Rafael Nadal: The Accidental Champion [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Rafael Nadal: The Accidental Champion

FairWeatherFan
04-25-2010, 03:45 AM
I believe that Rafael Nadal is very probably the most fortunate champion in the history of tennis. The conditions in which the sport has been played through the period of Nadal’s career have largely conspired to inflate his achievements to a level which he would not have attained had he been playing in an earlier era - the 90s, for instance. There are really four conditions that I would say constitute Nadal’s good fortune.

The first is the overall slowing down of the tennis surfaces, and the slowing of Wimbledon in particular. It has been well-publicised that in response to the ‘ace-fests’ of the 1990s, tennis administrators have seen it as necessary to slow down the surfaces generally in an attempt to make the sport more ‘watchable’. As a result, the previous lightning-quick surfaces that were seen in the 1990s such as carpet and fast grasscourts, have all but disappeared. It is of course patent that Nadal’s game-style is much more suited to slower surfaces and this overall slowing of the game has hence worked in his favour.

The most striking example of this is of course Nadal’s victory at Wimbledon, a tournament which has traditionally been dominated by serve-volleyers but in recent years has become to be dominated by baseline players. Certainly baseline players have won Wimbledon in the past – Agassi, Borg and Hewitt being the primary examples. However, when Borg and Agassi won Wimbledon, they both serve-volleyed a very high proportion on their first serves, taking them outside of their traditional game-style. Lendl completely altered his game to a serve-volley style during Wimbledon in an ultimately failed attempt to win the tournament. These players’ efforts should be contrasted to that of Nadal. Because of the slow condition of the grasscourts in this era, it was not necessary for Nadal to adopt serve-volley or other elements of traditional grasscourt strategy to any great extent in order to win the tournament. Nor did he need to face any great serve-volley players in his path to winning Wimbledon. The great majority of players Nadal has faced at Wimbledon play to his strengths – that is, engaging with him in baseline rallies, as the conditions at the tournament render attacking the net an unsound option.

Some people would raise Hewitt in rebuttal to this point, saying that he too did not adopt a serve-volley style in order to win Wimbledon. This is of course true, but Hewitt grew up on grasscourts and utilises a flat-ball counterpunching style, a style much more suited to the fast courts at Wimbledon than Nadal’s game-style. Moreover, the 2002 Wimbledon was an anomaly for many other reasons aside from Hewitt’s victory.

Some might argue that if Wimbledon has been slowed down, then Roland Garros has been sped up, and this has worked against Nadal. This is of course a valid argument. My response to it is, yes, Roland Garros may have sped up, but the competition on clay is nevertheless so slight, that this has really not had much of an impact upon Nadal’s utter domination of the surface.

This lack of competition on clay is really the second condition in today’s tennis environment that has led to the inflation of Nadal’s achievements. This issue has been canvassed in-depth recently on this board, so I don’t want to beat a dead horse so to speak by going too in-depth in discussion. Suffice to say, myself, and many other people, are of the opinion that the current level of play on clay is of a significantly lower standard than that which has been seen in previous eras of the sport. The tactical standard displayed by today’s players on clay is significantly less than, for instance, the greats of the 90s and early 00s – the quality of Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Mantilla, and even Courier is not seen anymore, except of course, in Nadal himself. He is undoubtedly the only player on clay today who measures up to those greats of years past. No one can deny that Nadal is indeed a superb clay-court player, and would undoubtedly have won Roland Garros in any era. However the title of ‘GOAT on clay’ which has been foisted on him by some has been attained by inflation of his achievements resulting from an overall lack of quality on the surface from his competitors.

The third condition which I would believe has contributed to Nadal’s being the most fortunate champion in tennis history is racquet technology. Nadal, more than any other player, has benefitted from the increases in racquet power that are now present in recent years. Take, for example, players such as Federer, Hewitt and Murray. All these players are so technically sound that it would be possible for them to still play with probably some degree of success with a wooden racquet. It would, on the other hand, be almost impossible for anyone to hit Nadal’s forehand, his most lethal shot, with a wooden racquet, and the effectiveness of his counterpunching game, relying as it does on his hitting powerful strokes from deep behind the baseline, would of course be significantly reduced. Of course, we do not know what game-style Nadal would have developed with less modern equipment. Nevertheless, we can say that his current game-style is largely dependent upon newer racquet technology – more so, undoubtedly, than the majority of modern-day tennis players. I’m not saying that this is illegitimate or wrong – all sports are of course dependent on technology. Nevertheless, it is a condition which has contributed to Nadal’s success.

And the final piece of good fortune running through Nadal’s career is that, time and time again, he has been able to meet Roger Federer in the finals of grand slam tournaments. It might be argued that it is silly to suggest that meeting the supposed GOAT in the finals of grand slams is good luck. However, even the most casual of tennis fans should be able to recognise that tennis is essentially a game of match-ups, and that Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer. Playing Federer in 7/8 of his grand slam finals has, quite simply, been a piece of good fortune for Nadal. He has only had to play one other player in all the many grand slam finals he has reached, a highly unlikely statistic in tennis history. Indeed, it is worth noting that Mariano Puerta – Nadal’s only other opponent in a grand slam final – tested Nadal more in that Roland Garros final than Federer ever did Nadal in any of their own French Open finals.

