average serve speed (x) and average return speed (y) of say a few top 5 players of the time minus the wind factor? y could be return to serve or return which wonn the point in a rally. Maybe it has been quantified already.

Manojchandra wrote:Just out of interest, how do we define fastness of court? Will it be ratio of average serve speed (x) and average return speed (y) of say a few top 5 players of the time minus the wind factor? y could be return to serve or return which wonn the point in a rally. Maybe it has been quantified already.

Very good question. I'll try to answer it later....

Henman up to 2004 was 6-1 up against Federer, and believe that loss involved an injury to Henman. Lets not forget by 2004 Henman was 30 years old.
On carpets Henman is 3-0 overall if you want to judge relative fast court prowess....one of those carpet matches was in 2004 (Rotterdam).
Henman remained a strong player no doubt up to 2004 but he was plagued by a shoulder injury from his late 20s and it reduced the speed of his serve remarkably from 130s to around 120mph, often mid 110s.
My point is only that Federer did often struggle against true fast court players on fast courts...but there are none of them around in recent years, and I wouldnt even call Llodra/Stepanek amazing fast court players, just that they play a more S&V style - and stand out because they do so.

Fast courts used to be defined as indoor carpet, or grass (when both Queens and Wimbledon were 100% rye). I'm not sure if there are actually any truly fast courts left on tour now...maybe Rotterdam? (and even thats probably slower than before)

Wasn't the US open fast back then? Henman was still a competitor at 30 years old. It's easier to see Fed adapting to fast courts than slow ones.

US Open slowed alot after 2003 - there is a link to it being discussed on the net but I've no idea where it is. Involves ball changes, much grittier paint to grip the ball.

lydian wrote:US Open slowed alot after 2003 - there is a link to it being discussed on the net but I've no idea where it is. Involves ball changes, much grittier paint to grip the ball.

But it was still to fast for Nadal..till 2010!

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:US Open slowed alot after 2003 - there is a link to it being discussed on the net but I've no idea where it is. Involves ball changes, much grittier paint to grip the ball.

But it was still to fast for Nadal..till 2010!

But that wouldn't change Fed being the more immediate beneficiary to slower conditions.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:US Open slowed alot after 2003 - there is a link to it being discussed on the net but I've no idea where it is. Involves ball changes, much grittier paint to grip the ball.

But it was still to fast for Nadal..till 2010!

But that wouldn't change Fed being the more immediate beneficiary to slower conditions.

But as I said earlier....who woudl be the beneficiary of faster courts? Llodra? Stepanek?

Frankly who out there coudl beat Pete on fast grass? I wonder? Henman?

So Tenez? SF-SF-W-F for 08-11 is hardly a disgrace is it.
Funny how Federer also didnt win USO until after it slowed down enough for him to exert his backcourt game...before 2004 that he didnt get past 4th round. Lost to faster-court player Nalby in 2003, and faster-court player Mirnyi in 2002(!).

Well he didn't become Federer until 2003.

But Tenez is basically saying he was already a "tennis god" by beating Sampras in 2001...so which is it? Great before 2003 or after?

I think that mental strength might have evolved a bit as well. Nowadays we don't expect to see a player take out someone big and then just fold in the next match. In 2001 he learnt about managing his mentality. He was overcome by emotion after that match. I'd say after his first slam, his mentality came together as at the time he may have felt that he himself had overachieved so probably put less pressure on himself from there on. Nalbandian has always been able to live with Fed no matter how well Fed is playing.

Lydian, you dislike of Federer is stronger than you. I agree that I am not a fan of Nadal's game, but I explain why and the reason I provide make perfect sense.

Whereas you go on trying to discredit Federer's achievement at every corner coming with the most laughable arguments. Now we learn that the USO slowed down in 2003 and this allowed Federer to finally win there as well. I guess on fast surfaces, we woudl have had Henman winning the USO for another 3 years I guess, and you know what Henman woudl have won the FO as well for 3 years cause he could play both on fast and slow surfaces. Unluky for Henman, The slowing of teh USO did not suit him, no more than the fast grass nor the slow FO. But of course Fed made the most out of those slow conds stealing all the slams from Henman, Llodra and Stepanek....oh and now Mirnyi . Of course no coincidence that Federer was hitting 23 in 2004 and that made him a mature and confident enough player to win everything.

