Rotterdam Final- Rafa v Murray [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Rotterdam Final- Rafa v Murray

guga2120
02-14-2009, 07:45 PM
Murray in 2.

NinaNina19
02-14-2009, 07:46 PM
Poll?

HattonWBA
02-14-2009, 07:46 PM
Nadal in 3

federernadalfan
02-14-2009, 07:47 PM
the spanish dude in two

NinaNina19
02-14-2009, 07:49 PM
Murray is injured so Rafa in 2.

VamosNadal175
02-14-2009, 07:57 PM
Nadal in 1

tennishero
02-14-2009, 07:58 PM
hopefully rafa in 2.

CescAndyKimi
02-14-2009, 07:58 PM
Murray in 3

LinkMage
02-14-2009, 07:59 PM
Nadull in 3. :zzz:

Sapeod
02-14-2009, 08:06 PM
Hope Murray wins. If not then Tennis is really dead.

NinaNina19
02-14-2009, 08:07 PM
Hope Murray wins. If not then Tennis is really dead.

Murray is injured.

Andi-M
02-14-2009, 08:08 PM
If Murray is fit Murray in 2 maybe 3.
If not Nadal in 2.

Hope Murray is fit!

sphiie
02-14-2009, 08:08 PM
I would say Rafael in 3!

Murray is injured? really? where did you get that news

NinaNina19
02-14-2009, 08:12 PM
I would say Rafael in 3!

Murray is injured? really? where did you get that news

He said so himself. The ankle I guess. He withdrew from Marseilles.

Tom_Bombadil
02-14-2009, 08:13 PM
I suppose some people have the perfect excuse:

a) If Murray wins: Nadull is a mug and Murray the next GOAT.

b) If Murray loses: He was injured and Nadull had once again incredible luck.

NinaNina19
02-14-2009, 08:14 PM
Hope Murray wins. If not then Tennis is really dead.

Stop trying to pretend it isn't dead already.

MsTree
02-14-2009, 08:16 PM
:lol:
Murray in three, despite the injury :p

«Ivan»
02-14-2009, 08:16 PM
rafa 0:6,0:6,andy makes joke of ugly face 'n ass:pray:

http://i40.tinypic.com/10gwnz4.jpg

on me for all if andy defeat this human enemy.

NinaNina19
02-14-2009, 08:18 PM
I suppose some people have the perfect excuse:

a) If Murray wins: Nadull is a mug and Murray the next GOAT.

b) If Murray loses: He was injured and Nadull had once again incredible luck.

Even if Murray loses Nadull is a mug and Murray the next GOAT, it's just that Murray was injured. He withdrew from a tournament where he was reigning champion. I think the injury is genuine.

delpiero7
02-14-2009, 08:19 PM
Hope Murray wins. If not then Tennis is really dead.

Where have you been? The death of tennis had already been mourned several times recently. Specifically in 2008 after Queen's, Wimbledon, Toronto and the Olympics, and after the Australian Open this year.

You're a bit late to the wake my friend.

roberthenman
02-14-2009, 08:23 PM
Andy in 3

ORGASMATRON
02-14-2009, 08:30 PM
:zzz:

Andi-M
02-14-2009, 08:30 PM
I suppose some people have the perfect excuse:

a) If Murray wins: Nadull is a mug and Murray the next GOAT.

b) If Murray loses: He was injured and Nadull had once again incredible luck.

Spot on.

But either way Murray is next GOAT :D

Sapeod
02-14-2009, 08:37 PM
Murray is injured.

His trainer said that he can't find any damage. So I think he'll be ok for the match. If not then............tennis is really dead tennis is INCREDIBLY FUCKED!!

Sapeod
02-14-2009, 08:39 PM
Stop trying to pretend it isn't dead already.

Sorry. I meant INCREDIBLE FUCKED! :fiery: :o :mad:

Sapeod
02-14-2009, 08:40 PM
Where have you been? The death of tennis had already been mourned several times recently. Specifically in 2008 after Queen's, Wimbledon, Toronto and the Olympics, and after the Australian Open this year.

You're a bit late to the wake my friend.

Read the post above me.

Andi-M
02-14-2009, 08:41 PM
:zzz:

Dream match for you. I'd have thought :devil:

Foxy
02-14-2009, 08:51 PM
The drama queen Muzza in 2 or 3.

star
02-14-2009, 08:54 PM
He said so himself. The ankle I guess. He withdrew from Marseilles.

Murray also said he injured it yesterday, and that it didn't hamper him in the match today. He also added that the trainer didn't spot any damage when he examined it.

A_Skywalker
02-14-2009, 09:03 PM
SO everytime Rafa wins a title someone is going to say tennis is dead ?
I guess you will have to repeat it lots of times over the year and next years. This will be your punishment for the comments made :lol:

Sapeod
02-14-2009, 09:06 PM
SO everytime Rafa wins a title someone is going to say tennis is dead ?
I guess you will have to repeat it lots of times over the year and next years. This will be your punishment for the comments made :lol:

We will only say it when he wins on hardcourt, with that push from side to side game. If he wins on clay, we won't say anything because that is his home. But seriously tennis is dead. He only wins by waiting for his opponent to make mistakes :o BOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRINNGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!

BackhandMissile
02-14-2009, 09:09 PM
I suppose some people have the perfect excuse:

a) If Murray wins: Nadull is a mug and Murray the next GOAT.

b) If Murray loses: He was injured and Nadull had once again incredible luck.

You forgot to add that if Murray loses, then tennis is dead

SO everytime Rafa wins a title someone is going to say tennis is dead ?
I guess you will have to repeat it lots of times over the year and next years.

:lol:

Where have you been? The death of tennis had already been mourned several times recently. Specifically in 2008 after Queen's, Wimbledon, Toronto and the Olympics, and after the Australian Open this year.

:lol:

The funniest thing is that it apparently came to life for a while between the Olympics and the Australian Open.

mashamaniac
02-14-2009, 09:11 PM
Rafa in 2

andylovesaustin
02-14-2009, 09:13 PM
SO everytime Rafa wins a title someone is going to say tennis is dead ?
I guess you will have to repeat it lots of times over the year and next years. This will be your punishment for the comments made :lol:


Yeah, what is the deal with that anyway?:lol: So what is Rafa playing if he's not playing tennis?

I guess people here aren't huge fans of clay-court players? I like a variety of styles and matchups. That's what keeps it interesting.

Regarding the topic, if Andy is healthy, the match could go either way. If this were Andy Roddick, I would be rooting for him--not that I think A-Rod would have a huge chance of winning. But it's not, so....

I'll pick Rafa. I kinda enjoy this run Rafa is on right now. Let's see how far he can take it!

Igaarg
02-14-2009, 09:16 PM
Tennis deserves a happy ending, I say Andy in 3.


I suppose some people have the perfect excuse:

a) If Murray wins: Nadull is a mug and Murray the next GOAT.

b) If Murray loses: He was injured and Nadull had once again incredible luck.

a)If Nadal loses: He is tired and injured and is atp fault.

b)If Nadal wins: He is tired and injured but with heart and humilty, he tried to give his best.

Ackms421
02-14-2009, 09:23 PM
Definitely Rafa and definitely in two or three! :rocker2:

Corey Feldman
02-14-2009, 09:36 PM
fcuk him up Andy

ignatius
02-14-2009, 09:46 PM
I find funny how Rafa is not considered the favorite by the members of MTF when he's up against a top player. When he played against Federer in the AO, Roger had the most votes (Rafa won), when Rafa played Tsonga a few days ago, the french man had more votes (Rafa won), now against Murray, Andy has more vote (Rafa will win).

It's funny cause Nadal is the best tennis player there is now in any kind of surface. Be it grass, hard court, clay...he won more matches in any of those surfaces last year than any player with the exception of clay would you believe (Almagro won more matches)So no matter what Nadal does, majority of you just won't consider him as favorite. I just don't know what else the man needs to do to receive praise from some of you...when Nadal beat Federer in the AO final, Roger lost the match by playing badly in the final set (no credit to Nadal), when Nadal beat Tsonga yesterday, the french man just hit many unforced errors (no credit to Nadal), Nadal beats Monfils today, Gael was sick couldnt' play..and if Nadal beats Muzza tomorrow...well, some will say Andy was injured.

I just don't understand it. Murray wins a few tournaments and all of the sudden he's a strong favorite until a guy he holds a 1-5 against, he's the number one player in the world and has won Slams in all surfaces. To me it's ridiculous.

Anyway, Rafa tomorrow in 3.

Clydey
02-14-2009, 09:49 PM
fcuk him up Andy

Rip his head off!

Or rather, kick his ass, Seabass.

NinaNina19
02-14-2009, 09:50 PM
I find funny how Rafa is not considered the favorite by the members of MTF when he's up against a top player. When he played against Federer in the AO, Roger had the most votes (Rafa won), when Rafa played Tsonga a few days ago, the french man had more votes (Rafa won), now against Murray, Andy has more vote (Rafa will win).

It's funny cause Nadal is the best tennis player there is now in any kind of surface. Be it grass, hard court, clay...he won more matches in any of those surfaces last year than any player with the exception of clay would you believe (Almagro won more matches)So no matter what Nadal does, majority of you just won't consider him as favorite. I just don't know what else the man needs to do to receive praise from some of you...when Nadal beat Federer in the AO final, Roger lost the match by playing badly in the final set (no credit to Nadal), when Nadal beat Tsonga yesterday, the french man just hit many unforced errors (no credit to Nadal), Nadal beats Monfils today, Gael was sick couldnt' play..and if Nadal beats Muzza tomorrow...well, some will say Andy was injured.

I just don't understand it. Murray wins a few tournaments and all of the sudden he's a strong favorite until a guy he holds a 1-5 against, he's the number one player in the world and has won Slams in all surfaces. To me it's ridiculous.

Anyway, Rafa tomorrow in 3.
Rafa is winning the poll. I'm not going to bother disagreeing with everything else you wrote:o.

finishingmove
02-14-2009, 09:51 PM
rafa is the clear favourite here.

though, anything can happen...

Clydey
02-14-2009, 09:52 PM
I find funny how Rafa is not considered the favorite by the members of MTF when he's up against a top player. When he played against Federer in the AO, Roger had the most votes (Rafa won), when Rafa played Tsonga a few days ago, the french man had more votes (Rafa won), now against Murray, Andy has more vote (Rafa will win).

It's funny cause Nadal is the best tennis player there is now in any kind of surface. Be it grass, hard court, clay...he won more matches in any of those surfaces last year than any player with the exception of clay would you believe (Almagro won more matches)So no matter what Nadal does, majority of you just won't consider him as favorite. I just don't know what else the man needs to do to receive praise from some of you...when Nadal beat Federer in the AO final, Roger lost the match by playing badly in the final set (no credit to Nadal), when Nadal beat Tsonga yesterday, the french man just hit many unforced errors (no credit to Nadal), Nadal beats Monfils today, Gael was sick couldnt' play..and if Nadal beats Muzza tomorrow...well, some will say Andy was injured.

I just don't understand it. Murray wins a few tournaments and all of the sudden he's a strong favorite until a guy he holds a 1-5 against, he's the number one player in the world and has won Slams in all surfaces. To me it's ridiculous.

Anyway, Rafa tomorrow in 3.

Nadal is not the best on a hard court. I maintain that he is very beatable for guys like Murray, Nalbandian, Djokovic, and Davydenko on a hard court.

NinaNina19
02-14-2009, 09:53 PM
Nadal is not the best on a hard court. I maintain that he is very beatable for guys like Murray, Nalbandian, Djokovic, and Davydenko on a hard court.

Don't even bother arguing.

Certinfy
02-14-2009, 10:01 PM
Murray in 2 or 3.

ignatius
02-14-2009, 10:03 PM
Nadal is not the best on a hard court. I maintain that he is very beatable for guys like Murray, Nalbandian, Djokovic, and Davydenko on a hard court.

Yeah, he has been beaten before on hard court by those players you mentioned; also Ferrer, Federer, Tsonga, Blake beat him...but losing against those players does not mean he is not the best.

He's also beaten all those players you mentioned on hard court, with the exception of el Gordo Nalbandian, and he's also won more hard court tournaments than any of those players as well...so to me it's not far fetched when I say he's the best hard court player now.

NinaNina19
02-14-2009, 10:06 PM
Yeah, he has been beaten before on hard court by those players you mentioned; also Ferrer, Federer, Tsonga, Blake beat him...but losing against those players does not mean he is not the best.

He's also beaten all those players you mentioned on hard court, with the exception of el Gordo Nalbandian, and he's also won more hard court tournaments than any of those players as well...so to me it's not far fetched when I say he's the best hard court player now.