Now, one rebuttal which I have seen raised to such arguments as the above is, ‘Why do you only attribute this supposed good fortune to Nadal and not Federer?’ For example, I have often seen people argue, ‘Federer won most of his Wimbledons on “slow grass”, so why is that not lucky for him?’
I will say, firstly, that to some extent Federer has been fortunate as well. In particular, I think it unlikely that Federer would have won Roland Garros in the 1990s with the level of competition on clay back then. However, the other conditions mentioned above certainly do not operate in Federer’s favour. Federer, an attacking player with a game well-suited to traditional grasscourts, would likely prefer Wimbledon to be faster than it is now. Indeed, in 2003 he proved that he can win the tournament whilst serve-volleying on his first serve. His game would likely increase in effectiveness on a faster court. Of course, he would have to contend with other players playing better at the net, but would be less threatened by ‘slower-court’ players such as Nadal. Moreover, Federer would prefer Roland Garros to be slower. His success at Hamburg in the past evidences that slow clay is more suitable for his game.

Another rebuttal that might be made is that Nadal has been unlucky, particularly with injuries. However, I would refute such an argument out of hand. Obviously, there are different kinds of injuries – some caused by bad luck, some by lack of fitness, and some simply by an unsustainable game-style. Nadal’s injuries are clearly an example of the latter. They should not be classed as unfortunate.

I do not mean this post to suggest that Nadal is not a superb tennis player. Of course he is – after all, you can only play in the conditions which you are given. However, his achievements have undoubtedly been largely inflated by the fortunate conditions in which he has played. There have been other striking examples of good fortune for legendary players in tennis history – for example, Agassi’s draw in the 1999 French Open. However, never before have so many factors conspired together to produce great achievements as has happened in the case of Nadal. Out of all the many great players in along whom he will stand in tennis history, he is, for me, “The Accidental Champion”. And I hope that some discerning tennis fans will indeed recognise him as such.

r2473
04-25-2010, 04:08 AM
http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/5/24/kangaroo%20treehugger.gif

andy neyer
04-25-2010, 04:09 AM
1. Homogenization of the surfaces has benefitted Nadal but so it has beneffitted other players so what gives...

2- Disagree completely with that point. People are always saying here that we're having a weak grass era or a weak clay era and I never buy it as it is most often than not an idealization of the past. People like Mantilla, Moyá and Ferrero were good back in their prime days but they were certainly not that good as people around here would like you to believe.

3- Probably so but what gives? Everyone has benefitted from racquet technology so the question you're posing is one of degrees.

4- Would Nadal have less titles if he hadn't faced Federer in so many finals? It's really imposible to say... Maybe he would have more.

DJ Soup
04-25-2010, 04:20 AM
a very well presented topic. I salute you for that.

Forehander
04-25-2010, 05:47 AM
Nicely written

Arkulari
04-25-2010, 06:08 AM
I might not agree with what's written, but you present a very sound and respectful point in here :yeah:

tennizen
04-25-2010, 06:45 AM
:haha: The OP and the responders :haha:

Topspin Forehand
04-25-2010, 06:48 AM
Next thread should be Roger Federer: The Accidental GOAT. lol

acionescu
04-25-2010, 06:51 AM
Can't wait to read the appreciation posts of madmax, piggygotroasted and djokovicgonzalez :yeah:

CyBorg
04-25-2010, 07:00 AM
There's nothing accidental about Nadal's achievements. This thread sucks.

n8
04-25-2010, 07:17 AM
Nicely written FairWeatherFan. I have actually thought the same (basic point that Nadal has been fortunate) for a couple of years. However, I'd be careful using the word 'accidental'.

jazar
04-25-2010, 07:44 AM
for once someone making a coherent argument

-Valhalla-
04-25-2010, 08:06 AM
A highly biased and long-winded premise full of distortions. Marginalizing Nadal’s accomplishments [or 'Mugboar' as you like to call him] and then positing that he’s somehow lucky to be in the same era as Federer [the most dominant player the game has ever witnessed], is truly bizarre. This is a classic case of twisting facts to fit one’s own hypothesis/agenda and the mental gymnastics necessary to write a piece like this must truly be breathtaking.

Out of all the many great players in along whom he will stand in tennis history, he is, for me, “The Accidental Champion”. And I hope that some discerning tennis fans will indeed recognise him as such.

Pompous, pretentious bullshit of the highest order.

Just like heaven
04-25-2010, 08:20 AM
Pompous, pretentious bullshit of the highest order.

So true. :rolls:

JolánGagó
04-25-2010, 08:32 AM
Utter bullshit from "I" to "." One must be a total idiot to sit down and write such a piece of stinky crap.

Aenea
04-25-2010, 08:40 AM
I haven't read beyond the title of the thread but knowing the OP

:rolls: Poor FWF

It must hurt you a lot Nadal is the reason Fed doesn't have at least 2 CYS in his collection by now.