The fact that Federer beat Kraji, Goran on multiple occasions even on carpet and Pete on lightening fast grass, serve and volleying is irrelevant. ..because of course in 2001 the gass was slow and Rafter and Goran were already adpating their games to long rallies....

Lydian, you must be on that magic potion Noah was talking about!

lydian wrote:But Tenez is basically saying he was already a "tennis god" by beating Sampras in 2001...so which is it? Great before 2003 or after?

Not difficult to understand...everybody coudl see that Federer was a huge talent very early on. On the day he coudl beat anyone already then....but to be noticed he needed to string the matches one after the other, 7 in a row in fact. And that consistency came in 2003, even 2004 to be precise.

he took off confidence wise. That are the words Hewitt used after his thrashing at teh USO 04.

Not sure I buy that Bit5. He wasnt overcome by emotion, he was overcome by Henman.

Personally I think Sampras was more and more washed up by end of 2000...carrying chronic injuries to his back, and had poor recovery from injury and between matches due to his genetic thalassemia. After all 12 mths later he lost to that great player Bastl in the 1st round, a player not even fit to lace his shoes 3-4 years before. As we know he was still able to pull out the odd great result but he just wasnt a force anymore after 99 really. I also think he lost alot of motivation after getting married and breaking Emerson's slam record in 2000.

I didn't mean to imply he was still feeling the same when the time to play Henman came. I'm just saying that the win against Sampras was a big win which may have taken more mental reserves than he'd anticipated as that was the biggest win of his career at that point. For example, how far did George Bastl get after he beat Sampras.

I think Sampras in general must definitely have been at a career low at the point he played Federer but as the match was competitive, he'd raised his level above what had become usual. He was the defending champ after all and must have had every intention of holding on to his title. It's like how Agassi raised his level to play some good matches with Fed or even when Fed raised his level for the wimbledon 2008 final despite bad play throughout most of the year prior.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:
I think Sampras in general must definitely have been at a career low at the point he played Federer but as the match was competitive, he'd raised his level above what had become usual. He was the defending champ after all and must have had every intention of holding on to his title. It's like how Agassi raised his level to play some good matches with Fed or even when Fed raised his level for the wimbledon 2008 final despite bad play throughout most of the year prior.

Pete was not at a career low, no more than in 93 when he won a tight 4 setter b Browick in 93, Braasch in 95 or a tight 5 setter v Korda in 97 in his most dominant year. As Pete said himself, Pete 02 would beat Pete 97 anytime. It's just that it doesn;t suit Lydian. He had won 4 Wimbledon on the trott and was very keen to get his 5th. We just have to see the returns of Federer that day! They were amazing for the time. Much more noticeable than any drop of form you coudl see from a player whose main strength is the serve. The serve is one of teh shot that suffer least over time.

Match point was even a return winner off Pete's first serve.

Very good indeed. At 25 he could well go on to top Federers slam count. I enjoy watching him play.

But needs to stay 100% for the next few years

Tenez wrote: Pete was not at a career low, no more than in 93 when he won a tight 4 setter b Browick in 93, Braasch in 95 or a tight 5 setter v Korda in 97 in his most dominant year. As Pete said himself, Pete 02 would beat Pete 97 anytime. It's just that it doesn;t suit Lydian. He had won 4 Wimbledon on the trott and was very keen to get his 5th. We just have to see the returns of Federer that day! They were amazing for the time. Much more noticeable than any drop of form you coudl see from a player whose main strength is the serve. The serve is one of teh shot that suffer least over time.

Sometimes tenez I really think you make it up as you go along!
You come up with stuff thats simply untrue.
Shall we once again look at facts? Rather than your biased opinions.

From 93 to 00 Sampras Y/E ranking was 1,1,1,1,1,1,3,3.....then Y/E 2001? 10.
So you say not at a career low? Yes he was!
In 2001 for the first time since 1990 he didnt make the World Tour Finals.
In 2001 for the first time since 1989 he did not win a title on tour and was barely reaching finals.
His win:loss for the year was 36-16! His lowest % since he started being active on tour!
He was playing less and less, and practising less and less.
He had chronic back problems and tendonitis in his legs from the previous year - which made him practice even less.
His anemia meant recovery from matches and injuries was getting tougher.
Does this sound like a player in his peak to you?