Murray is the best player on a hard court. He kicked Rafa's ass at the USO and he would have won the AO had he not been ill. It's not even an excuse. He was on antibiotics before his match against Verdasco and he still took him to 5 sets.

jenanun
02-14-2009, 10:06 PM
rafa in 2

Clydey
02-14-2009, 10:10 PM
Yeah, he has been beaten before on hard court by those players you mentioned; also Ferrer, Federer, Tsonga, Blake beat him...but losing against those players does not mean he is not the best.

He's also beaten all those players you mentioned on hard court, with the exception of el Gordo Nalbandian, and he's also won more hard court tournaments than any of those players as well...so to me it's not far fetched when I say he's the best hard court player now.

I'm not saying it's farfetched. I'm just saying that I disagree. The reason I disagree is because of how much spin Rafa plays with. His ball doesn't go through the court like it does with flatter hitters. Guys like Murray, Nalby, Davy, and Djokovic can take the match out of his hands. You can't say the same for him. He is never going to hit those guys off a hard court precisely because of the way he hits his forehand. It actually sits up nicely for their two-hander.

ignatius
02-14-2009, 10:13 PM
Murray is the best player on a hard court. He kicked Rafa's ass at the USO and he would have won the AO had he not been ill. It's not even an excuse. He was on antibiotics before his match against Verdasco and he still took him to 5 sets.

Right... Andy beats Rafa in 4 sets and you say Murray kicked Rafa's ass?'

To me an ass kicking is what Rafa did to Murray in Wimbledon...wouldn't you agree? But I guess you are going to say Andy had the flu or some kinda strange desease and that's why he lost.

It's amazing how sick players get these days, don't they? perfect excuse to justify a loss.

Clydey
02-14-2009, 10:17 PM
Right... Andy beats Rafa in 4 sets and you say Murray kicked Rafa's ass?'

To me an ass kicking is what Rafa did to Murray in Wimbledon...wouldn't you agree? But I guess you are going to say Andy had the flu or some kinda strange desease and that's why he lost.

It's amazing how sick players get these days, don't they? perfect excuse to justify a loss.

He did kick his ass at the USO. Did you see the match? Rafa got to a tiebreak in the second set purely on will. He didn't get into any of Murray's service games and fought off break points in pretty much every service game. Murray's concentration went in the 3rd set and he lost it after hitting 3 or 4 UEs to get broken. When they came back the next day, Murray completely outplayed Rafa. Not quite as badly as Nadal outplayed Murray at Wimbledon, but he was still comprehensively outplayed.

NinaNina19
02-14-2009, 10:17 PM
Right... Andy beats Rafa in 4 sets and you say Murray kicked Rafa's ass?'

To me an ass kicking is what Rafa did to Murray in Wimbledon...wouldn't you agree? But I guess you are going to say Andy had the flu or some kinda strange desease and that's why he lost.

It's amazing how sick players get these days, don't they? perfect excuse to justify a loss.

He really was sick :retard:. Simon beat Nadal at Madrid but that didn't mean anything to me as Nadal was injured. Yeah, rafa was the better player at Wimbledon 08 but Murray has improved tons since then. Besides, that was grass and we're talking about Hardcourt. Murray is a better hard court player than Nadal imo.

TMJordan
02-14-2009, 10:19 PM
If Murray is healthy Andy 6-0 6-0

If not Nadal 0-6 7-6 7-6

I fear the latter :sad:

A_Skywalker
02-14-2009, 10:23 PM
He really was sick :retard:. Simon beat Nadal at Madrid but that didn't mean anything to me as Nadal was injured. Yeah, rafa was the better player at Wimbledon 08 but Murray has improved tons since then. Besides, that was grass and we're talking about Hardcourt. Murray is a better hard court player than Nadal imo.


I read your discussions and I decided to join only to say.
"The better hard court player is the one who has more titles on hard court"
Obviously from the players now Fed is the best, but considering Murray and Nadal I think Rafa has hard court slam and Murray not. Also Rafa won more Masters Series on hard. Or they are equal. I dont know exactly. So how can you claim Murray is better on hard.
I think you are implying that he has better game for hard court, yes, I agree. He is very good but its not all about the game. Its about the wins and the character.

leng jai
02-14-2009, 10:23 PM
Murray is the best player on a hard court. He kicked Rafa's ass at the USO and he would have won the AO had he not been ill. It's not even an excuse. He was on antibiotics before his match against Verdasco and he still took him to 5 sets.

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused:

ignatius
02-14-2009, 10:23 PM
I'm not saying it's farfetched. I'm just saying that I disagree. The reason I disagree is because of how much spin Rafa plays with. His ball doesn't go through the court like it does with flatter hitters. Guys like Murray, Nalby, Davy, and Djokovic can take the match out of his hands. You can't say the same for him. He is never going to hit those guys off a hard court precisely because of the way he hits his forehand. It actually sits up nicely for their two-hander.


Haven't you ever noticed that all those losses we are referring to have come 95% of the times later in the season? I briefly recall Nadal losing against Davidenko last year in Miami and then to Djokovic in IW, but the rest of his HC losses come late in the season What I mean is Nadal has been physically conditioned on the second half of the year and that's when majority of his losses come.

This year I've seen some adjustments in his game. He's adapted a more aggressive style into his game that allows him to shorten the points. In theory, Nadal won't spend so much time on the courts like on the previous years.

Against Federer he just hits the top spin to Fedex backhand cause he knows it works, but against Murray, Davidenko he's going to change his shot placement. Against Verdasco he had to adapt cause the cross-court forehand was coming back twice as fast from Verdasco's end, so I don't think we will see Nadal hitting against those players backhand like he does against Federer.

freeandlonely
02-14-2009, 10:24 PM
Nadull in 3

Clydey
02-14-2009, 10:27 PM
Haven't you ever noticed that all those losses we are referring to have come 95% of the times later in the season? I briefly recall Nadal losing against Davidenko last year in Miami and then to Djokovic in IW, but the rest of his HC losses come late in the season What I mean is Nadal has been physically conditioned on the second half of the year and that's when majority of his losses come.

This year I've seen some adjustments in his game. He's adapted a more aggressive style into his game that allows him to shorten the points. In theory, Nadal won't spend so much time on the courts like on the previous years.

Against Federer he just hits the top spin to Fedex backhand cause he knows it works, but against Murray, Davidenko he's going to change his shot placement. Against Verdasco he had to adapt cause the cross-court forehand was coming back twice as fast from Verdasco's end, so I don't think we will see Nadal hitting against those players backhand like he does against Federer.

Look at what happened in Doha. Monfils adopted an aggressive approach and hit Nadal off the court. Rafa just can't handle flat hitters if he catches them on a hot day. Even add Gonzalez to the list. The match is out of his hands because he plays with so much spin. A great day for Rafa is remarakable consistency. He will never overpower a top player with his groundies.

Clydey
02-14-2009, 10:29 PM
I read your discussions and I decided to join only to say.
"The better hard court player is the one who has more titles on hard court"
Obviously from the players now Fed is the best, but considering Murray and Nadal I think Rafa has hard court slam and Murray not. Also Rafa won more Masters Series on hard. Or they are equal. I dont know exactly. So how can you claim Murray is better on hard.
I think you are implying that he has better game for hard court, yes, I agree. He is very good but its not all about the game. Its about the wins and the character.

Nadal is more consistent and Murray has only improved in the past 8 months. You can't judge how good they are today based on past achievements.

ignatius
02-14-2009, 10:31 PM
He really was sick :retard:. Simon beat Nadal at Madrid but that didn't mean anything to me as Nadal was injured. Yeah, rafa was the better player at Wimbledon 08 but Murray has improved tons since then. Besides, that was grass and we're talking about Hardcourt. Murray is a better hard court player than Nadal imo.

Sure, you are entitled to have one, so am I.

It's true Murray has improved a whole lot since Wimbly. I believe the key match in Murray's progression was not the final against Novak in Cincy, but the 2nd or 3rd round match he played against Moyá. Moyá was playing unbelievable tennis and won the first set easy and he was up a break in the second. However, Andy got his shit together and broke back, won the second set and then the match. The Andy Murray prior to that match would've lost against Moya that day.

All and all, Murray has not yet won a GS and that could be of some importance tomorrow. Andy is playing against the number 1 player in the world now and has a negative record of 1-5 against him. Lots of obstacles for Murray.

A_Skywalker
02-14-2009, 10:33 PM
Nadal is more consistent and Murray has only improved in the past 8 months. You can't judge how good they are today based on past achievments.

Last post
Isnt consistency part of the game ?
What if I can hit 200 miles forehand one of 20 times I try. Does this make me better than any player? No.
Consistensy is one of the most wanted tennis qualities. Murray is not consistent, because thats his character and way of thinking. He is just like that. Hes definately enjoyable to watch. One of the best games to watch.

NinaNina19
02-14-2009, 10:33 PM
I read your discussions and I decided to join only to say.
"The better hard court player is the one who has more titles on hard court"
Obviously from the players now Fed is the best, but considering Murray and Nadal I think Rafa has hard court slam and Murray not. Also Rafa won more Masters Series on hard. Or they are equal. I dont know exactly. So how can you claim Murray is better on hard.
I think you are implying that he has better game for hard court, yes, I agree. He is very good but its not all about the game. Its about the wins and the character.

By that logic Roddick is also a better player than Murray on hard. Yes, I am implying that Murray has a better game for hard court, which means he is a better hard court player. What you are trying to say is that Nadal is a more accomplished hardcourt player, which is different.

Ad Wim
02-14-2009, 10:38 PM
TOugh to call this one. 50-50 match, but think that Nadal wins it as Murray doesn't seem to be 100% fit.

Clydey
02-14-2009, 10:38 PM
Last post
Isnt consistency part of the game ?
What if I can hit 200 miles forehand one of 20 times I try. Does this make me better than any player? No.
Consistensy is one of the most wanted tennis qualities. Murray is not consistent, because thats his character and way of thinking. He is just like that. Hes definately enjoyable to watch. One of the best games to watch.

Yes, but that's the point I have been making the whole time. Nadal is much more consistent. However, if he catches one of these flatter hitters on a hot day they can take the match out of his hands. You can't say the same for Nadal. He plays with so much top spin that he is never going to blow any of them off a hard court.

ignatius
02-14-2009, 10:39 PM
Look at what happened in Doha. Monfils adopted an aggressive approach and hit Nadal off the court. Rafa just can't handle flat hitters if he catches them on a hot day. Even add Gonzalez to the list. The match is out of his hands because he plays with so much spin. A great day for Rafa is remarakable consistency. He will never overpower a top player with his groundies.

I don't think no one can handle flat hitters on a good day (Nadal maybe is the only one).

Look at Verdasco. He had 100 winners against Rafa in the AO semis and Nadal still managed to win that match. Flat hitters have a few perfect flawless matches per year, otherwise they will win each and every tournament. If Gulbis, Tsonga or Berdych played flawless they would top the ATP rankings.

By the way, Nadal overpowerd Gonzo in the AO 4th round this year. So he did Murray in Wimbly and Djokovic in IW'07.

I understand what you are trying to say, but Nadal is more than a top spin forehand to the left corner and a good passer.

Anyway, we'll see what the match brings us tomorrow. I cant wait!

TMJordan
02-14-2009, 10:41 PM
Stop trying Rafa fans, you can't handle the one two punch of Nina and Hamish. :worship:

ignatius
02-14-2009, 10:43 PM
Stop trying Rafa fans, you can't handle the one two punch of Nina and Hamish. :worship:


Right..and this is coming from a totally unbiased position :rolleyes:

Boarder35m
02-14-2009, 10:43 PM
Yes, but that's the point I have been making the whole time. Nadal is much more consistent. However, if he catches one of these flatter hitters on a hot day they can take the match out of his hands. You can't say the same for Nadal. He plays with so much top spin that he is never going to blow any of them off a hard court.

I followed your discussion and I agree with you, but on the other hand don´t forget that even on a hot day, the player who is in control of the match has to finish the match.
Seeing that your opponent, who plays far less attacking, brings a lot of shots back has an influence on your own game. You might start to take even more risks, pay attacking shots when you are in a defensive situation and the momentum in a match can change due to that :)

Clydey
02-14-2009, 10:45 PM
I don't think no one can handle flat hitters on a good day (Nadal maybe is the only one).

Look at Verdasco. He had 100 winners against Rafa in the AO semis and Nadal still managed to win that match. Flat hitters have a few perfect flawless matches per year, otherwise they will win each and every tournament. If Gulbis, Tsonga or Berdych played flawless they would top the ATP rankings.

By the way, Nadal overpowerd Gonzo in the AO 4th round this year. So he did Murray in Wimbly and Djokovic in IW'07.

I understand what you are trying to say, but Nadal is more than a top spin forehand to the left corner and a good passer.

Anyway, we'll see what the match brings us tomorrow. I cant wait!

Forget Wimbledon. It's not relevant to hard. Rafa is capable of taking the match out of someone's hands on grass. His ball goes through the court more. And no, he didn't overpower Gonzalez this year. He beat him, but it's not as though he was smacking winner after winner past him. Nadal's strength is his consistency.