Ariadne
04-25-2010, 08:51 AM
Kudos! Nicely articulated, cogent and well written. A+

Certinfy
04-25-2010, 08:55 AM
Very good article and I agree :)

Johnny_Bravo
04-25-2010, 09:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CnX6k0snxA

i didn't see the mark ,lol - to all soda-fans.this is a battle you cant win.

Certinfy
04-25-2010, 09:12 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CnX6k0snxA

i didn't see the mark ,lol - to all soda-fans.this is a battle you cant win.SoderKing being a legend :bowdown:

GuiroNl
04-25-2010, 09:22 AM
I just wasted a few minutes of my life reading an admittedly well written POS article.

duong
04-25-2010, 09:31 AM
Many truths in that, especially about the rackets.

However I would not call Nadal the "accidental champion".

It might also be argued that Borg benefitted of the conditions of his time : the situations are quite comparable :shrug:

It can be argued that Laver would not have succeeded in modern powerful game, that Federer would have shunk too many shots in Laver's time, that Sampras would not have succeeded in modern "slow" game where Fed's backhand is a weakness however better than Sampras's ...

And Nadal actually lost two slam finals to Federer :lol: and would have been number 1 for a long time without him.

Indeed, it is worth noting that Mariano Puerta – Nadal’s only other opponent in a grand slam final – tested Nadal more in that Roland Garros final than Federer ever did Nadal in any of their own French Open finals.

this argument comes from the same impression as people who have the impression that Djokovic is a tougher opponent than Federer for Nadal on clay or that Mathieu gave more difficulties to Nadal in 2006 than Federer :

against Djokovic, Puerta, Mathieu, the points are tougher.

However, the best way to beat Nadal on clay, and very especially in 5 sets, is not to play tough points but to shorten them : the impression is "less tough game", however it's the best way to beat him on clay.

If you have to play many tough points to win them, Nadal will always prevail in the end if 5 sets.

Even the match against Söderling I guess some people think that all of the matches played by Nadal against Djokovic were superior : because Söderling didn't allow tough points such as those against Djokovic.

Federer beat Nadal 6-1 in first set of French Open final, had many break points to lead 2 sets to 1 in another one. And playing short points for that, then keeping some stamina to win ...

Puerta won first set in tie-break 8-6, took Nadal to 5-5 in 4th set. And then ?

Nadal's game and physical will always prevail in these conditions :shrug:

Yes Puerta's match looked tougher. But did he have more chance to win ? I don't think so at all. And it was only the Nadal of 19 years old, the youngest one :shrug:

With a more mature Nadal you won't beat him with such a game on clay ... unless he's injured.

The only way to beat him on clay is shortening points.

Actualy Federer tried it in 2008 shameful final : he tried a "hit-and-miss" game and however he missed everything :lol: , it was the only way to have a chance.

adee-gee
04-25-2010, 09:42 AM
Usain Bolt is lucky he has long legs.

Lionel Messi is lucky he has a low centre of gravity.

Tiger Woods is lucky that golf courses are more suited to his game than they were back in the 60s.




Sport (in fact life in general) is all about making the most of what you have and the circumstances they are given to you. Deal with it.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
04-25-2010, 09:56 AM
A highly biased and long-winded premise full of distortions. Marginalizing Nadal’s accomplishments [or 'Mugboar' as you like to call him] and then positing that he’s somehow lucky to be in the same era as Federer [the most dominant player the game has ever witnessed], is truly bizarre. This is a classic case of twisting facts to fit one’s own hypothesis/agenda and the mental gymnastics necessary to write a piece like this must truly be breathtaking.



Pompous, pretentious bullshit of the highest order.

+1

Obviously I'm a Fed fan but this article is a load of pretentious, clumsily written nonsense.

TennisOnWood
04-25-2010, 10:44 AM
MTF strikes again :worship:

gulzhan
04-25-2010, 10:58 AM
Next thread should be Roger Federer: The Accidental GOAT. lol

+1 :lol:

l_mac
04-25-2010, 11:00 AM
I believe that Rafael Nadal is very probably the most fortunate champion in the history of tennis. The conditions in which the sport has been played through the period of Nadal’s career have largely conspired to inflate his achievements to a level which he would not have attained had he been playing in an earlier era - the 90s, for instance. There are really four conditions that I would say constitute Nadal’s good fortune.

The first is the overall slowing down of the tennis surfaces, and the slowing of Wimbledon in particular. It has been well-publicised that in response to the ‘ace-fests’ of the 1990s, tennis administrators have seen it as necessary to slow down the surfaces generally in an attempt to make the sport more ‘watchable’. As a result, the previous lightning-quick surfaces that were seen in the 1990s such as carpet and fast grasscourts, have all but disappeared. It is of course patent that Nadal’s game-style is much more suited to slower surfaces and this overall slowing of the game has hence worked in his favour.