So infact he was a good bit slower from mid-2000 onwards.
Due to lack of practice and reduced recovery between matches he began to rely on his serve more and more.
For example, in the SF of USO2001 his average 2nd serve speed was 85mph, but in the QF it had been 115mph!
Why's that? Because he was simply knackered after beating Agassi in a no-breaks long late night match - he couldnt recover anymore.
But in general his av. 2nd serve speed went up markedly so he could try to win points outright.
He also became more and more half-hearted and laboured in his play during sets, just hanging in then looking for a break of serve late on.
Then against Bastl in 2002 he was even slower, ridiculously slow.

So to say Sampras '02 was better than '97 version is laughable. Show me the quote please??? (I'm not holding my breath...)
Maybe in the serving dept. but nowhere else.
You're just trying to big up the win for Federer but the truth is that from mid-2000 Sampras went into serious decline (and he wasnt even that great across 2000).
Believe what you will tenez, but 2001 Sampras was already on his way out of the tennis door.

Typical Lydian! When it suits you, you have no problem saying that Federer's playing at his best now and that his best is not good enough to win slams outside the "weak era" but when it comes to Pete, you comes with age, illness, low form excuses like you do for Nadal.

Lydina: So to say Sampras '02 was better than '97 version is laughable

Let's have a laugh then!

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/last-match-was-best-i-ever-played-says-sampras-577514.html

Link is now broken...but many read the original version here:



Many among the cognoscenti would point to 1993-97 - when he collected nine of his majors - as his prime. But Sampras contends: "The best tennis I played was when I was older. I wasn't as consistent week in and week out but that match I played against Andre [Agassi] at the 2002 US Open - my last match ever - was the highest level I have ever played.


"Everyone was getting better when I was No 1 in the world and winning majors left and right. I was 10 times the player as I got older. When I was dominating I didn't have any bad matches and players overall weren't as good. The 2002 US Open Pete would beat the 1994 or 1995 Pete easily."


Sampras clarifies why he believes he was better later in his career. "I served-and-volleyed a lot more on my second serve in the mid-to-late Nineties, and started using it more as a weapon. It was worth a few double faults to go for big second serves. The more I came in behind the second serve, the more effective a volleyer I became."

I think Sampras is getting misty-eyed with emotion when making that comment. For me he was definitely on the wane by 2001, but some Federer fans like to overplay that victory.

The other thing that strikes me is amidst all the talk of slow Wimbledon, Roddick reached the final in the year between Nadal's victories so it isn't that slow. Just look at Roddick's record on clay to see the disparity. Sure, it has got slower but again this is exaggerated.

Agree Positively4thSt. - I think Sampras was being nostalgic and getting carried away about his form in that one perfect-time-to-retire match at USO'02.
His form outside US'02 was woeful for 2002 and the year before. Rather than focus on the one last match that made him all misty-eyed, if we look at his form across his last 2 seasons these selection of reports before he retired paint a very different picture:

BBC Sports Report, June 2001 (pre-Wimbledon)
Pete Sampras may have hit terrible form in his build up for Wimbledon - but write him off at your peril, says BBC Sport Online's Mark Jolly. The world number one is in disastrous form, with everyone writing him off. During the clay court season that preceded Wimbledon, Sampras looked a hapless figure. Away from Wimbledon, there is no doubt his powers are diminishing. His last win in any of the other Grand Slams came four years ago and his outings in the smaller tournaments are so rare he could be accused of being semi-retired.

Guardian report, September 2001
Although all athletes judge their efforts in terms of end product, perhaps more worrying for Sampras than his diminishing returns is the manner of his defeats. He was a pale shadow of his former self last night, succumbing 7-6 6-1 6-1 to a scarcely-believing Hewitt, in a weak display which shocked the New York crowd. Perhaps that defeat was the real turning point for Sampras, for he has endured a terrible year. These days when his serve falters, as it did last night, he appears like a sitting duck...at the age of 30, the Pistol can no longer compete.