I'm not talking about these guys playing a perfect match. I'm talking about them having a good winners/UE ratio and not handing the match to Nadal. Having said all that, Nadal definitely has improved on hard. I still think his heavy top spin will prevent him from being a dominant hard courter.

Personally, I wouldn't like to bet on tomorrow's match. I've gone for Murray in 3, but I wouldn't exactly be surprised whichever way it goes.

Clydey
02-14-2009, 10:47 PM
Stop trying Rafa fans, you can't handle the one two punch of Nina and Hamish. :worship:

A formidable combo. :devil:

ignatius
02-14-2009, 10:53 PM
Forget Wimbledon. It's not relevant to hard. Rafa is capable of taking the match out of someone's hands on grass. His ball goes through the court more. And no, he didn't overpower Gonzalez this year. He beat him, but it's not as though he was smacking winner after winner past him. Nadal's strength is his consistency.

I'm not talking about these guys playing a perfect match. I'm talking about them having a good winners/UE ratio and not handing the match to Nadal. Having said all that, Nadal definitely has improved on hard. I still think his heavy top spin will prevent him from being a dominant hard courter.

Personally, I wouldn't like to bet on tomorrow's match. I've gone for Murray in 3, but I wouldn't exactly be surprised whichever way it goes.

In order to beat Rafa you gotta play a pretty good match on hard court. Close to perfection.

Tsongá played the match of his life in the AO'08 semis and destroyed Rafa.

Davidenko played the match of his life in the Miami'08 and destroyed Rafa (he will then play another match of his life to destroy Murray in the Masters Cup semis).

Djokovic played incredibly well against Rafa in the first set of Cincy last year...

See, on those ocassions, Rafa's rivals were just too good. No one could have beaten those guys Rafa faced on that particular day. However,those "hot" days against RAFA they just don't come too often. If they did, we would be talking about Tsongá, Davidenko etc as potential GOATS.

I see Rafa's improved his game (like he does each and every year) so he may not be caught off guard when any of the flat hitters has a perfect day.

thrust
02-14-2009, 10:54 PM
I find funny how Rafa is not considered the favorite by the members of MTF when he's up against a top player. When he played against Federer in the AO, Roger had the most votes (Rafa won), when Rafa played Tsonga a few days ago, the french man had more votes (Rafa won), now against Murray, Andy has more vote (Rafa will win).

It's funny cause Nadal is the best tennis player there is now in any kind of surface. Be it grass, hard court, clay...he won more matches in any of those surfaces last year than any player with the exception of clay would you believe (Almagro won more matches)So no matter what Nadal does, majority of you just won't consider him as favorite. I just don't know what else the man needs to do to receive praise from some of you...when Nadal beat Federer in the AO final, Roger lost the match by playing badly in the final set (no credit to Nadal), when Nadal beat Tsonga yesterday, the french man just hit many unforced errors (no credit to Nadal), Nadal beats Monfils today, Gael was sick couldnt' play..and if Nadal beats Muzza tomorrow...well, some will say Andy was injured.

I just don't understand it. Murray wins a few tournaments and all of the sudden he's a strong favorite until a guy he holds a 1-5 against, he's the number one player in the world and has won Slams in all surfaces. To me it's ridiculous.

Anyway, Rafa tomorrow in 3.

Ridiculous for sure, but do not fret Fed fans are frustrated because the supposed GOAT cannot beat Rafa in an important match. When you have been worshiping someone for years, it is difficult to accept the reality that your hero is no longer the best player in the world.

pogotheorist
02-14-2009, 11:09 PM
Rafa just can't handle flat hitters if he catches them on a hot day... The match is out of his hands because he plays with so much spin... He will never overpower a top player with his groundies.
I see Rafa's improved his game (like he does each and every year) so he may not be caught off guard when any of the flat hitters has a perfect day.
This year I've seen some adjustments in his game. He's adapted a more aggressive style into his game that allows him to shorten the points. In theory, Nadal won't spend so much time on the courts like on the previous years.

Against Federer he just hits the top spin to Fedex backhand cause he knows it works...
Someone on another site quoted an interview, I believe with Rafa's team, about how Rafa is changing his tactics to avoid late-season exhaustion - learning to let some points go, to decide which ones are worth the expenditure of effort from what is really a limited supply. And of course his focus in the off-season was working on a flatter forehand. On TimesOnline Q&A people were worried about messing with a great shot - Rafa's reply was he's adding options, not giving anything up. People forget that Rafa is a work in progress - still young, still developing his game. Every year he moves farther away from the clay-machine stereotype. He's a smart guy with a smart coach. Stay tuned.

NinaNina19
02-14-2009, 11:12 PM
In order to beat Rafa you gotta play a pretty good match on hard court. Close to perfection.

Tsongá played the match of his life in the AO'08 semis and destroyed Rafa.

Davidenko played the match of his life in the Miami'08 and destroyed Rafa (he will then play another match of his life to destroy Murray in the Masters Cup semis).

Djokovic played incredibly well against Rafa in the first set of Cincy last year...

See, on those ocassions, Rafa's rivals were just too good. No one could have beaten those guys Rafa faced on that particular day. However,those "hot" days against RAFA they just don't come too often. If they did, we would be talking about Tsongá, Davidenko etc as potential GOATS.

I see Rafa's improved his game (like he does each and every year) so he may not be caught off guard when any of the flat hitters has a perfect day.He didn't play the match of his life then, he played well but Murray was also exhausted from the 3+ hour match he played the day before. Davydenko didn't play the match of his life in the Miami final either, he was just playing very well. When Davydenko plays very well he can easily challenge the top players.

ignatius
02-14-2009, 11:15 PM
Someone on another site quoted an interview, I believe with Rafa's team, about how Rafa is changing his tactics to avoid late-season exhaustion - learning to let some points go, to decide which ones are worth the expenditure of effort from what is really a limited supply. And of course his focus in the off-season was working on a flatter forehand. On TimesOnline Q&A people were worried about messing with a great shot - Rafa's reply was he's adding options, not giving anything up. People forget that Rafa is a work in progress - still young, still developing his game. Every year he moves farther away from the clay-machine stereotype. He's a smart guy with a smart coach. Stay tuned.

Spot on!

He is also aware of his liabilities and humble enough to say in pretty much interview I've seen with him when asked about his goals in 2009. "Keep improving my game".

Sure some may think "What a politically correct answer". Obviously Nadal will like to win more GS and maintain the number 1 spot but he realizes that in order to achieve those goals, he still needs to improve some aspects of his game.

Sapeod
02-14-2009, 11:15 PM
O.K GUYS!!! THIS IS IT ON A GOLD PLATTER!! MURRAY IS GOING TO ASS **** NADAL TOMORROW!!!!!! :shrug: True or not true? :confused:

Andi-M
02-14-2009, 11:22 PM
I find funny how Rafa is not considered the favorite by the members of MTF when he's up against a top player. When he played against Federer in the AO, Roger had the most votes (Rafa won), when Rafa played Tsonga a few days ago, the french man had more votes (Rafa won), now against Murray, Andy has more vote (Rafa will win).

It's funny cause Nadal is the best tennis player there is now in any kind of surface. Be it grass, hard court, clay...he won more matches in any of those surfaces last year than any player with the exception of clay would you believe (Almagro won more matches)So no matter what Nadal does, majority of you just won't consider him as favorite. I just don't know what else the man needs to do to receive praise from some of you...when Nadal beat Federer in the AO final, Roger lost the match by playing badly in the final set (no credit to Nadal), when Nadal beat Tsonga yesterday, the french man just hit many unforced errors (no credit to Nadal), Nadal beats Monfils today, Gael was sick couldnt' play..and if Nadal beats Muzza tomorrow...well, some will say Andy was injured.

I just don't understand it. Murray wins a few tournaments and all of the sudden he's a strong favorite until a guy he holds a 1-5 against, he's the number one player in the world and has won Slams in all surfaces. To me it's ridiculous.

Anyway, Rafa tomorrow in 3.

As a Muzzatard i largely agree with you. Nadal is never given credit for his HC performances. Its totally ridicoulous.And i agree Nadal should be favorite tommorow.

But I think Murray is a better HC player than Nadal i really do in fact i think Murray is no1 on HC in the world and before you say it Im aware that he hasn't proved it yet. Im not trying to disrepscet Nadal in any way but Murray is an excellent, natural HC player and i think if close to 100% would beat Nadal 80% of the time.

sawan66278
02-14-2009, 11:47 PM
Look at what happened in Doha. Monfils adopted an aggressive approach and hit Nadal off the court. Rafa just can't handle flat hitters if he catches them on a hot day. Even add Gonzalez to the list. The match is out of his hands because he plays with so much spin. A great day for Rafa is remarakable consistency. He will never overpower a top player with his groundies.

Using this reasoning, one could make the same argument about Ivan Lendl. The man made eight U.S. Open finals in a row. YET, he pretty much played at the same level: match in, match out. And because of this, if one of his hard hitting rivals (like Boris Becker) got hot, he would lose even though he was obviously the best player on hard courts. Think about it: he made eight finals, but lost FIVE. Each time, he ran into a "hot" player, and that was it.

Last post
Isnt consistency part of the game ?
What if I can hit 200 miles forehand one of 20 times I try. Does this make me better than any player? No.
Consistensy is one of the most wanted tennis qualities. Murray is not consistent, because thats his character and way of thinking. He is just like that. Hes definately enjoyable to watch. One of the best games to watch.


Well said. And Rafa HAS shown he can be VERY aggressive on hard courts. See the Olympic finals for evidence of this.

CescAndyKimi
02-15-2009, 12:10 AM
In my personal opinion, i don't even consider the Andy Murray from before Wimbledon Last year, the player he is now is very different.
He has improved so much it's untrue, almost like he's started again, so opinions on his play have to be reformed.

abol_tabol
02-15-2009, 01:20 AM
My two cents on Nadal, his game and his achievements.

Before I proceed I'd like to first mention that I’m not a Nadal supporter. Never liked his game and never will. There are many other reasons also for not being his fan. I am a huge Federer fan and always will be. To me, he is the greatest tennis talent ever and the closest to perfection.

Saying that, I agree with the Nadal fans here who think that he is the best hard court player right now. Yes, in the sense that he will win more matches than he will lose against the top players. I don’t see anybody consistently beat Nadal in hard court anymore even though his game is not really suited for hard court. But he improved his game enough in the last 12 months that it’ll be very difficult to win a match against him by anybody, be that Murray or Djoko or Tsonga or anybody else. I just don’t see it. And I believe if he can remain injury free he will be able to dominate like this at least for the next 2-3 years. It can actually get better if he can improve his first serve!! Makes me shudder just to think of that prospect.

And the Nadal fans are right in saying that he does not get enough credit and respect for his outstanding achievements. I believe there are two reasons for that. One is that he is playing under the shadow of Roger (one of the greatest tennis talents of all time) and people tend to notice Nadal less. This actually helps him to play with less pressure and less scrutiny. But this will soon change as he is becoming the undisputable number one very fast.

The other reason for the lack of respect (which I think the most important one) is the huge “off the field” advantages that Nadal has. This is the point I don’t think has been discussed enough. Let me clarify what are these “off the field” advantages I’m talking about:

1. Being a lefty. A huge advantage, specially, in tennis, like no other sports I can think of. Besides, none of the top players and his closest rivals are lefty.
2. Being an ambidextruous, the guy is basically playing with two forehands, his backhand never breaks down!
3. Unbelievable physical strength, strongest player in the circuit. He is so strong many people actually think that it may be artificially achieved ( I personally don’t think so, he just has a great gene). I heard player like Davydenko commenting: “Nadal is just too strong, Roger cannot handle that”. It is so much of a big factor!!
4. Slowing down of the court speed everywhere which is helping him a lot. But this is just a lucky coincidence that he started playing tennis at this time.

The combination of the first three has made Nadal the freakiest of the freaks in the tennis history. I don’t think anybody has all these three combination going for one ever anywhere. In my mind, without these advantages (just first three and forget about number four) Nadal will just be a very good tennis player (top ten at best) instead of the 6 time grand slam champs and one of the greats of tennis. Without just any one of the three I believe the head to head with Roger would just reverse. Without all three (i.e. basically be normal like almost any other tennis players) I don’t see how Nadal would win any match against Roger in any surfaces.

Only Nadal quality that I respect and find genuine is his athleticism. It is just of the highest quality. Totally outstanding. Genuine and honest talent, no extra advantage here. His tennis skill is very good, definitely top ten for his consistency and accuracy but not the greatest as it looks to be by his outstanding achievements. He does not even come close to Roger’s. All his other qualities (like focus, concentration, mental strength, fighting ability etc.) may not look that great without the “off the field” advantages.