The most striking example of this is of course Nadal’s victory at Wimbledon, a tournament which has traditionally been dominated by serve-volleyers but in recent years has become to be dominated by baseline players. Certainly baseline players have won Wimbledon in the past – Agassi, Borg and Hewitt being the primary examples. However, when Borg and Agassi won Wimbledon, they both serve-volleyed a very high proportion on their first serves, taking them outside of their traditional game-style. Lendl completely altered his game to a serve-volley style during Wimbledon in an ultimately failed attempt to win the tournament. These players’ efforts should be contrasted to that of Nadal. Because of the slow condition of the grasscourts in this era, it was not necessary for Nadal to adopt serve-volley or other elements of traditional grasscourt strategy to any great extent in order to win the tournament. Nor did he need to face any great serve-volley players in his path to winning Wimbledon. The great majority of players Nadal has faced at Wimbledon play to his strengths – that is, engaging with him in baseline rallies, as the conditions at the tournament render attacking the net an unsound option.

Some people would raise Hewitt in rebuttal to this point, saying that he too did not adopt a serve-volley style in order to win Wimbledon. This is of course true, but Hewitt grew up on grasscourts and utilises a flat-ball counterpunching style, a style much more suited to the fast courts at Wimbledon than Nadal’s game-style. Moreover, the 2002 Wimbledon was an anomaly for many other reasons aside from Hewitt’s victory.

Some might argue that if Wimbledon has been slowed down, then Roland Garros has been sped up, and this has worked against Nadal. This is of course a valid argument. My response to it is, yes, Roland Garros may have sped up, but the competition on clay is nevertheless so slight, that this has really not had much of an impact upon Nadal’s utter domination of the surface.

This lack of competition on clay is really the second condition in today’s tennis environment that has led to the inflation of Nadal’s achievements. This issue has been canvassed in-depth recently on this board, so I don’t want to beat a dead horse so to speak by going too in-depth in discussion. Suffice to say, myself, and many other people, are of the opinion that the current level of play on clay is of a significantly lower standard than that which has been seen in previous eras of the sport. The tactical standard displayed by today’s players on clay is significantly less than, for instance, the greats of the 90s and early 00s – the quality of Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Mantilla, and even Courier is not seen anymore, except of course, in Nadal himself. He is undoubtedly the only player on clay today who measures up to those greats of years past. No one can deny that Nadal is indeed a superb clay-court player, and would undoubtedly have won Roland Garros in any era. However the title of ‘GOAT on clay’ which has been foisted on him by some has been attained by inflation of his achievements resulting from an overall lack of quality on the surface from his competitors.

The third condition which I would believe has contributed to Nadal’s being the most fortunate champion in tennis history is racquet technology. Nadal, more than any other player, has benefitted from the increases in racquet power that are now present in recent years. Take, for example, players such as Federer, Hewitt and Murray. All these players are so technically sound that it would be possible for them to still play with probably some degree of success with a wooden racquet. It would, on the other hand, be almost impossible for anyone to hit Nadal’s forehand, his most lethal shot, with a wooden racquet, and the effectiveness of his counterpunching game, relying as it does on his hitting powerful strokes from deep behind the baseline, would of course be significantly reduced. Of course, we do not know what game-style Nadal would have developed with less modern equipment. Nevertheless, we can say that his current game-style is largely dependent upon newer racquet technology – more so, undoubtedly, than the majority of modern-day tennis players. I’m not saying that this is illegitimate or wrong – all sports are of course dependent on technology. Nevertheless, it is a condition which has contributed to Nadal’s success.

And the final piece of good fortune running through Nadal’s career is that, time and time again, he has been able to meet Roger Federer in the finals of grand slam tournaments. It might be argued that it is silly to suggest that meeting the supposed GOAT in the finals of grand slams is good luck. However, even the most casual of tennis fans should be able to recognise that tennis is essentially a game of match-ups, and that Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer. Playing Federer in 7/8 of his grand slam finals has, quite simply, been a piece of good fortune for Nadal. He has only had to play one other player in all the many grand slam finals he has reached, a highly unlikely statistic in tennis history. Indeed, it is worth noting that Mariano Puerta – Nadal’s only other opponent in a grand slam final – tested Nadal more in that Roland Garros final than Federer ever did Nadal in any of their own French Open finals.

Now, one rebuttal which I have seen raised to such arguments as the above is, ‘Why do you only attribute this supposed good fortune to Nadal and not Federer?’ For example, I have often seen people argue, ‘Federer won most of his Wimbledons on “slow grass”, so why is that not lucky for him?’
I will say, firstly, that to some extent Federer has been fortunate as well. In particular, I think it unlikely that Federer would have won Roland Garros in the 1990s with the level of competition on clay back then. However, the other conditions mentioned above certainly do not operate in Federer’s favour. Federer, an attacking player with a game well-suited to traditional grasscourts, would likely prefer Wimbledon to be faster than it is now. Indeed, in 2003 he proved that he can win the tournament whilst serve-volleying on his first serve. His game would likely increase in effectiveness on a faster court. Of course, he would have to contend with other players playing better at the net, but would be less threatened by ‘slower-court’ players such as Nadal. Moreover, Federer would prefer Roland Garros to be slower. His success at Hamburg in the past evidences that slow clay is more suitable for his game.

Another rebuttal that might be made is that Nadal has been unlucky, particularly with injuries. However, I would refute such an argument out of hand. Obviously, there are different kinds of injuries – some caused by bad luck, some by lack of fitness, and some simply by an unsustainable game-style. Nadal’s injuries are clearly an example of the latter. They should not be classed as unfortunate.