BBC Sports Report, Sept. 2001
Pete Sampras is hoping to embarrass his critics by avenging last year's final defeat against Marat Safin in Saturday's US Open semi-final.
The former world number one has not won a tournament since claiming a record 13th Grand Slam title at last year's Wimbledon. Sampras admits that his form has been poor in 2001. "It has been a disappointing year," he said. "What I don't appreciate is retirement talk. It has gotten a bit carried away".

Sports JRank article, early 2002:
In 2001, suffering from injuries and a step slower, for the first time in eight seasons, Sampras went without a Grand Slam championship title, although he reached the finals of the U.S. Open.

April 2002:
Two-time Grand Slam champion Yevgeny Kafelnikov today leveled the harshest criticism of Pete Sampras to date, speaking from Moscow after Russia secured its Davis Cup quarterfinal victory over Sweden. "I think Pete should think of quitting," Kafelnikov said, "His losses should tell him something," the 28-year-old Kafelnikov said, "and I think it is a disrespect to himself to keep playing."

Jun 2002: AP Reuters
The four set loss to Italian journeyman Andrea Gaudenzi at Roland Garros capped a disastrous clay court season — it was his third straight first round loss. "I just stayed home — I feel sorry for my wife, she had to live with it," he said. "But it wasn't just the French, it's been the whole disappointing year."
Sampras, caught in a two-year title drought, may have to win at Wimbledon, which starts in two weeks, or his naysayers will grow. Some say the 30-year-old's reign at the top isn't just over but that he can't compete with the best anymore. But Sampras said he was just trying to turn around the deepest slump of his career. Still, Sampras finished 2001 failing to win a title and only 40 victories for the first time since 1989. The last year before 2001 a grand slam eluded him was 1992, also the last year he finished ranked out of the Top 5.

Pete Sampras, June 2002:
Q. How much of your tennis right now is a fight against age as opposed to the guy on the other side of the net?
PETE SAMPRAS: It's a little bit of both. Like I said, guys are a little bit more confident against me. I'm maybe not, you know, quite as sharp as I used to be. And, you know, you lose a little bit of confidence, and it's been showing all year. You know, I'm just going to have to stop here and just kind of reflect a little bit but also not, you know, get too down.

Does all this sound like a player playing better than ever - indeed according to him to be better than his prime years? No-one agrees with him! Seems that the post-retirement Sampras got abit too nostalgic, all pretty much based on going out on a high at USO'02 where he was fortunate enough to meet an older player than himself, a player who always made him raise his level (arguably his best 2 matches since 2000 were against Agassi at USO'01 & 02). Infact, players are quite often not the best assessors of their own form/career. From 2001 onwards most observers and even other players who'd played against him didnt think he was a better player than in his prime, indeed they were wishing retirement on him to put him out of his misery. Only a blind man (or a misty-eyed, nostalgic Sampras or tenez) would fail to realise that the guy was woefully out of form, fitness/speed and confidence in 2001 and 2002. Everyone else did!

So now that you hear it from the horse's mouth, you question the horse's mental state.

So as you don;t believe Pete's own words, do not want to trust your own eyes that Pete's 2001 match v Federer and his match v Agassi in USO 02 were played at a very high standard, have I got any chance to coinvince you that Pete was playing well in 2001?

Typical denial once again.

But the funniest part is that you have no problem confirming that, on the other hand, Federer plays his best at 30. Is that a coincidence again that your saavy reasoning systematically falls on discrediting Fed's achievements. I don't think there is a single case in your 10 years of posting on 606 where Fed's achievements were against the odds. Be it slow grass, fast courts, old Pete, young Rafa, Rafa tired etc.....whatever he achieved was helped by "special conditions".

It's getting comical.

Pete lost v Federer. It was a very close match and that's end of story. Pete showed that when his serve was returned, he was pretty human. Federer was only going to improve from there and showed amazing adaptability by being able to beat players from the baselines who used to thrash him. Give him fast conds again, and no-one will be able to stop him. Why? simple, he still has teh quickest hands out there.

Not sure how this thread has descended into a 'comparative' of players achievements.

I am a fan of Nadal's game. It is a tad extreme and naive to suggest Delpo gave up the ghost against Nadal in the DC. Delpo has the power to blast anyone off the court and if he can't sustain that, shows he is unable to match his peak of 2009.