Because of these “off the field” advantages I never had much respect for Nadal’s achievements and never will. The advantages are so huge that it is almost “unfair”. It is absolutely no fault of Nadal that he is such a freak of nature. I understand that. Nothing is personal here. But even if Nadal goes on to win 20 slams, breaks all kinds of records, to me, he will always remain a “very good tennis player” who became a “great one” by exploiting some “off the field” advantages to the fullest to his credit.

About tomorrow's final: 50-50
Murray has the game to beat Nadal but he needs to be fit and at his best. Hope he can do it.

connectolove
02-15-2009, 02:24 AM
"Originally Posted by ignatius
I find funny how Rafa is not considered the favorite by the members of MTF when he's up against a top player. When he played against Federer in the AO, Roger had the most votes (Rafa won), when Rafa played Tsonga a few days ago, the french man had more votes (Rafa won), now against Murray, Andy has more vote (Rafa will win).

It's funny cause Nadal is the best tennis player there is now in any kind of surface. Be it grass, hard court, clay...he won more matches in any of those surfaces last year than any player with the exception of clay would you believe (Almagro won more matches)So no matter what Nadal does, majority of you just won't consider him as favorite. I just don't know what else the man needs to do to receive praise from some of you...when Nadal beat Federer in the AO final, Roger lost the match by playing badly in the final set (no credit to Nadal), when Nadal beat Tsonga yesterday, the french man just hit many unforced errors (no credit to Nadal), Nadal beats Monfils today, Gael was sick couldnt' play..and if Nadal beats Muzza tomorrow...well, some will say Andy was injured.

I just don't understand it. Murray wins a few tournaments and all of the sudden he's a strong favorite until a guy he holds a 1-5 against, he's the number one player in the world and has won Slams in all surfaces. To me it's ridiculous.

Anyway, Rafa tomorrow in 3."

You speak the truth ...

vamosinator
02-15-2009, 02:33 AM
It is funny to see people think Murray as the favorite. THE RAFA is approaching Rod Laver in the history books while Murray may never even win a slam title:o:D

Although I do think beating Murray has taken on a new level of importance since last year's US Open and it would be near the top of THE RAFA's "to do list" of 2009:cat::dog:

connectolove
02-15-2009, 02:33 AM
My two cents on Nadal, his game and his achievements.

First I’d like to clarify that I’m not a Nadal supporter. Never liked his game and never will. There are many other reasons also for not being his fan. I am a huge Federer fan and always will be. To me, he is the greatest tennis talent ever and the closest to perfection.

Saying that, I agree with the Nadal fans here who think that he is the best hard court player right now. Yes, in the sense that he will win more matches than he will lose against the top players. I don’t see anybody consistently beat Nadal in hard court anymore even though his game is not really suited for hard court. But he improved his game enough in the last 12 months that it’ll be very difficult to win a match against him by anybody, be that Murray or Djoko or Tsonga or anybody else. I just don’t see it. And I believe if he can remain injury free he will be able to dominate like this at least for the next 2-3 years. It can actually get better if he can improve his first serve!! Makes me shudder just to think of that prospect.

And the Nadal fans are right in saying that he does not get enough credit and respect for his outstanding achievements. I believe there are two reasons for that. One is that he is playing under the shadow of Roger (one of the greatest tennis talents of all time) and people tend to notice Nadal less. This actually helps him to play with less pressure and less scrutiny. But this will soon change as he is becoming the undisputable number one very fast.

The other reason for the lack of respect (which I think the most important one) is the huge “off the field” advantages that Nadal has. This is the point I don’t think has been discussed enough. Let me clarify what are these “off the field” advantages I’m talking about:

1. Being a lefty. A huge advantage, specially, in tennis, like no other sports I can think of. Besides, none of the top players and his closest rivals are lefty.
2. Being an ambidextruous, the guy is basically playing with two forehands, his backhand never breaks down!
3. Unbelievable physical strength, strongest player in the circuit. He is so strong many people actually think that it may be artificially achieved ( I personally don’t think so, he just has a great gene). I heard player like Davydenko commenting: “Nadal is just too strong, Roger cannot handle that”. It is so much of a big factor!!
4. Slowing down of the court speed everywhere which is helping him a lot. But this is just a lucky coincidence that he started playing tennis at this time.

The combination of the first three has made Nadal the freakiest of the freaks in the tennis history. I don’t think anybody has all these three combination going for one ever anywhere. In my mind, without these advantages (just first three and forget about number four) Nadal will just be a very good tennis player (top ten at best) instead of the 6 time grand slam champs and one of the greats of tennis. Without just any one of the three I believe the head to head with Roger would just reverse. Without all three (i.e. basically be normal like almost any other tennis players) I don’t see how Nadal would win any match against Roger in any surfaces.

Only Nadal quality that I respect and find genuine is his athleticism. It is just of the highest quality. Totally outstanding. Genuine and honest talent, no extra advantage here. His tennis skill is very good, definitely top ten for his consistency and accuracy but not the greatest as it looks to be by his outstanding achievements. He does not even come close to Roger’s. All his other qualities (like focus, concentration, mental strength, fighting ability etc.) may not look that great without the “off the field” advantages.

Because of these “off the field” advantages I never had much respect for Nadal’s achievements and never will. The advantages are so huge that it is almost “unfair”. It is absolutely no fault of Nadal that he is such a freak of nature. I understand that. Nothing is personal here. But even if Nadal goes on to win 20 slams, breaks all kinds of records, to me, he will always remain a “very good tennis player” who became a “great one” by exploiting some “off the field” advantages to the fullest to his credit.

About tomorrow's final: 50-50
Murray has the game to beat Nadal but he needs to be fit and at his best. Hope he can do it.

Shit! you make it sound like Nadal is The Thing!!!!! That is why I like him so much, he is truly a Gladiator.

connectolove
02-15-2009, 03:07 AM
It is funny to see people think Murray as the favorite. THE RAFA is approaching Rod Laver in the history books while Murray may never even win a slam title:o:D

Although I do think beating Murray has taken on a new level of importance since last year's US Open and it would be near the top of THE RAFA's "to do list" of 2009:cat::dog:

Tennis would be very boring without somebody challenging Nadal and Federer, so I am glad that some people do not expect much from the #1 so he can keep surprising us. I think that Nadal will be truly the GOAT for decades to come.

NinaNina19
02-15-2009, 03:17 AM
Someone on another site quoted an interview, I believe with Rafa's team, about how Rafa is changing his tactics to avoid late-season exhaustion - learning to let some points go, to decide which ones are worth the expenditure of effort from what is really a limited supply. And of course his focus in the off-season was working on a flatter forehand. On TimesOnline Q&A people were worried about messing with a great shot - Rafa's reply was he's adding options, not giving anything up. People forget that Rafa is a work in progress - still young, still developing his game. Every year he moves farther away from the clay-machine stereotype. He's a smart guy with a smart coach. Stay tuned.

Yeah, that's why he spent like over 2 hours on court each day this week except against Monfils.

HarryMan
02-15-2009, 03:20 AM
Really not sure about this.

The two best hard court players this year going against each other (I know it's debatable as Murray didn't reach the AO final, which actually counts more than everything, and Federer did).

Murray has been playing very well this week, and Nadal has not looked as sharp as he was at the AO. But this being a final, might put little more pressure on Murray, than say if they had faced in the semi's or anything. It also depends on how his ankle is for the final. He looked (or made it look) like he was in deep pain, but in his post match interview he sounded okay, as if it wasn't something big.

Nadal has now won his last 9 tournament finals that he has competed in. I think the law of averages should catch up with him sometime and this could be the best possible place. It's a best of three, fast indoor hard court final, against his nearest rival, in a MM event. Wont get any better for any other opponent once the clay and grass season starts, so Murray has to take full advantage of this.

I still think Nadal will wear Murray down and win this one in three. Hoping for an excellent final!

vamosinator
02-15-2009, 03:20 AM
Tennis would be very boring without somebody challenging Nadal and Federer, so I am glad that some people do not expect much from the #1 so he can keep surprising us. I think that Nadal will be truly the GOAT for decades to come.

Yeah i guess it makes for interesting reading like that long post by abol_tabol:unsure: as the world tries to cope with the dawning of the RAFA MASSACRE:toothy:

Ackms421
02-15-2009, 03:25 AM
For some reason this dynamic reminds of the atmosphere right before the Djokovic/Nadal Olympics semi...

...:shrug:

vamosinator
02-15-2009, 03:31 AM
For some reason this dynamic reminds of the atmosphere right before the Djokovic/Nadal Olympics semi...

...:shrug:

That Olympic Semi is one of my favorite matches ever, THE DAY THE JOKE TURNED INTO TEARS:p

NinaNina19
02-15-2009, 03:33 AM
Really not sure about this.

The two best hard court players this year going against each other (I know it's debatable as Murray didn't reach the AO final, which actually counts more than everything, and Federer did).

Murray has been playing very well this week, and Nadal has not looked as sharp as he was at the AO. But this being a final, might put little more pressure on Murray, than say if they had faced in the semi's or anything. It also depends on how his ankle is for the final. He looked (or made it look) like he was in deep pain, but in his post match interview he sounded okay, as if it wasn't something big.

Nadal has now won his last 9 tournament finals that he has competed in. I think the law of averages should catch up with him sometime and this could be the best possible place. It's a best of three, fast indoor hard court final, against his nearest rival, in a MM event. Wont get any better for any other opponent once the clay and grass season starts, so Murray has to take full advantage of this.

I still think Nadal will wear Murray down and win this one in three. Hoping for an excellent final!
Murray has actually played like shit this week except against Ancic.

icedevil0289
02-15-2009, 03:42 AM
I'm really hoping murray wins this one. I'm not a huge fan, but I like his tennis much more than rafa's. Anways, seeing as how they are playing on my birthday it would be a nice present for me. :D

SwiSha
02-15-2009, 03:56 AM
Hope Murray wins. If not then Tennis is really dead.

coming from someone who has the Fixer Vasallo, no weapons players Gil and Devilder in the signature

lol
lmao
lmfao

Mimi
02-15-2009, 04:05 AM
great post:bigclap::clap2:

I read your discussions and I decided to join only to say.
"The better hard court player is the one who has more titles on hard court"
Obviously from the players now Fed is the best, but considering Murray and Nadal I think Rafa has hard court slam and Murray not. Also Rafa won more Masters Series on hard. Or they are equal. I dont know exactly. So how can you claim Murray is better on hard.
I think you are implying that he has better game for hard court, yes, I agree. He is very good but its not all about the game. Its about the wins and the character.

vamosinator
02-15-2009, 04:10 AM
I think a lot of players have games that suit hardcourt, including Tsonga, Murray, Del Potro etc. but their game is undone by their weak minds and weak bodies, so in the end the 'game' is really the least important aspect of THE GAME :D

pogotheorist
02-15-2009, 04:24 AM
Yeah, that's why he spent like over 2 hours on court each day this week except against Monfils.
You think you rebutted something there? Of course people have bad days. Andy vs Seppi was another. That has little to do with whether Rafa is developing new skills and sounder strategies. People like Clydey argue as though Rafa2005 is as good as it gets; the guy was 18.

rafa_maniac
02-15-2009, 06:28 AM
Nadal is not the best on a hard court. I maintain that he is very beatable for guys like Murray, Nalbandian, Djokovic, and Davydenko on a hard court.

Whose saying he's "unbeatable" :confused:

Anyway, this will go to three. Could go either way. Hopefully Nadal, probably Murray.

rafa_maniac
02-15-2009, 06:35 AM
Yes, but that's the point I have been making the whole time. Nadal is much more consistent. However, if he catches one of these flatter hitters on a hot day they can take the match out of his hands. You can't say the same for Nadal. He plays with so much top spin that he is never going to blow any of them off a hard court.

Have people who say this sort of thing even WATCHED a Nadal match on hardcourt in the last 6 months when he's been playing well? He's the one calling the shots from the baseline the majority of the time. "Taking the match out of somebody's hands" is not instantly equatable with "hitting outright winners", though Nadal has certainly started doing that a lot more often off both wings.

jeremda01
02-15-2009, 07:27 AM
Rafa in 2

vamosinator
02-15-2009, 07:35 AM
Have people who say this sort of thing even WATCHED a Nadal match on hardcourt in the last 6 months when he's been playing well? He's the one calling the shots from the baseline the majority of the time. "Taking the match out of somebody's hands" is not instantly equatable with "hitting outright winners", though Nadal has certainly started doing that a lot more often off both wings.

I don't have the match stats but I remember seeing on the TV that at 7-5 2-2 THE RAFA had already hit 9 backhand winners in the AO Final. I think that says it all:eek:

RedFury
02-15-2009, 08:04 AM
Spot on!

He is also aware of his liabilities and humble enough to say in pretty much interview I've seen with him when asked about his goals in 2009. "Keep improving my game".

Sure some may think "What a politically correct answer". Obviously Nadal will like to win more GS and maintain the number 1 spot but he realizes that in order to achieve those goals, he still needs to improve some aspects of his game.