I do not mean this post to suggest that Nadal is not a superb tennis player. Of course he is – after all, you can only play in the conditions which you are given. However, his achievements have undoubtedly been largely inflated by the fortunate conditions in which he has played. There have been other striking examples of good fortune for legendary players in tennis history – for example, Agassi’s draw in the 1999 French Open. However, never before have so many factors conspired together to produce great achievements as has happened in the case of Nadal. Out of all the many great players in along whom he will stand in tennis history, he is, for me, “The Accidental Champion”. And I hope that some discerning tennis fans will indeed recognise him as such.

a very well presented topic. I salute you for that.

Nicely written

I might not agree with what's written, but you present a very sound and respectful point in here :yeah:

Nicely written FairWeatherFan. I have actually thought the same (basic point that Nadal has been fortunate) for a couple of years. However, I'd be careful using the word 'accidental'.

for once someone making a coherent argument

Kudos! Nicely articulated, cogent and well written. A+

Very good article and I agree :)


:haha:

The opening post contains one valid point:

Of course, we do not know what game-style Nadal would have developed with less modern equipment.

and the rest is an excuse for the poster to pontificate, at length, about his pet peeve.

How many signatures did you get in the end, FWF? :hug:

"well written" :rolls:

A_Skywalker
04-25-2010, 11:27 AM
So what, we can say conditions have worked great for Sampras if we follow the same logic you use. If he was playing now he wouldnt have won so much slams.
Offtopic: Matches where players win only with aces were so boring.

moon language
04-25-2010, 11:52 AM
It's world confirmation bias day already? It always sneaks up on me.

prafull
04-25-2010, 12:09 PM
I will bump this when Nadal reaches 10 GS titles and bump this again when he breaks Federer's GS record.

Persimmon
04-25-2010, 01:09 PM
I will bump this when Nadal reaches 10 GS titles.

What will the OP come up with then?:tape:


and bump this again when he breaks Federer's GS record.

Not happening:wavey:

rocketassist
04-25-2010, 01:55 PM
Homogenization has definitely been the main contributor to his success, as well as natural work ethic and sheer desire to win.

On clay he has been lucky to play a load of ballbashing clowns and Federer, his clay game has always involved waiting for the error and getting balls back, and there's no clay courter who can hit with depth and go toe to toe on it.

Of course, his grass game is more aggressive and involves stepping in. That deserves credit, but the slower grass helps. On fast grass he'd shank a lot of returns.

Heners
04-25-2010, 02:11 PM
Good read.

Fiberlight1
04-25-2010, 02:22 PM
Sampras benefited from fast grass, Laver benefited from ALL grass..

It goes both ways you know..

Action Jackson
04-25-2010, 02:50 PM
Laver played on clay and wood.

l_mac
04-25-2010, 02:56 PM
On clay he has been lucky to play a load of ballbashing clowns and Federer, his clay game has always involved waiting for the error and getting balls back, and there's no clay courter who can hit with depth and go toe to toe on it.


:lol:

:yeah:

stebs
04-25-2010, 02:56 PM
his clay game has always involved waiting for the error and getting balls back, and there's no clay courter who can hit with depth and go toe to toe on it.

:lol: The idea that Nadal just waits for the error and scrambles on clay is totally outdated and ridiculous. In fact he utterly controls and dominates the vast majority of points against almost all of the tour on clay. Either you havent been watching him since play on the surface since 2007 or you choose to see whatever it is you want to see, either way, it renders your analysis pretty void. Do you honestly think Nadal is decimating these strong players with 0 and 1 scorelines by waiting for the error at all times? I thought the fallacious notion of Nadal as a defensive player on clay died around the same time the idea of Davydenko being a defensive grinder did, evidently not.

JolánGagó
04-25-2010, 02:59 PM
Homogenization has definitely been the main contributor to his success, as well as natural work ethic and sheer desire to win.

On clay he has been lucky to play a load of ballbashing clowns and Federer, his clay game has always involved waiting for the error and getting balls back, and there's no clay courter who can hit with depth and go toe to toe on it.

Of course, his grass game is more aggressive and involves stepping in. That deserves credit, but the slower grass helps. On fast grass he'd shank a lot of returns.

There is more sense in the morning fart of a random chimp than in this.

Filo V.
04-25-2010, 03:07 PM
Ridiculous on all levels. Nothing else needed to be said. And I agree with some others that say you come off really pretentious and stuck on yourself. Everything you say about Nadal can be said about any other great, Nadal didn't make the times we are living in today with tennis, he's just playing in them, and doing great. There isn't any reason to marginalize that. You can try to justify whatever negative feelings of Nadal or try to take away from his accomplishments, but the fact is, he's a winner, and that isn't an accident.

Rafa = Fed Killa
04-25-2010, 04:01 PM
Federer sure was lucky to play in this same weak era and win 16 tainted GrandSlams.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
04-25-2010, 04:17 PM
Just to give you some idea of how ridiculous this thread is:

- Nadal is one of the top two tennis players in the world. And that's out of several million players. There are 23.6 million tennis players in the US alone: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Rec/rec.sport.tennis/2007-09/msg07543.pdf (admittedly not all of those players are the same age group/ gender as Nadal - but several million players worldwide must be).