I like Nadal's FH and also his BH up and down the line, until now when it has just vanished. Either into the net or long out of the court. I think his success at the US Open 2010 goes very under-rated given the adjustment to his serve that he made to achieve that feat. Similar to Rog in 2009 at the French Open when adopted the drop shot to win cheap points and he himself admitted he hated using the shot because it was 'ugly and cheap'

Nadal will be in the top 5 of all time greats no doubt, I find it amusing people bash his style and yet a fans of Djokovic and Murray when they are more or less the same in many areas of their games. Some describe Nadal as boring or lungs, but what has made his rivalry with Federer so intriguing is making the impossible possible. Retriving shots which on any other day would be winners. Sometimes it takes a player like Nadal just to make Federer look mortal. Why did fans cheer for Agassi v Sampras? Because he could return the guy's serve. Some cheered McEnroe v Borg because he could hang with Borg. People cheered Edberg v Becker because he could defend Becker's power. Thats why some like Nadal because he can blunt Federer's game. Nadal if anything has added to Federer's legacy. It shows there was someone out there who could challenge him.

Take Nadal's rivalry with Djokovic. That will be more of an Iron Man contest. People will cheer Djokovic because he will flat out attack Nadal.

Rivalries a built on foundations such as contrast.

Positively 4th Street wrote:I think Sampras is getting misty-eyed with emotion when making that comment. For me he was definitely on the wane by 2001, but some Federer fans like to overplay that victory.

Maybe Sampras was on the wane but I would argue he was nearer his peak than Federer was. I mean after that match he went on to win a slam before Federer did.

erictheblueuk wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:I think Sampras is getting misty-eyed with emotion when making that comment. For me he was definitely on the wane by 2001, but some Federer fans like to overplay that victory.

Maybe Sampras was on the wane but I would argue he was nearer his peak than Federer was. I mean after that match he went on to win a slam before Federer did.

Awesome logic brilliant!!

Fedex_the_best wrote:

erictheblueuk wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:I think Sampras is getting misty-eyed with emotion when making that comment. For me he was definitely on the wane by 2001, but some Federer fans like to overplay that victory.

Maybe Sampras was on the wane but I would argue he was nearer his peak than Federer was. I mean after that match he went on to win a slam before Federer did.

Awesome logic brilliant!!

Or you could say that after that match Sampras won one slam, and Federer sixteen. Also performance is not symmetrical about a 'peak', so pre- and post-peak are different. That's true even for a single player, let alone comparing two.

Anyway, I think we can agree that neither were at their peak so I wouldn't read a lot in to it. To me it showed Federer was a real talent, but I have seen comments citing this as evidence of Federer being greater than Sampras. As a statisitican, seeing a conclusion from a sample of one grates. To balance this I have seen Nadal's win over Federer when he was 17 be used in a similar, in my view, erroneous, way.

legendkiller

I have been checking this thread reguarly and waiting for someone to admit to being a "fan" of Nadal. Your comment that you are "a fan of Nadal's game" is the first and only admission. I would like to award you with the 606v2 award for bravery. I'm not sure I have the authority to do this but if I did I would...

I thought you already knew I was a Nadal fan hawkeye. Can I have one of your gold certificates you mentioned on another thread?

Positively 4th Street

You didn't mention you were a fan! Now that you have of course you too can have a 606v2 award for bravery (when suitable authority is granted).

As for the gold embossed certificates. They are a little bit more tricky to obtain. You just have to win a set off Nadal on clay. Good luck!

I think I've made it clear before what my view on Nadal is. I'm not a huge fan of his game, but I admire him tremendously for his on-court attitude, and have a huge amount of respect for him as a person and for what he's achieved in the game.

I don't feel I need an award Hawkeye. I think you find that there are posters on this site that are 'fans' of his game. I think posters that aren't have been subjected to much 'perving' of Nadal and not of his tennis.

The guy does have a game which is watchable. When he plays Federer or Murray or even Delpo, people would watch because they have different shots that can unsettle Nadal. When Nadal faces Djokovic, for me anyway the quality of tennis comes in at second to spacing out energy levels over thew duration of the match which by all means calculated gambling much than playing 'riskier' tennis.