Thus the goal I believe is foremost for Nadal and his team this year. Keep the #1 ranking and add his share of titles with RG and three to four MCs more than likely. All else is gravy. Besides, humble as he is, he is as keen as they come in this sport mentally. Thus playing down all talk of a Golden Slam and saying that what he really wants is to win the Davis Cup again.

Acting this way has worked extremely well for him since his eruption on the tennis scene. No reason to change now.

As for the ongoing discussion, bores me to sleep. Point being that haters are not tennis fans by definition. But they've sure had a lot to spew about over the past year or so -- methinks they should ready themselves for the long haul 'cause Rafa is not going anywhere.

I'm more than confident that he enjoys the view from on up top and plans on being there for quite sometime. After all, he is just hitting his prime and he undoubtedly continues to improve.

Something to ponder. Or not, for just the thought might make many a hater here quite ill.

---

Funny though, that when they speak of Murray's 'destruction' of Nadal at the US Open, none of them seem to recall that while Andy went to Beijing to sightsee, Rafa was sweating his butt off to win the Gold on a very similar surface to Queens. And then flew straight to The Open with close to an empty tank -- as the rest of his season showed.

Rafa to take it in three. Despite what he says, he is, in fact, The Favorite in every match he plays no matter what surface. That's what being number one is all about.

Aenea
02-15-2009, 08:17 AM
My two cents on Nadal, his game and his achievements.....



I always like to read posts from Fed fans who are trying to stay sane and unbiased though it's hard to find such these days. I liked your post until I reached the "off the field" advantages part. Here is where you lost me for your cause. Barring 3 and 4 it turns out Nadal's advantages that bother Fed so much are that he's lefty and ambidextrous. Well Nadal isn't the only lefty player on the circuit and Fed had played many lefties. I didn't see him having troubles with them. Are you implying only right-handed players deserve credit? The next one, being ambidextrous, really makes me laugh. How come this is an "off the field" advantage? You are saying this as if it was illegal. This is just another skill one can develop to add to his game. I believe many other players would like to have this "off the field" advantage. The rest of your post after that part isn't far from any hater's view and doesn't deserve to comment on it. You won't recognize Nadal as a great tennis player? Fine who cares, many other will. I welcome any new coming player who brings something new and different to tennis, the more variety the better.

As for the today's match I'm not sure, it's 50-50 for me. I'm not underestimating Murray but I'm hoping Rafa will prevail.

waterlily_021989
02-15-2009, 08:18 AM
Rafa in 3

Yves.
02-15-2009, 09:57 AM
Murray in 3, despite his minor injury.

ignatius
02-15-2009, 10:45 AM
He didn't play the match of his life then, he played well but Murray was also exhausted from the 3+ hour match he played the day before. Davydenko didn't play the match of his life in the Miami final either, he was just playing very well. When Davydenko plays very well he can easily challenge the top players.

So typical...

How many more lame excuses are you going to come up with?

What if Nadal beats him today? are you going to come here to post something along the lines of "all credit to Nadal, but Murray was injured..."

So Murray lost to Davidenko because he was exhausted :rolleyes:

Murry lost to Verdasco cause he was on "antibiotics"... :rolleyes:

If Murray loses to Nadal, "his ankle will have bothered him a little bit too much"... :rolleyes:



My two cents on Nadal, his game and his achievements.

Before I proceed I'd like to first mention that I’m not a Nadal supporter. Never liked his game and never will. There are many other reasons also for not being his fan. I am a huge Federer fan and always will be. To me, he is the greatest tennis talent ever and the closest to perfection.

Saying that, I agree with the Nadal fans here who think that he is the best hard court player right now. Yes, in the sense that he will win more matches than he will lose against the top players. I don’t see anybody consistently beat Nadal in hard court anymore even though his game is not really suited for hard court. But he improved his game enough in the last 12 months that it’ll be very difficult to win a match against him by anybody, be that Murray or Djoko or Tsonga or anybody else. I just don’t see it. And I believe if he can remain injury free he will be able to dominate like this at least for the next 2-3 years. It can actually get better if he can improve his first serve!! Makes me shudder just to think of that prospect.

And the Nadal fans are right in saying that he does not get enough credit and respect for his outstanding achievements. I believe there are two reasons for that. One is that he is playing under the shadow of Roger (one of the greatest tennis talents of all time) and people tend to notice Nadal less. This actually helps him to play with less pressure and less scrutiny. But this will soon change as he is becoming the undisputable number one very fast.

I don't think this is true at all. First and foremost, their head to head is on Nadal's favor so you can't say people notice Nadal less than Federer even when Nadal was number two in the world. Now Nadal's won Wimbly, olympic gold medal and the AO he's the king, not only on the courts but also off the courts. Just do a search on google, youtube and type in Rafael Nadal or Rafa Nadal and Roger Federer...you'll be surprised.

The other reason for the lack of respect (which I think the most important one) is the huge “off the field” advantages that Nadal has. This is the point I don’t think has been discussed enough. Let me clarify what are these “off the field” advantages I’m talking about:

1. Being a lefty. A huge advantage, specially, in tennis, like no other sports I can think of. Besides, none of the top players and his closest rivals are lefty.
2. Being an ambidextruous, the guy is basically playing with two forehands, his backhand never breaks down!
3. Unbelievable physical strength, strongest player in the circuit. He is so strong many people actually think that it may be artificially achieved ( I personally don’t think so, he just has a great gene). I heard player like Davydenko commenting: “Nadal is just too strong, Roger cannot handle that”. It is so much of a big factor!!
4. Slowing down of the court speed everywhere which is helping him a lot. But this is just a lucky coincidence that he started playing tennis at this time.

Completely disagree. People don't give him the credit he deserves cause

1.- He was originally labelled as a CLAY court expert. I'll say 99% of tennis experts never expected Nadal to win at Wimbly or any HC slams. They thought he was just going to be another Bruguera, Ferrero, Muster, Kuerten... clay court specialists normally don't win many hard court tournaments but Nadal has evolved and people still doubt him.

2.- People have always like aggressive players; Edberg, Becker, Mcnroe, Lendl, Federer, Sampras...fans like players who hit 60 winners a match and that's the way it is. Nadal however, doesnt have to hit those many winners to win matches. Having said that, he's improved on that aspect and hits more winners than the previous years.

3.- Nadal's backhand is not his best shot. Nadal gives away too many points by covering his backhand to hit with the forehand. He leaves the court wide open for the opponent to hit a winner on an empty court. If Nadal's backhand was so solid he wouldn't give away those many points.

4.- There's something that I'll never do. People tend to speculate what would've happened if Nadal had played on the Sampras era or post sampras era, or even before that. I just don't waste my time theorizing what would've happened. To me, Nadal is a thousand times better player than Hewitt and the aussie managed to win a few Slams and reached the number one ranking as well, so I don't see why Nadal would've done worse than what he's doing now.

Bilbo
02-15-2009, 11:19 AM
R. Nadal in 3

«Ivan»
02-15-2009, 01:20 PM
kilimanjaro feminine ass(can't see the court) 'n ugliness itself play moonbaling.ugliness is contagious i'm afraid.umpire should proclaim disgrace.

NinaNina19
02-15-2009, 03:47 PM
So typical...

How many more lame excuses are you going to come up with?

What if Nadal beats him today? are you going to come here to post something along the lines of "all credit to Nadal, but Murray was injured..."

So Murray lost to Davidenko because he was exhausted :rolleyes:

Murry lost to Verdasco cause he was on "antibiotics"... :rolleyes:

If Murray loses to Nadal, "his ankle will have bothered him a little bit too much"... :rolleyes:


OK so playing a 3 and half hour match against Federer the day before will not make you exhausted? Murray really did lose to Davydenko because he was tired. Davydenko is a good player, but Murray was really exhausted. And lol you try being sick and still take out an inform Verdasco.

star
02-15-2009, 04:02 PM
I always like to read posts from Fed fans who are trying to stay sane and unbiased though it's hard to find such these days. I liked your post until I reached the "off the field" advantages part. Here is where you lost me for your cause. Barring 3 and 4 it turns out Nadal's advantages that bother Fed so much are that he's lefty and ambidextrous. Well Nadal isn't the only lefty player on the circuit and Fed had played many lefties. I didn't see him having troubles with them. Are you implying only right-handed players deserve credit? The next one, being ambidextrous, really makes me laugh. How come this is an "off the field" advantage? You are saying this as if it was illegal. This is just another skill one can develop to add to his game. I believe many other players would like to have this "off the field" advantage. The rest of your post after that part isn't far from any hater's view and doesn't deserve to comment on it. You won't recognize Nadal as a great tennis player? Fine who cares, many other will. I welcome any new coming player who brings something new and different to tennis, the more variety the better.

As for the today's match I'm not sure, it's 50-50 for me. I'm not underestimating Murray but I'm hoping Rafa will prevail.

Yes, all of the above, and also that "off court advantages" numbers 1 through 3 are "talents", if we take "talent" to be natural ability or skill as it is defined, every bit as much as terrific hand/eye coordination, excellent eyesight, or athleticism.

But, Nadal honed his natural ability and skills with his left hand. He can't really do much else with his left hand. The talent was there surely, but he worked hard to perfect it.

So, picking which ability is "genuine" is sort of :eyeroll:

But :worship: for the effort to be unbiased and the attempt not to outright bash Rafa. :lol: :lol:

:secret: It was a FAIL, but we won't tell. :)

Corey Feldman
02-15-2009, 06:22 PM
somebody give star a box of tissues FFS

Clydey
02-15-2009, 06:43 PM
somebody give star a box of tissues FFS

Our time will come, Feldman.

abol_tabol
02-15-2009, 07:43 PM
I don't think this is true at all. First and foremost, their head to head is on Nadal's favor so you can't say people notice Nadal less than Federer even when Nadal was number two in the world. Now Nadal's won Wimbly, olympic gold medal and the AO he's the king, not only on the courts but also off the courts. Just do a search on google, youtube and type in Rafael Nadal or Rafa Nadal and Roger Federer...you'll be surprised.

Sorry, I disagree. It is not about ONLY head to head. Nadal has always played on the shadow of Roger so far. That is quite simple to understand as Roger being one of the all time greats naturally the attention will be on him. But it has started to change now. Nadal has now clearly moved ahead after beating Roger in Wimbledon and AO finals. The focus now should be more on Nadal.



Completely disagree. People don't give him the credit he deserves cause

1.- He was originally labelled as a CLAY court expert. I'll say 99% of tennis experts never expected Nadal to win at Wimbly or any HC slams. They thought he was just going to be another Bruguera, Ferrero, Muster, Kuerten... clay court specialists normally don't win many hard court tournaments but Nadal has evolved and people still doubt him.

2.- People have always like aggressive players; Edberg, Becker, Mcnroe, Lendl, Federer, Sampras...fans like players who hit 60 winners a match and that's the way it is. Nadal however, doesnt have to hit those many winners to win matches. Having said that, he's improved on that aspect and hits more winners than the previous years.

3.- Nadal's backhand is not his best shot. Nadal gives away too many points by covering his backhand to hit with the forehand. He leaves the court wide open for the opponent to hit a winner on an empty court. If Nadal's backhand was so solid he wouldn't give away those many points.

4.- There's something that I'll never do. People tend to speculate what would've happened if Nadal had played on the Sampras era or post sampras era, or even before that. I just don't waste my time theorizing what would've happened. To me, Nadal is a thousand times better player than Hewitt and the aussie managed to win a few Slams and reached the number one ranking as well, so I don't see why Nadal would've done worse than what he's doing now.

"completely disagree" is a strong word. Does not make any sense to me. You're just pointing out few more additional reasons but surely my points are still valid.

1. Yes, you're right. At the beginning of his career lots of people thought that. But I did not nor did Roger and surely few other experts also saw the potential. Roger knew of Nadal's potential as early as around 2004. He was concerned. Even if people thought he was just a clay court player why would not they now still give him credit for his outstanding achievements in non-clay tournaments then?

2. May be more people like aggressive tennis but they still should be able to respect the achievements of a defensive player, right? I do not like Nadal's game mostly for his style but I would respect his achievements more if he did not have such a huge "off the field" advantages compared to almost all other tennis players in the circuit. "Liking one's game" and "respecting one's achievements" are two separate issues.

3. I disagree with your comments on Nadal's backhand. It may not be powerful enough but it is always very solid, it never breaks down and his backhand passes are just unbelievable. You cannot come to net on his backhand. I heard Roger and Safin making comments on Nadal's backhand being very solid several times. And Safin saying how it is almost impossible to beat Nadal on clay because of his backhand.