- In other words, he is a "one in several million" player. You cannot rise to the top of several million competitors without being exceptional. There is no way on earth that you could do it by "accident."

- Nadal has managed it through (i) incredible work ethic and tenacity; (ii) positive "can do" attitude which is a model for everyone, in any walk of life - e.g. winning Wimbledon and reaching two finals in the face of everyone telling him he had no hope given his style of play; (iii) incredible mental strength - repeatedly made other players choke away a winning position again against him, eg Federer, Djokovic - he's the only player who's managed to stare down the guy everyone else is terrified of; (iv) physical gifts of amazing speed and strength (v) very underrated ball-striking ability - he hits amazing winners from anywhere on the court.

Maybe (iv) and (v) are "accidental" - but not in the way you mean. You cannot reach the pinnacle of a sport with millions of participants without being exceptional, which Nadal clearly is. There is nothing "accidental" about it.

Jarl_02
04-25-2010, 04:18 PM
I think you're right pointing out the benefits Nadal has had with today's tennis changes but he is NOT an accidental champion. I don't like him but you just can't say that.

If so, we could say Sampras was an accidental champion in Wimbledon becuase then, the grasscourts were faster and he could use his game very well, what would have happened if Sampras would have played in today's Wimbledon, for sure he would have won several Wimbledon but maybe not as much.

So you can't say Nadal is accidental, he's earned what he has.

duong
04-25-2010, 04:31 PM
If clay had been slower, Nadal would have been even more dominant :lol:

None of the clay players of the 90s was good enough for him : even Muster recognized it recently ;)

rocketassist
04-25-2010, 09:37 PM
:lol: The idea that Nadal just waits for the error and scrambles on clay is totally outdated and ridiculous. In fact he utterly controls and dominates the vast majority of points against almost all of the tour on clay. Either you havent been watching him since play on the surface since 2007 or you choose to see whatever it is you want to see, either way, it renders your analysis pretty void. Do you honestly think Nadal is decimating these strong players with 0 and 1 scorelines by waiting for the error at all times? I thought the fallacious notion of Nadal as a defensive player on clay died around the same time the idea of Davydenko being a defensive grinder did, evidently not.

Not really, most Nadal clay matches I watch are just error, error, error from his opponent, compared to grass where he attacks more.

Why is this? Because he can get away with it on clay. The PMK in Rome 2007 went toe to toe with him and was hitting the lines so much, yet it still wasn't enough to win it cause Nadal was getting the ball back so many times.

He's a defensive claycourter, no doubts.

duhcity
04-25-2010, 09:41 PM
Unplanned Pregnancy?

oz_boz
04-25-2010, 10:08 PM
Quite obvious that the best players of any given era benefit from the conditions to some extent, but "accidental"? Come on :lol: Rafa would be good in most other eras too IMO.

habibko
04-25-2010, 10:09 PM
now that's how you troll a fanbase, well played sir :hatoff:

tangerine_dream
04-25-2010, 10:10 PM
http://i30.tinypic.com/2irukv5.jpg

Quakes
04-25-2010, 10:17 PM
A very cogent, systematic, and articulate argument.

I disagree with you entirely, and not in the slightest because all of your ideas are recycled from MTF posts 3, 4, maybe 5 years old.

I disagree because the same could be said for any great player of any era. Every great champion is lucky. Sampras was lucky because the grass was fast. Rod Laver was lucky because wooden rackets suited his style of play.

The same could be said for any great person of any domain, really. Lincoln was lucky because he was active during a period of civil war. Einstein was lucky because all ingredients for relativity are ready.

The truth is that times make people, not the other way around. Great people are those who adapt themselves to their times, not the other way around. Might as well accept it and stop complaining.

Snoo Foo
04-25-2010, 10:24 PM
please move to nadal forum

Matt01
04-25-2010, 10:30 PM
please move to nadal forum


Or better: To Federer Forum :p

GugaF1
04-25-2010, 11:05 PM
A very cogent, systematic, and articulate argument.

I disagree with you entirely, and not in the slightest because all of your ideas are recycled from MTF posts 3, 4, maybe 5 years old.

I disagree because the same could be said for any great player of any era. Every great champion is lucky. Sampras was lucky because the grass was fast. Rod Laver was lucky because wooden rackets suited his style of play.

The same could be said for any great person of any domain, really. Lincoln was lucky because he was active during a period of civil war. Einstein was lucky because all ingredients for relativity are ready.

The truth is that times make people, not the other way around. Great people are those who adapt themselves to their times, not the other way around. Might as well accept it and stop complaining.

Beautiful post Sir, nicely Put.

stebs
04-25-2010, 11:14 PM
Not really, most Nadal clay matches I watch are just error, error, error from his opponent, compared to grass where he attacks more.

Why is this? Because he can get away with it on clay. The PMK in Rome 2007 went toe to toe with him and was hitting the lines so much, yet it still wasn't enough to win it cause Nadal was getting the ball back so many times.