Lots of big awards/certificates being handed out here !

Hope there's enough to go round ......

Greedy John Isner has already bagged two (in one tourney) in the special "Taking A Set off Nadal on Clay" category

Mad for Chelsea

In some ways what you have admitted is even more brave here on 606v2 than admitting you are a fan of his "game". Of course you can have an award for bravery too (pending authority being granted).

Did you watch his match with Del Potro this weekend? If not I can recommend it.

bits of it hawkeye, interrupted it for some rugby at one point, but caught the first set, and most of the last two. I thought it was a cracking match, some great rallies, and wonderful shot-making from both players. Even more enjoyable to watch as I was pretty neutral about the result (on one hand I thought it would be nice for Rafa to end on a high note, on the other I was thinking a deciding fifth rubber would be fun ).

legendkillar wrote:I don't feel I need an award Hawkeye. I think you find that there are posters on this site that are 'fans' of his game. I think posters that aren't have been subjected to much 'perving' of Nadal and not of his tennis.

The guy does have a game which is watchable. When he plays Federer or Murray or even Delpo, people would watch because they have different shots that can unsettle Nadal. When Nadal faces Djokovic, for me anyway the quality of tennis comes in at second to spacing out energy levels over thew duration of the match which by all means calculated gambling much than playing 'riskier' tennis.

Ok then I will take it back... I'm not sure I would have been able to award it now anyway as you don't sound that brave. In fact you sound a little scared that people might think you like him because he is cute. You didn't have to worry because of course no one would have thought that.

Good that you find his game watchable. Don't you think Nadal has shots that can disturb other players?

Wow, an outbreak of some Nadal likeability on this forum!
I'm just waiting for his biggest secret fan to come out...goes by a French name I believe

Basically I don't like him much although I recognize his value as a player. I usually support the player who is playing against, but don't ask me why, I have no idea!

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I don't feel I need an award Hawkeye. I think you find that there are posters on this site that are 'fans' of his game. I think posters that aren't have been subjected to much 'perving' of Nadal and not of his tennis.

The guy does have a game which is watchable. When he plays Federer or Murray or even Delpo, people would watch because they have different shots that can unsettle Nadal. When Nadal faces Djokovic, for me anyway the quality of tennis comes in at second to spacing out energy levels over thew duration of the match which by all means calculated gambling much than playing 'riskier' tennis.

Ok then I will take it back... I'm not sure I would have been able to award it now anyway as you don't sound that brave. In fact you sound a little scared that people might think you like him because he is cute. You didn't have to worry because of course no one would have thought that.

Good that you find his game watchable. Don't you think Nadal has shots that can disturb other players?

Hawkeye,

Yes, Nadal does have shots to disturb other players. That is why he has such a good H2H against Federer. He blunts his game. Ok it isn't the most pleasing on the eye, but it gets the job done. When he attacks he is brutal, He does have the power in his groundstrokes to attack players. Ask Murray. I think what may frustrate the 'pure' tennis fan is that when he plays Federer or Djokovic he tends to throw in so many 'soft' groundstrokes and the percentage for error for the opponent is higher. I think if he came out and attacked Federer or Djokovic he may gain better reconition from their followers.

Nadal's FH is the most unique I have seen purely because of the action it involves in executing it and the depth and variety he has on it is stunning. His BH down and up the line is unmatched, especially on the run and the amount of times he wrong foots players with it is insane.

Yes I like his tennis, but other tennis puriests won't.

But what is a tennis "purist"?
I play tennis with a SHBH (topspin or slice) and play an attacking net game yet I enjoy watching Nadal play. I think there can be a little too much snobbery applied to what constitutes good tennis sometimes.
Nadal can be a very attacking player when he chooses - indeed when the pressure is on he becomes even more attacking, which is to his credit. There is no way he beat Federer for the loss of 3-4 games at FO 08 by playing a defensive game, Roger got blown off court that day. But this year Nadal (despite a good run in finals, etc) hasnt been the same player, he's been less attacking, hitting midcourt balls, low on confidence but on form as LK says he can execute a range of shots and pull players in all different directions.

legendkillar wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I don't feel I need an award Hawkeye. I think you find that there are posters on this site that are 'fans' of his game. I think posters that aren't have been subjected to much 'perving' of Nadal and not of his tennis.