4. Don't see much to comment on this. It is not very relevant to my ealrier post. I did not make conjecture on "what would happen" in my original post. Anytime the court speed slows down it is going to help Nadal. It suits his game, his style. I don't see anything to argue about here. It is very clear.

abol_tabol
02-15-2009, 09:51 PM
I always like to read posts from Fed fans who are trying to stay sane and unbiased though it's hard to find such these days. I liked your post until I reached the "off the field" advantages part. Here is where you lost me for your cause. Barring 3 and 4 it turns out Nadal's advantages that bother Fed so much are that he's lefty and ambidextrous. Well Nadal isn't the only lefty player on the circuit and Fed had played many lefties. I didn't see him having troubles with them. Are you implying only right-handed players deserve credit? The next one, being ambidextrous, really makes me laugh. How come this is an "off the field" advantage? You are saying this as if it was illegal. This is just another skill one can develop to add to his game. I believe many other players would like to have this "off the field" advantage. The rest of your post after that part isn't far from any hater's view and doesn't deserve to comment on it. You won't recognize Nadal as a great tennis player? Fine who cares, many other will. I welcome any new coming player who brings something new and different to tennis, the more variety the better.

I did not like the tone of your comment. But I would still make a reply because, the silly, immature and ungracious stuff (like "stay sane", "makes me laugh", "hater's view", "doesn't deserve to comment") aside, your comment actually made me think. And I'm noticing few more things that I did not think about before. Thanks for that.

But first to answer few of your questions which are rather straight forward to deal with.

Federer does not have much problem to deal with any other lefty because none of them are as good in tennis skill as Nadal. Asides from the "off the field" advantages, Nadal is a pretty good tennis player. I always acknowledge that. Anybody can see it. Besides, no lefty has the other two advantages (physical strength and ambidextrousness) going for them also. So, it is pretty simple.

To me, it is just not about Nadal and Federer. I'm thinking more about the huge advantages Nadal has pretty much over the entire circuit. But if we stick to just Nadal-Federer match-up for the moment then say think of Nadal as being a right-handed tennis player and everything else remains same then does anybody see Nadal winning a single match against Roger in any surface? Honestly? I don’t see it. May be couple of less important matches on clay due to Nadal’s incredible movement and pretty good tennis skill but surely not more. Roger is that much superior in “pure” tennis skill than Nadal. To me, a right handed Nadal is just a better version (better movement, better consistency) of Igor Andreev, not good enough to beat Roger.

So only right handed player will get credit? Of course not. The left handed player will get credit for their talent and skills. But the credit for the achievements should be qualified accordingly. In Cricket, one of my favourite cricketers is a lefty (Wasim Akram from Pakistan). To me, he is the most naturally talented bowler ever. But his achievements get qualified like this: “he is one of the greatest LEFT HANDED bowlers of all time”. I think Cricket got it right even though in tennis being a left handed is a bigger advantage.

Nadal is not doing anything illegal or unfair. He is well within the rule. He is just taking advantages of some qualities that are not at all related to tennis skill or talent. Being a lefty or ambidextruous or physically strong is not a talent or skill, it is something like your height or look, things that you do not control, you’re just born with it.

In Nadal’s case as far as I know he is not really a natural lefty. It has been imposed on him at early age and so he is not also naturally ambidextruous. This is a very interesting case. Is there any other example of this in the world of sports? So why did he choose to play left handed even though it is not his natural side? Because his uncle thought it would give him an extra edge, right? Then how come many Nadal fans think the leftiness does not give him any extra advantage? Please explain.

And that Nadal has been able to be so successful playing with his weaker side and to become effectively an ambidextruous, is that his talent/skill, something very special? Really? I don’t think so. I’m myself a natural lefty but I write with my right hand as it has been imposed on me at a very early age to write right handed and I can do it easily. Playing tennis is definitely much more difficult than to write and Nadal surely deserves credit for that but I don’t think it is that big a deal. Nadal is just very lucky that his uncle had the foresight to see the advantage of playing lefty and impose on him that at a very early age. Very early age is the key. Many people see it as a brilliant move but to me it sounds insidious and border line unsporting. To go to that length to get the extra edge? Wow! Really? You need a very special mind for that!

About your comment on variety, sure I also like to see more varieties and welcome it. But to me varieties come from tennis skill, different game styles, but not a freak show from circus. I’m surely not looking forward to see an eight foot giant playing not only with both hands but also with his legs and then call it a “variety in tennis”!!

I try to give credit as much as it is deserved, not less, not more. Just that I don’t consider Nadal a “great” player does not make me a “hater” (a silly, pointless word in a sports forum). Because Nadal is just a “very good” player and that is the only respect he deserves, not more, not less. And I’m afraid that nothing is going to change that reality as hard as anybody tries.

FedFan_2007
02-15-2009, 10:25 PM
Sorry, I disagree. It is not about ONLY head to head. Nadal has always played on the shadow of Roger so far. That is quite simple to understand as Roger being one of the all time greats naturally the attention will be on him. But it has started to change now. Nadal has now clearly moved ahead after beating Roger in Wimbledon and AO finals. The focus now should be more on Nadal.



"completely disagree" is a strong word. Does not make any sense to me. You're just pointing out few more additional reasons but surely my points are still valid.

1. Yes, you're right. At the beginning of his career lots of people thought that. But I did not nor did Roger and surely few other experts also saw the potential. Roger knew of Nadal's potential as early as around 2004. He was concerned. Even if people thought he was just a clay court player why would not they now still give him credit for his outstanding achievements in non-clay tournaments then?

2. May be more people like aggressive tennis but they still should be able to respect the achievements of a defensive player, right? I do not like Nadal's game mostly for his style but I would respect his achievements more if he did not have such a huge "off the field" advantages compared to almost all other tennis players in the circuit. "Liking one's game" and "respecting one's achievements" are two separate issues.

3. I disagree with your comments on Nadal's backhand. It may not be powerful enough but it is always very solid, it never breaks down and his backhand passes are just unbelievable. You cannot come to net on his backhand. I heard Roger and Safin making comments on Nadal's backhand being very solid several times. And Safin saying how it is almost impossible to beat Nadal on clay because of his backhand.

4. Don't see much to comment on this. It is not very relevant to my ealrier post. I did not make conjecture on "what would happen" in my original post. Anytime the court speed slows down it is going to help Nadal. It suits his game, his style. I don't see anything to argue about here. It is very clear.

Given that there are very few fast surfaces left on the ATP, doesn't it behoove Nadal's opponents to get better on slower surfaces then? Why keep complaining about the slow surfaces?

abol_tabol
02-15-2009, 10:37 PM
Given that there are very few fast surfaces left on the ATP, doesn't it behoove Nadal's opponents to get better on slower surfaces then? Why keep complaining about the slow surfaces?

Complaining? No, I did not. It is not an excuse for Roger or any other players. Sure, they have to adjust. And the Nadal comtemporaries are trying to do that and the older player also. It is just a fact that I'm pointing out. Slowing down of the court speed will always favor the defensive players (Nadal is just one of them) who rely on their legs more.

FedFan_2007
02-15-2009, 10:45 PM
Complaining? No, I did not. It is not an excuse for Roger or any other players. Sure, they have to adjust. And the Nadal comtemporaries are trying to do that and the older player also. It is just a fact that I'm pointing out. Slowing down of the court speed will always favor the defensive players (Nadal is just one of them) who rely on their legs more.

Really? It seems to me that AndyM, Nole and Fed all play great defense. So it's all relative in terms of slower surface providing benefit. Why nobody is complaining that Fed is #2 on clay for 4 straight years - he plays great defense on the slower surfaces too. It's just that Nadal plays nuclear defense which gives him the edge on literally the whole field. It's quite clear looking at the 2008 Nadal vs Nole/Fed matches that in all instances the Nole/Fed got up a break in a set Nadal just turned on the defensive juice and they were cooked.

NinaNina19
02-15-2009, 10:48 PM
It's amazing how much whining went into Murray being the favorite of this poll, and then Murray ended up dishing out a bagel.

MalwareDie
02-15-2009, 11:06 PM
It's amazing how much whining went into Murray being the favorite of this poll, and then Murray ended up dishing out a bagel.

It's because this forum is polluted by Mugboartards who have to make themselves the center of attention in every thread.

FedFan_2007
02-15-2009, 11:11 PM
It's because this forum is polluted by Mugboartards who have to make themselves the center of attention in every thread.

Well it's always going to be the case that whoever is #1 is going to have the most infestation of trolls on MTF.

peterparker
02-16-2009, 01:50 AM
I did not like the tone of your comment. But I would still make a reply because, the silly, immature and ungracious stuff (like "stay sane", "makes me laugh", "hater's view", "doesn't deserve to comment") aside, your comment actually made me think. And I'm noticing few more things that I did not think about before. Thanks for that.

But first to answer few of your questions which are rather straight forward to deal with.

Federer does not have much problem to deal with any other lefty because none of them are as good in tennis skill as Nadal. Asides from the "off the field" advantages, Nadal is a pretty good tennis player. I always acknowledge that. Anybody can see it. Besides, no lefty has the other two advantages (physical strength and ambidextrousness) going for them also. So, it is pretty simple.

To me, it is just not about Nadal and Federer. I'm thinking more about the huge advantages Nadal has pretty much over the entire circuit. But if we stick to just Nadal-Federer match-up for the moment then say think of Nadal as being a right-handed tennis player and everything else remains same then does anybody see Nadal winning a single match against Roger in any surface? Honestly? I don’t see it. May be couple of less important matches on clay due to Nadal’s incredible movement and pretty good tennis skill but surely not more. Roger is that much superior in “pure” tennis skill than Nadal. To me, a right handed Nadal is just a better version (better movement, better consistency) of Igor Andreev, not good enough to beat Roger.

So only right handed player will get credit? Of course not. The left handed player will get credit for their talent and skills. But the credit for the achievements should be qualified accordingly. In Cricket, one of my favourite cricketers is a lefty (Wasim Akram from Pakistan). To me, he is the most naturally talented bowler ever. But his achievements get qualified like this: “he is one of the greatest LEFT HANDED bowlers of all time”. I think Cricket got it right even though in tennis being a left handed is a bigger advantage.

Nadal is not doing anything illegal or unfair. He is well within the rule. He is just taking advantages of some qualities that are not at all related to tennis skill or talent. Being a lefty or ambidextruous or physically strong is not a talent or skill, it is something like your height or look, things that you do not control, you’re just born with it.

In Nadal’s case as far as I know he is not really a natural lefty. It has been imposed on him at early age and so he is not also naturally ambidextruous. This is a very interesting case. Is there any other example of this in the world of sports? So why did he choose to play left handed even though it is not his natural side? Because his uncle thought it would give him an extra edge, right? Then how come many Nadal fans think the leftiness does not give him any extra advantage? Please explain.

And that Nadal has been able to be so successful playing with his weaker side and to become effectively an ambidextruous, is that his talent/skill, something very special? Really? I don’t think so. I’m myself a natural lefty but I write with my right hand as it has been imposed on me at a very early age to write right handed and I can do it easily. Playing tennis is definitely much more difficult than to write and Nadal surely deserves credit for that but I don’t think it is that big a deal. Nadal is just very lucky that his uncle had the foresight to see the advantage of playing lefty and impose on him that at a very early age. Very early age is the key. Many people see it as a brilliant move but to me it sounds insidious and border line unsporting. To go to that length to get the extra edge? Wow! Really? You need a very special mind for that!

About your comment on variety, sure I also like to see more varieties and welcome it. But to me varieties come from tennis skill, different game styles, but not a freak show from circus. I’m surely not looking forward to see an eight foot giant playing not only with both hands but also with his legs and then call it a “variety in tennis”!!

I try to give credit as much as it is deserved, not less, not more. Just that I don’t consider Nadal a “great” player does not make me a “hater” (a silly, pointless word in a sports forum). Because Nadal is just a “very good” player and that is the only respect he deserves, not more, not less. And I’m afraid that nothing is going to change that reality as hard as anybody tries.

He would still be the heavy favorite on clay if he were a righty. But imo it would have taken him a bit longer to take down federer on other surfaces. Just look at what murray does to federer, nadal would do the same thing.

Aenea
02-16-2009, 11:21 AM
I did not like the tone of your comment. But I would still make a reply because, the silly, immature and ungracious stuff (like "stay sane", "makes me laugh", "hater's view", "doesn't deserve to comment") aside, your comment actually made me think.

I didn't read beyond this point.

:scratch:

You expect me to be gracious to somebody who is calling my fav who happens to be the best player atm the "freakiest of the freaks in the tennis history"? You expect me to take you seriously after you wrote

Because of these “off the field” advantages I never had much respect for Nadal’s achievements and never will.

when the "off the field" advantages that Nadal has IYO are playing with his left hand (instead with his right hand since only the right-handed players are "normal" :cuckoo:) and being ambidextrous?

Welcome to my ignore list :wavey:

abol_tabol
02-16-2009, 07:37 PM
I didn't read beyond this point.

Ouch! Good that you did not. It might do some irreparable damage. You may actually learn something!! But we cannot let that happen, can we? After all, discussion forums are only for fanboyism, personal attack and silly pointless childish prank.


You expect me to be gracious to somebody who is calling my fav who happens to be the best player atm the "freakiest of the freaks in the tennis history"?