He's a defensive claycourter, no doubts.

If most Nadal clay matches you watch consist of Nadal waiting for errors and playing defensive, you need to stop watching 2005/06 reruns.

For someone who laments the homogenisation of the surfaces it is peculiar that you are surprised by a larger % of points on clay being finished by an error than the other surfaces. Of course a lot of points are still finished by error, that's natural. However, Nadal is in the ascendency of the majority of rallies he plays with almost all players on tour on dirt. It only takes minor observatory skills to see that.

BigAlbinoDonky
04-25-2010, 11:26 PM
Great article....it's only missing one thing. It doesn't mention the potent "vitamins" that Nadal took early in his career which helped him physically dominate every player, and is now a big contributor to his injuries. A blessing and a curse.

tennishero
04-25-2010, 11:26 PM
lol @ some of the posts in here.


http://i30.tinypic.com/2irukv5.jpg

haha

Mimi
04-26-2010, 03:15 AM
There's nothing accidental about Nadal's achievements. This thread sucks.

:worship::worship:

MalwareDie
04-26-2010, 04:13 AM
Legendary thread.

MTF should create a Hall of Fame and FairWeatherFan should be inducted into it.

paseo
04-26-2010, 04:23 AM
Lucky mug, this Nadal.

siloe26
04-26-2010, 08:43 AM
Ridiculous thread.
And what if Nadal had played earlier when most players had a vulnerable one-handed backhand?
And what if he had played in an era when the predominance of HC tournaments had not killed his knees?
And what if he had had the opportunity to win the USO on green clay or on the pretty slow grass of those years?
And what if he had played when the US had an american green clay season?
And what if.....?
Nadal has to adapt to the era he plays in. Some parameters are good for him, others are not at all.
If the clay court field is weak, shame on Federer who had to wait so many years to win RG.
If the grass era is weak, well, the GOAT is lame.
You can't have it both ways.

rafa_maniac
04-26-2010, 09:31 AM
Ridiculous thread.
And what if Nadal had played earlier when most players had a vulnerable one-handed backhand?
And what if he had played in an era when the predominance of HC tournaments had not killed his knees?
And what if he had had the opportunity to win the USO on green clay or on the pretty slow grass of those years?
And what if he had played when the US had an american green clay season?
And what if.....?
Nadal has to adapt to the era he plays in. Some parameters are good for him, others are not at all.
If the clay court field is weak, shame on Federer who had to wait so many years to win RG.
If the grass era is weak, well, the GOAT is lame.
You can't have it both ways.

Yes, funny how the modern hardcourt era is supposed to have benefited Nadal. How about we go back to playing 2 slams a year on clay and see how that turns out...

madmax
04-26-2010, 09:42 AM
now that is what call a reasonable and well thought thread:bowdown: Moonballer's tards are of course squirming in anger, but the word of wisdom is not to be denied...couldn't agree more

siloe26
04-26-2010, 10:03 AM
mow that is what call a reasonable and well thought thread:bowdown: Moonballer's tards are of course squirming in anger, but the word of wisdom is not to be denied...couldn't agree more

Could you explain your reasons instead of showing how full of hate you are? And you could also explain how your dear Sharapova and her oh so elegant game have benefited from the new technology. Your post would be interesting for once.

2003
04-26-2010, 10:16 AM
I am a Fedtard of the highest order, but this is "Bollocks" as the Great British would say.

ossie
04-26-2010, 10:40 AM
this thread :haha:

the way i see it nadal has violently challenged the so called goats in many aspects. people are having a hard time accepting this. thats why braindamaged idiots call his achievements accidental when the stats speak for themselves. as i said nadal is here for businesss and fans of the traditional players are afraid and are going to hate him even more and try to belittle his achievements even more in the future

madmax
04-26-2010, 10:49 AM
Could you explain your reasons instead of showing how full of hate you are? And you could also explain how your dear Sharapova and her oh so elegant game have benefited from the new technology. Your post would be interesting for once.

this is ATP board and we talk about MEN'S tennis here...Sharapova is indeed my favorite female player, but she has little to do with Nadull and his cowardish game, which relies on opponents errors...I couldn't bring myself to such lows as to root for moonballing spanish clown

Commander Data
04-26-2010, 11:34 AM
Nadal = Best ever on clay

There is nothing accidental about it.

siloe26
04-26-2010, 11:43 AM
this is ATP board and we talk about MEN'S tennis here...Sharapova is indeed my favorite female player, but she has little to do with Nadull and his cowardish game, which relies on opponents errors...I couldn't bring myself to such lows as to root for moonballing spanish clown


You bring yourself to much deeper lows.

Persimmon
04-26-2010, 02:27 PM
I think Nadal is so great on clay that he was able to win slams off clay. He is the best claycourt specialist ever. Borg was a baseliner that served and volleyed his way to 5 straight Wimbledon titles so that's different of what I'm talking about. Nadal as mainly a claycourt specialist also won slams on grass and HC. And this in the era of the Fed. Wow.

thrust
04-26-2010, 04:31 PM
Next thread should be Roger Federer: The Accidental GOAT. lol

YES IT SHOULD-LOL!! Nadal and Roger can only play with or against the conditions and players that were presented to them. They did not produce the competition, equipment technology, court speed or surfaces. They, as well as all other players, can onl play with the conditions that prevail. As Margreat Court said, one has to be taught and learn how to play different surfaces. Those who do, win. Those who don't, do not win Slams. THERE ARE NO ACCIDENTAL GREAT CHAMPIONS!!