The guy does have a game which is watchable. When he plays Federer or Murray or even Delpo, people would watch because they have different shots that can unsettle Nadal. When Nadal faces Djokovic, for me anyway the quality of tennis comes in at second to spacing out energy levels over thew duration of the match which by all means calculated gambling much than playing 'riskier' tennis.

Ok then I will take it back... I'm not sure I would have been able to award it now anyway as you don't sound that brave. In fact you sound a little scared that people might think you like him because he is cute. You didn't have to worry because of course no one would have thought that.

Good that you find his game watchable. Don't you think Nadal has shots that can disturb other players?

Hawkeye,

Yes, Nadal does have shots to disturb other players. That is why he has such a good H2H against Federer. He blunts his game. Ok it isn't the most pleasing on the eye, but it gets the job done. When he attacks he is brutal, He does have the power in his groundstrokes to attack players. Ask Murray. I think what may frustrate the 'pure' tennis fan is that when he plays Federer or Djokovic he tends to throw in so many 'soft' groundstrokes and the percentage for error for the opponent is higher. I think if he came out and attacked Federer or Djokovic he may gain better reconition from their followers.

Nadal's FH is the most unique I have seen purely because of the action it involves in executing it and the depth and variety he has on it is stunning. His BH down and up the line is unmatched, especially on the run and the amount of times he wrong foots players with it is insane.

Yes I like his tennis, but other tennis puriests won't.

LK

You have reminded me of some of the reasons why I am not incredibly keen on Nadal.

There is no question the guy is very tactically aware. He sometimes, though, appears to be so a little too much, exploiting tactics to the extremes to grab a win: and I mean all the funny things we have already discussed as: well timed MTOs, delays of all sorts and exaxperating moonballing on the backside......

lydian I would say tennis purists are those that claim to remain 'neutral' yes Nadal blew Federer off the court at FO 08, but that was after Roger had attacked from the off and by the end of the 2nd set and especially the 3rd his confidence had sucked out from him, but that is not to take away from Nadal and how well he played, but there haven't been many performances by Nadal that has 'blown' Federer away. He does have the game to it mind you.

I just think some fans are bewildered and some what in denial about the fact that a player in Nadal's form could have such a H2H against the best player in the mens game.

I voted C

Yes LK, and some of it is about match-ups, every player has their bogeymen and in Federer's case its Nadal. In Nadal's case its Djokovic.
Nadal as we know is an uber-competititive spirit, he will extract the win as best he can. The fact that he cant play flowing BHs like Fed, Gasquet and Guga does not mean his wins are any less valid. In pro-sport the talent is about winning. When Nadal steps on court he is not thinking about style and grace, he's thinking how to beat the other guy using the weapons he has - this may involve attacking, defending, blunting, wearing out, exploiting weaknesses - they're all equally valid strategies if they help lead to a win.
I guess I've always been involved in highly competitive sport from a young age so I personally appreciate the combative nature of what Nadal brings to the table. I'd much rather watch some guy who maximises his potential 100% and brings mental toughness to the mix than some beauty pagent player who flatters but always fails to succeed. Yes Nadal's groundstrokes dont flow like some as mentioned, although his FH really is a unique shot, but to deny his talent and achievements seem abit churlish.

As said he's now in the top 5 in the Open Era for many reasons, so just how good is Nadal. Pretty damned good - any players that's had to amass all his slams with Federer in the field, beating him directly to win 3 of them, hasnt done a bad job. In some ways its ironic, for those seeking to elevate Federer's status in the game it kind of directly elevates Nadal's too due to what Nadal has achieved against him. In other respects their 2 careers are very strongly intertwined. When people look back in 20yrs time they'll tend to mention the 2 players in the same breath I'd wager.

I am certainly by no means trying to 'cheapen' his victories. I think it takes a lot of talent and discipline to win the way he has against Federer. If you look at the adjustments he made after 2007 to defeat Federer on Grass and then Hardcourts it is remarkable and how he adjusted his game to defeat Federer is a credit to him. Now that Federer has slightly tweaked his game we may start to see successes for Federer over Nadal.