Yes, sure. Definitely I expect it. It is just a very basic etiquette. It is my personal opinion. You may not like it but you do not have the right to attack me personally.

Just because you are a fan of Nadal and he is the best player that does not mean he will suddenly become less of a freak. A freak is a freak. No amount of sugarcoating or blind love or biased fanboyism will ever going to alter that reality.

You don't like the word "freak"? It sounds negative to you? What would you prefer then? Some of the other words that people are saying: "animal" (as Pete said recently), "beast"? Those are just euphemism. Get used to it. This is just the beginning. There are many more questions, deeper scrutiny are coming towards Nadal. It comes with the territory.


You expect me to take you seriously after you wrote


when the "off the field" advantages that Nadal has IYO are playing with his left hand (instead with his right hand since only the right-handed players are "normal" :cuckoo:) and being ambidextrous?

This sounds total gibberish to me. You clearly did not understand what I tried to say. Basically, I'm making a distinction between "great" and "very good". In my opinion, because of the "extra" advantages Nadal has he should not be termed "great" even though his achievements clearly suggest so. Purely because I don't see him achieving so much without those "off the field" advantages. It makes that much of a difference. It is very obvious to me Nadal would not win any of his six slams without these "advantages" as Roger would beat him every time.


Welcome to my ignore list :wavey:

Very good. Thanks for that. In that way I would not need to waste anymore of my time on you which you clearly do not deserve. I would also suggest to stay away from the general section of this forum and spend your time at Nadal fan forum. You obviously have lot of growing up to do for mature healthy discussions. Best of luck on that.

l_mac
02-16-2009, 08:00 PM
My two cents on Nadal, his game and his achievements.

Before I proceed I'd like to first mention that I’m not a Nadal supporter. Never liked his game and never will. There are many other reasons also for not being his fan. I am a huge Federer fan and always will be. To me, he is the greatest tennis talent ever and the closest to perfection.

Saying that, I agree with the Nadal fans here who think that he is the best hard court player right now. Yes, in the sense that he will win more matches than he will lose against the top players. I don’t see anybody consistently beat Nadal in hard court anymore even though his game is not really suited for hard court. But he improved his game enough in the last 12 months that it’ll be very difficult to win a match against him by anybody, be that Murray or Djoko or Tsonga or anybody else. I just don’t see it. And I believe if he can remain injury free he will be able to dominate like this at least for the next 2-3 years. It can actually get better if he can improve his first serve!! Makes me shudder just to think of that prospect.

And the Nadal fans are right in saying that he does not get enough credit and respect for his outstanding achievements. I believe there are two reasons for that. One is that he is playing under the shadow of Roger (one of the greatest tennis talents of all time) and people tend to notice Nadal less. This actually helps him to play with less pressure and less scrutiny. But this will soon change as he is becoming the undisputable number one very fast.

The other reason for the lack of respect (which I think the most important one) is the huge “off the field” advantages that Nadal has. This is the point I don’t think has been discussed enough. Let me clarify what are these “off the field” advantages I’m talking about:

1. Being a lefty. A huge advantage, specially, in tennis, like no other sports I can think of. Besides, none of the top players and his closest rivals are lefty.
2. Being an ambidextruous, the guy is basically playing with two forehands, his backhand never breaks down!
3. Unbelievable physical strength, strongest player in the circuit. He is so strong many people actually think that it may be artificially achieved ( I personally don’t think so, he just has a great gene). I heard player like Davydenko commenting: “Nadal is just too strong, Roger cannot handle that”. It is so much of a big factor!!
4. Slowing down of the court speed everywhere which is helping him a lot. But this is just a lucky coincidence that he started playing tennis at this time.

The combination of the first three has made Nadal the freakiest of the freaks in the tennis history. I don’t think anybody has all these three combination going for one ever anywhere. In my mind, without these advantages (just first three and forget about number four) Nadal will just be a very good tennis player (top ten at best) instead of the 6 time grand slam champs and one of the greats of tennis. Without just any one of the three I believe the head to head with Roger would just reverse. Without all three (i.e. basically be normal like almost any other tennis players) I don’t see how Nadal would win any match against Roger in any surfaces.

Only Nadal quality that I respect and find genuine is his athleticism. It is just of the highest quality. Totally outstanding. Genuine and honest talent, no extra advantage here. His tennis skill is very good, definitely top ten for his consistency and accuracy but not the greatest as it looks to be by his outstanding achievements. He does not even come close to Roger’s. All his other qualities (like focus, concentration, mental strength, fighting ability etc.) may not look that great without the “off the field” advantages.

Because of these “off the field” advantages I never had much respect for Nadal’s achievements and never will. The advantages are so huge that it is almost “unfair”. It is absolutely no fault of Nadal that he is such a freak of nature. I understand that. Nothing is personal here. But even if Nadal goes on to win 20 slams, breaks all kinds of records, to me, he will always remain a “very good tennis player” who became a “great one” by exploiting some “off the field” advantages to the fullest to his credit.

About tomorrow's final: 50-50
Murray has the game to beat Nadal but he needs to be fit and at his best. Hope he can do it.

Sorry, I disagree. It is not about ONLY head to head. Nadal has always played on the shadow of Roger so far. That is quite simple to understand as Roger being one of the all time greats naturally the attention will be on him. But it has started to change now. Nadal has now clearly moved ahead after beating Roger in Wimbledon and AO finals. The focus now should be more on Nadal.



"completely disagree" is a strong word. Does not make any sense to me. You're just pointing out few more additional reasons but surely my points are still valid.

1. Yes, you're right. At the beginning of his career lots of people thought that. But I did not nor did Roger and surely few other experts also saw the potential. Roger knew of Nadal's potential as early as around 2004. He was concerned. Even if people thought he was just a clay court player why would not they now still give him credit for his outstanding achievements in non-clay tournaments then?

2. May be more people like aggressive tennis but they still should be able to respect the achievements of a defensive player, right? I do not like Nadal's game mostly for his style but I would respect his achievements more if he did not have such a huge "off the field" advantages compared to almost all other tennis players in the circuit. "Liking one's game" and "respecting one's achievements" are two separate issues.

3. I disagree with your comments on Nadal's backhand. It may not be powerful enough but it is always very solid, it never breaks down and his backhand passes are just unbelievable. You cannot come to net on his backhand. I heard Roger and Safin making comments on Nadal's backhand being very solid several times. And Safin saying how it is almost impossible to beat Nadal on clay because of his backhand.

4. Don't see much to comment on this. It is not very relevant to my ealrier post. I did not make conjecture on "what would happen" in my original post. Anytime the court speed slows down it is going to help Nadal. It suits his game, his style. I don't see anything to argue about here. It is very clear.

I did not like the tone of your comment. But I would still make a reply because, the silly, immature and ungracious stuff (like "stay sane", "makes me laugh", "hater's view", "doesn't deserve to comment") aside, your comment actually made me think. And I'm noticing few more things that I did not think about before. Thanks for that.

But first to answer few of your questions which are rather straight forward to deal with.

Federer does not have much problem to deal with any other lefty because none of them are as good in tennis skill as Nadal. Asides from the "off the field" advantages, Nadal is a pretty good tennis player. I always acknowledge that. Anybody can see it. Besides, no lefty has the other two advantages (physical strength and ambidextrousness) going for them also. So, it is pretty simple.

To me, it is just not about Nadal and Federer. I'm thinking more about the huge advantages Nadal has pretty much over the entire circuit. But if we stick to just Nadal-Federer match-up for the moment then say think of Nadal as being a right-handed tennis player and everything else remains same then does anybody see Nadal winning a single match against Roger in any surface? Honestly? I don’t see it. May be couple of less important matches on clay due to Nadal’s incredible movement and pretty good tennis skill but surely not more. Roger is that much superior in “pure” tennis skill than Nadal. To me, a right handed Nadal is just a better version (better movement, better consistency) of Igor Andreev, not good enough to beat Roger.

So only right handed player will get credit? Of course not. The left handed player will get credit for their talent and skills. But the credit for the achievements should be qualified accordingly. In Cricket, one of my favourite cricketers is a lefty (Wasim Akram from Pakistan). To me, he is the most naturally talented bowler ever. But his achievements get qualified like this: “he is one of the greatest LEFT HANDED bowlers of all time”. I think Cricket got it right even though in tennis being a left handed is a bigger advantage.

Nadal is not doing anything illegal or unfair. He is well within the rule. He is just taking advantages of some qualities that are not at all related to tennis skill or talent. Being a lefty or ambidextruous or physically strong is not a talent or skill, it is something like your height or look, things that you do not control, you’re just born with it.

In Nadal’s case as far as I know he is not really a natural lefty. It has been imposed on him at early age and so he is not also naturally ambidextruous. This is a very interesting case. Is there any other example of this in the world of sports? So why did he choose to play left handed even though it is not his natural side? Because his uncle thought it would give him an extra edge, right? Then how come many Nadal fans think the leftiness does not give him any extra advantage? Please explain.

And that Nadal has been able to be so successful playing with his weaker side and to become effectively an ambidextruous, is that his talent/skill, something very special? Really? I don’t think so. I’m myself a natural lefty but I write with my right hand as it has been imposed on me at a very early age to write right handed and I can do it easily. Playing tennis is definitely much more difficult than to write and Nadal surely deserves credit for that but I don’t think it is that big a deal. Nadal is just very lucky that his uncle had the foresight to see the advantage of playing lefty and impose on him that at a very early age. Very early age is the key. Many people see it as a brilliant move but to me it sounds insidious and border line unsporting. To go to that length to get the extra edge? Wow! Really? You need a very special mind for that!

About your comment on variety, sure I also like to see more varieties and welcome it. But to me varieties come from tennis skill, different game styles, but not a freak show from circus. I’m surely not looking forward to see an eight foot giant playing not only with both hands but also with his legs and then call it a “variety in tennis”!!

I try to give credit as much as it is deserved, not less, not more. Just that I don’t consider Nadal a “great” player does not make me a “hater” (a silly, pointless word in a sports forum). Because Nadal is just a “very good” player and that is the only respect he deserves, not more, not less. And I’m afraid that nothing is going to change that reality as hard as anybody tries.

Ouch! Good that you did not. It might do some irreparable damage. You may actually learn something!! But we cannot let that happen, can we? After all, discussion forums are only for fanboyism, personal attack and silly pointless childish prank.



Yes, sure. Definitely I expect it. It is just a very basic etiquette. It is my personal opinion. You may not like it but you do not have the right to attack me personally.

Just because you are a fan of Nadal and he is the best player that does not mean he will suddenly become less of a freak. A freak is a freak. No amount of sugarcoating or blind love or biased fanboyism will ever going to alter that reality.

You don't like the word "freak"? It sounds negative to you? What would you prefer then? Some of the other words that people are saying: "animal" (as Pete said recently), "beast"? Those are just euphemism. Get used to it. This is just the beginning. There are many more questions, deeper scrutiny are coming towards Nadal. It comes with the territory.



This sounds total gibberish to me. You clearly did not understand what I tried to say. Basically, I'm making a distinction between "great" and "very good". In my opinion, because of the "extra" advantages Nadal has he should not be termed "great" even though his achievements clearly suggest so. Purely because I don't see him achieving so much without those "off the field" advantages. It makes that much of a difference. It is very obvious to me Nadal would not win any of his six slams without these "advantages" as Roger would beat him every time.



Very good. Thanks for that. In that way I would not need to waste anymore of my time on you which you clearly do not deserve. I would also suggest to stay away from the general section of this forum and spend your time at Nadal fan forum. You obviously have lot of growing up to do for mature healthy discussions. Best of luck on that.

:retard:

Castafiore
02-16-2009, 08:03 PM
:spit: Prima Donna, abol_tabol is not one of your double accounts, right?

Metis
02-16-2009, 09:47 PM
This sounds total gibberish to me. You clearly did not understand what I tried to say. Basically, I'm making a distinction between "great" and "very good". In my opinion, because of the "extra" advantages Nadal has he should not be termed "great" even though his achievements clearly suggest so. Purely because I don't see him achieving so much without those "off the field" advantages. It makes that much of a difference. It is very obvious to me Nadal would not win any of his six slams without these "advantages" as Roger would beat him every time.

Boy, you are something :spit:

It is very obvious to me Federer would not have won any of his 13 slams without having Mirka by his side. He himself has commented on the importance of her influence in his success. Therefore he should not be termed 'great'; I don't see him achieving so much without that 'off the field' advantage.

:hatoff:

abol_tabol
02-17-2009, 05:41 AM
Boy, you are something :spit:

Was it really that far-fetched or you’re just not being able to face the reality?

What do you think of Karlovic? He is getting huge amount of extra advantages from his height, no? Think of the prospect of him getting little better in his return game and start winning left and right, becoming a multiple slam winner. Will it not make a mockery of tennis? How is Nadal’s physical strength (or ambidextrousness) any different than Karlovic’s height advantage?

