Age, Experience, Federer & Nadal - BS.
The argument that Rafael Nadal is 19 and his accomplishments shouldn't be measured by the same level of expectation of an older player such as Federer, Safin or Roddick.
I am seriously opposed to this argument, for the simple reason that it has holes all over it, there's lots of contradiction.
Many people believe that Nadal may be on Roger Federer's level ...
Alright, so let's say that I subscribe to this theory (which I don't)
1). Nadal is younger, so he's faster and more energetic.
2). Nadal is an equal to Federer.
3). Nadal has the beauty of youth, which often times means that he is fearless.
Why is it an applicable excuse (especially if you pay attention to point #3) that he cop out in the first round of a Master's Event like Cincy or that he lose in the 2nd round at Wimbledon ? First round of a tune-up, people have already began to create excuses for Nadal incase he gets knocked out in earlier rounds
"Well, he's young and has many left "
"He lacks experience "
The kid has talent and is fearless, many people are under the illusion (that's just what it is) that he is on Fedex's level, so who cares what Fedex did at 19 ? He's a late bloomer by Tennis standards, doesn't really matter how fast you get to a point, once you've reached that level then each player is there regardless of age. I don't buy into the experience argument, it's flawed and weak ... by the time you're old enough to have any experience the speed of youth is gone, thus making it really useless; if experience teaches, Agassi should be #1 in the world; however, his old brittle body just won't allow it. I'd think that after the beatings Sampras administered he's become well adjusted, atleast psychologically, to playing against the greats.
If you ask me, also, just because you start out at a younger age does not mean you will have an extended career! Look at Martina Hingis for example, 15 years old turned professional and she's how old now ? 23 ?!? Doing commentary for tennis matches and reduced to being a World Team Tennis participant, something that the 45 year old John McEnroe has taken up merely as a hobby. The clock is ticking on Nadal just as much as it is Federer, can anyone name a player that has dominated from the age of 15 to the age of 30 ?
Michael Jordan was a late bloomer.
Pete Sampras never really "dominated" unless we're talking Wimbledon, he was consistently in the Winner's Circle ... winning 1 or 2 Slams a year for a 10 + year period.
I've simply grown tired of seeing people use the excuse that Nadal or Sharapova both happen to be younger players, so that they have to gain experience and then comparing older players records at the same age. Time waits for no one, so what ? You're having success at 18, you're the early bird special and another player is having success at the age of 23, seems like a double standard...
Nadal beats Roger in Paris, which enhances his reputation and he's considered a knight a shining armor to many whom have grown tired of seeing Federer's success.
I heard things like...
"Nadal is quicker, more energetic and younger!"
"Nadal is fearless, he's a bull on the court"
"Nadal is twice the player Roger was at that age"
"Nadal is in Federer's league"
He loses a few matches ...
"Nadal has never played on grass"
"Nadal is young and must gain experience"
"Nadal choked away the match"
"Nadal was tired from winning in Canada"
Same stuff with Sharapova, something has to give ...
Either these players are younger, inferior, lack experience and will someday work up to the level of their predecessors ...
They are younger, faster, already at the same level thus experience should not matter and they should be measured by the same standards regardless.[/FONT]
Last edited by prima donna; 08-23-2005 at 05:10 PM.