Interestingly, Nadal reminds me of a Srilankan cricketer. His name is Muttiah Muralidharan. He is breaking all kinds of records with his spin bowling but the catch is that he has a deformity in his arm which allows him huge amount of spin in his delivery. So he is getting a big extra edge and there is nothing to do with it. Nadal situation is also going towards the same road.


It is very obvious to me Federer would not have won any of his 13 slams without having Mirka by his side. He himself has commented on the importance of her influence in his success. Therefore he should not be termed 'great'; I don't see him achieving so much without that 'off the field' advantage.

I know you’re not being serious but I found your observation interesting and funny. So, I’ll treat your response seriously.

Sure, Mirka gave Roger lot of stability in his life and she is an important factor in his success. But can you really make the case “Roger will not OBVIOUSLY win ANY of his 13 slams without Mirka” with a straight face? Does she help him on the court shot after shot, game after game, match after match? There is a question of “degree” in the advantages. You haven’t taken into account of that. Not all advantages are huge or are of same degree.

Anyway. There is a certain amount of luck factors in all major achievements. We live in an imperfect world. Life is not fair always. How much we try we may never have a perfect level ground. But these kinds of luck factors or arbitrary advantages tend to even up. We all have to deal with this uncertainty in life. Roger is living in the same imperfect world as the other players. All the other players also have some lucky things going for them. By having Mirka on his side Roger is not getting any extra advantage over other players. Nadal also has his uncle by his side. Other players have their own support. So, it sort of evens up. But the Nadal’s advantages that I mentioned earlier they don’t even up, it is extra and it is huge.

I will never question the achievements of Roger or Hewitt or Safin or Sampras or Agassi because those were earned fair and square purely with their tennis skill, by competing in a level ground (as much level as possible in an imperfect world). But there will always be a question regarding Nadal’s whether you like it or not. And the question should be there as it is a valid one.


:hatoff:

Your witty response wasn’t good enough. Try again.

Castafiore
02-17-2009, 07:52 AM
I will never question the achievements of Roger or Hewitt or Safin or Sampras or Agassi because those were earned fair and square purely with their tennis skill, by competing in a level ground (as much level as possible in an imperfect world). But there will always be a question regarding Nadal’s whether you like it or not. And the question should be there as it is a valid one.
:rolls:

You're contradicting yourself a bit in your various posts, but good on you for not letting that get in the way of a good trolling effort. :yeah:

abol_tabol
02-17-2009, 03:59 PM
:rolls:

You're contradicting yourself a bit in your various posts, but good on you for not letting that get in the way of a good trolling effort. :yeah:

Really? Care to elaborate what contradictions?

No, I was not trying to troll, it was an honest attempt for an honest discussion. May be I just chose a wrong place among the wrong crowd. I know most of you guys are pretty screwed up here conditioned to think everything is trolling which is pretty pathetic but what can I do.

If you don't like a post why do you feel the need to reply in such a silly pointless way? Just don't say anything. Pretty simple. What did this cheap smug reply accomplish other than annoying me a little bit?

I have very low tolerance for smugness, specially coming from a person whose intellectual level I may not have much respect for at the first place. But I don't know you at all so I'll not mind a proper response from you. Let's see what you can come up with. I'll look forward to it.

Castafiore
02-17-2009, 06:16 PM
:spit: I'm not expecting you to admit that you're trolling but I prefer to believe that you are. Either way, it's more fun that way. :D

The nature of your posts are such that I don't believe that it's of any use to respond to you because you seem to assume that you're stating the facts and nothing but the facts. I also think that this is a discussion that's been done to death already on MTF but I'll reply just because it's a bit easy perhaps to just tell somebody that his/her post is silly.


Right, I do think that being a lefty is an advantage for Rafael against Federer. So far, I agree. However, you're overselling this point. :)

You've also mentioned that Rafa is not a natural lefty. True.
The story behind it is been told often enough so I won't repeat it here.

The fact that he's a good lefthanded tennis player is a result of hard work combined with talent. Becoming good with his left hand is an acquired skill just because he's not a natural lefty. It's not exactly the same thing as learning to write with your other hand (and I know what I'm talking about in that aspect, see below). For everything but tennis, he uses his right hand.

There are more lefthanders in tennis and they're not all crap either. None of them have caused Roger many problems. So, why is Rafa causing problems then? You also say that it's because they don't have the tennis skills Rafa has, so how exactly is playing lefthanded giving him that much of an advantage then? Because he's powerful as well? Are you telling me that for this freak of nature just having average talent but playing lefty is the key to beating Roger so often and the other lefties are just mugs?

Furthermore, Roger is considered to be a tennis genius, right? If it was merely a case of being faced with a powerful lefthander, I do believe that Roger would have used that amazing creativity he has, his natural talent, his versatility to come up with an answer by now.
He hasn't which tells me that it's not so simple and there's more to it.

His backhand. I don't know how long you've been following tennis, but in the beginning of his career and even in the year he won his first slam, his backhand was considered to be a weakness. He was attacked on it quite often which forced him to work on it some more to make it less vulnerable. He's still working on it (he doesn't always use it often enough IMO). He's gradually learning to flatten out that backhand for example. His backhand used to be a tool to merely keep the ball in play or perhaps to use that famous cross-court passing shot but he's learning to attack with it more and more.

It's a matter of looking at your own set of gifts and talents and working and training to perfect them.

in Nadal’s case as far as I know he is not really a natural lefty. It has been imposed on him at early age and so he is not also naturally ambidextruous. This is a very interesting case. Is there any other example of this in the world of sports?
There's even another example in tennis (but the other way round...a natural lefty, using his right hand)


Funnily enough, I'm a natural lefty writing with my right hand as well.
I'm left footed as well (which my gym teachers at school often didn't believe :mad: because they knew that I write with my right hand so they forced me to use my right foot which obviously didn't work...but I digress).


You have the floor. :singer:


This post is toooo long. :o

MalwareDie
02-17-2009, 10:59 PM
his backhand was considered to be a weakness.

His backhand is especially bad against Mugboar because his brain doesn't work and he uses topspin instead of slice on it.

abol_tabol
02-19-2009, 06:13 AM
:spit: I'm not expecting you to admit that you're trolling but I prefer to believe that you are. Either way, it's more fun that way. :D

Fair enough though you do not need to be this mistrustful with me. Have little more faith.


The nature of your posts are such that I don't believe that it's of any use to respond to you because you seem to assume that you're stating the facts and nothing but the facts. I also think that this is a discussion that's been done to death already on MTF but I'll reply just because it's a bit easy perhaps to just tell somebody that his/her post is silly.

I’m sorry but you got it quite wrong. I think I just came little too strong for you. It was just confidence and boldness. You mistook it for something else. Myself being a scientist by profession I know very well what is a “fact” and what is not. Also, I do not debate/discuss just to win it, I only do it to enrich my understanding. I am always open to new things, new perspectives. But then you have been a member here for a long time and I can see how such long stay can make someone paranoid and mistrustful.

I did not know this topic was discussed here so much before. Sorry to force you to spend time on this again. I appreciate your efforts.


Right, I do think that being a lefty is an advantage for Rafael against Federer. So far, I agree. However, you're overselling this point. :)

How I’m overselling it? It is not only leftiness, also his ambidextrousness and physical strength to a lesser extent. But the most important component is his playing style – heavy top spin high bouncing cross-court forehand to the right-handed opponent’s usually weaker side (I'm not claiming it to be an “extra” advantage, every player has their own style). But leftiness plus his playing style --- that is a lethal combination. Being lefty is a very very important part of his entire game. Without it, he still would be a very decent tennis player but would not achieve so much. Look at his achievements --- won 6 slams by beating one of the greatest talents of all time, head to head 13-6, never lost 5 set match on clay, and he is only 22!! These are all just with his talents? Don’t see it.


The fact that he's a good lefthanded tennis player is a result of hard work combined with talent. Becoming good with his left hand, that's an acquired skill just because he's not a natural lefty. It's not exactly the same thing is learning how to write with your other hand (and I know what I'm talking about in that aspect, see below). For everything but tennis, he uses his right hand.

I already talked about this in one of my earlier posts. Sure, it is an acquired skill and I give Nadal credit for that though not as much as you’re giving. If it is that difficult then I don’t understand why anybody would willingly want to go through that. Why Tony Nadal would take such a risk with his nephew? Why don’t just let him play with his natural hand? You’re willing to take such huge risk only because you want to gain a huge edge, right? That is the only explanation. Then how can you say playing lefty is not that much of an advantage? You cannot do that, right? You cannot have both ways! If Nadal is so talented and playing lefty is not that much of an advantage why don’t let him play with his natural hand like every other natural right handed player?

To me, learning to play tennis left handed even though you’re a right handed will not be that difficult. It can be done if you start at a very early age. Nobody does that because there is a huge risk associates with it, the fear of what if it screws up the career totally. But Tony Nadal took that risk because he saw a huge advantage in it combining leftiness with Nadal’s natural top spin forehand style. That was the courage and the foresight of the man! It was a brilliant move, that’s right. But to me it is sort of a devilish brilliance as he was thinking of getting an extra advantage that early in his nephew’s career.


There are more lefthanders in tennis and they're not all crap either. None of them have caused Roger many problems. So, why is Rafa causing problems then? You also say that it's because they don't have the tennis skills Rafa has so how exactly is being a lefty giving him that much of an advantage then? Because he's powerful? Are you telling me that for this freak of nature just having average talent but playing lefty is the key to beating Roger so often and the other lefties are just mugs?

Furthermore, Roger is considered to be a tennis genius, right? If it was merely a case of being faced with a powerful lefthander, I do believe that Roger would have used that amazing creativity he has, his natural talent, his versatility to come up with an answer by now. He hasn't which tells me that it's not so simple and there's more to it.

First of all, where do you see any left handed players in the circuit these days? In the last few years only left handed top ten player I can think of is Nadal. Who else are there? Verdasco, Lopez, Jarkko? They are all pretty good left handed players, sure, not crap, but definitely not yet top ten or top five, not as good as Nadal in talent. Besides, none of them plays with heavy high bouncing top spin forehand.

Secondly, it is nothing to do it with Roger’s genius. He cannot just suddenly start playing with two handed backhand or playing lefthanded, can he? Same reason nobody cannot come up with an answer of Karlovic’s serve or Serena’s power. That is the basic unfairness of these kinds of “freakish” advantages. Your opponent has no way to counter against it, he is helpless. Hingis/Henin cannot become as strong as Serena, or a player cannot suddenly become as tall as Karlovic.

Moreover, the head to head is 13-6, so Roger actually beat Nadal 6 times and pushed him very hard in others. So Roger did manage to come up with few answers. That is the genius of the man!



His backhand. I don't know how long you've been following tennis, but in the beginning of his career and even in the year he won his first slam, his backhand was considered to be a weakness. He was attacked on it quite often which forced him to work at it some more to make it less vulnerable. He's still working on it (he doesn't always use it often enough IMO). He's gradually learning to flatten out that backhand for example. His backhand used to be a tool to merely keep the ball in play or perhaps to use that famous cross-court backhand but he's learning to attack with it more and more.

His backhand is not as powerful as his forehand but it has been always very solid because he plays it like a forehand basically. It does not break down, very few unforced errors on that side. That was the only thing he needs on clay for his backhand – steady and solid. That is why he never lost a match in Roland Garros and winning every matche there since the beginning of his career. His backhand used to be a slight weakness on hardcourt (I say “slight” as it did not stop him going deep in almost all the major hardcourt tournaments he played in his life) but not anymore since last year. He can now hit flat cross-court backhand. And so playing at his best I just don’t see how he is going to lose any match anywhere now. It’ll be very rare.


It's a matter of looking at your own set of gifts and talents and working at it to perfect it.

It is not that simple. The way I see it: rules of tennis (and other sports like Cricket) are set up assuming that the players will be within certain range of physical characteristics which will be considered “normal” like majority of the player will be right handed, no one will be extremely tall or short or extraordinarily powerful etc. But when a player comes who has physical characteristics outside this “normal” range then he could sometime get a huge advantage, sort of a head-start as the rules of the game will still remain unchanged. These are the players I call “freak” and I think Nadal, Karlovic, Serena, … players like them fall into these category. But sure this is all little subjective as the “normal physical characteristics” are not really properly defined.

And for Nadal’s case it is not a gift or talent, it was a conscious decision to play left handed even though he was a natural right handed. A huge risk, a gamble they took very early in his career which is paying extraordinary dividend. Without it i.e. by playing right handed he still would be an excellent tennis player but I just don’t see him achieving these much.


You have the floor. :singer:

You haven’t told me anything new really. You also did not mention what contradictions you noticed in my posts. Anyway, I think it is time to let it rest here. I have exhausted myself on this. Nice talking to you. Thanks again for your time and for an honest attempt. Good to see you overcoming your initial mistrust.