Mimi
04-27-2010, 04:16 AM
Could you explain your reasons instead of showing how full of hate you are? And you could also explain how your dear Sharapova and her oh so elegant game have benefited from the new technology. Your post would be interesting for once.

madmax's hate towards rafa got himself high blood pressure already :lol:

Action Jackson
04-27-2010, 06:52 AM
Well the content is very questionable at best, but it was formatted and set out well.

Erica86
04-27-2010, 04:22 PM
I believe that Rafael Nadal is very probably the most fortunate champion in the history of tennis. The conditions in which the sport has been played through the period of Nadal’s career have largely conspired to inflate his achievements to a level which he would not have attained had he been playing in an earlier era - the 90s, for instance. There are really four conditions that I would say constitute Nadal’s good fortune.

The first is the overall slowing down of the tennis surfaces, and the slowing of Wimbledon in particular. It has been well-publicised that in response to the ‘ace-fests’ of the 1990s, tennis administrators have seen it as necessary to slow down the surfaces generally in an attempt to make the sport more ‘watchable’. As a result, the previous lightning-quick surfaces that were seen in the 1990s such as carpet and fast grasscourts, have all but disappeared. It is of course patent that Nadal’s game-style is much more suited to slower surfaces and this overall slowing of the game has hence worked in his favour.

The most striking example of this is of course Nadal’s victory at Wimbledon, a tournament which has traditionally been dominated by serve-volleyers but in recent years has become to be dominated by baseline players. Certainly baseline players have won Wimbledon in the past – Agassi, Borg and Hewitt being the primary examples. However, when Borg and Agassi won Wimbledon, they both serve-volleyed a very high proportion on their first serves, taking them outside of their traditional game-style. Lendl completely altered his game to a serve-volley style during Wimbledon in an ultimately failed attempt to win the tournament. These players’ efforts should be contrasted to that of Nadal. Because of the slow condition of the grasscourts in this era, it was not necessary for Nadal to adopt serve-volley or other elements of traditional grasscourt strategy to any great extent in order to win the tournament. Nor did he need to face any great serve-volley players in his path to winning Wimbledon. The great majority of players Nadal has faced at Wimbledon play to his strengths – that is, engaging with him in baseline rallies, as the conditions at the tournament render attacking the net an unsound option.

Some people would raise Hewitt in rebuttal to this point, saying that he too did not adopt a serve-volley style in order to win Wimbledon. This is of course true, but Hewitt grew up on grasscourts and utilises a flat-ball counterpunching style, a style much more suited to the fast courts at Wimbledon than Nadal’s game-style. Moreover, the 2002 Wimbledon was an anomaly for many other reasons aside from Hewitt’s victory.

Some might argue that if Wimbledon has been slowed down, then Roland Garros has been sped up, and this has worked against Nadal. This is of course a valid argument. My response to it is, yes, Roland Garros may have sped up, but the competition on clay is nevertheless so slight, that this has really not had much of an impact upon Nadal’s utter domination of the surface.

This lack of competition on clay is really the second condition in today’s tennis environment that has led to the inflation of Nadal’s achievements. This issue has been canvassed in-depth recently on this board, so I don’t want to beat a dead horse so to speak by going too in-depth in discussion. Suffice to say, myself, and many other people, are of the opinion that the current level of play on clay is of a significantly lower standard than that which has been seen in previous eras of the sport. The tactical standard displayed by today’s players on clay is significantly less than, for instance, the greats of the 90s and early 00s – the quality of Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Mantilla, and even Courier is not seen anymore, except of course, in Nadal himself. He is undoubtedly the only player on clay today who measures up to those greats of years past. No one can deny that Nadal is indeed a superb clay-court player, and would undoubtedly have won Roland Garros in any era. However the title of ‘GOAT on clay’ which has been foisted on him by some has been attained by inflation of his achievements resulting from an overall lack of quality on the surface from his competitors.

The third condition which I would believe has contributed to Nadal’s being the most fortunate champion in tennis history is racquet technology. Nadal, more than any other player, has benefitted from the increases in racquet power that are now present in recent years. Take, for example, players such as Federer, Hewitt and Murray. All these players are so technically sound that it would be possible for them to still play with probably some degree of success with a wooden racquet. It would, on the other hand, be almost impossible for anyone to hit Nadal’s forehand, his most lethal shot, with a wooden racquet, and the effectiveness of his counterpunching game, relying as it does on his hitting powerful strokes from deep behind the baseline, would of course be significantly reduced. Of course, we do not know what game-style Nadal would have developed with less modern equipment. Nevertheless, we can say that his current game-style is largely dependent upon newer racquet technology – more so, undoubtedly, than the majority of modern-day tennis players. I’m not saying that this is illegitimate or wrong – all sports are of course dependent on technology. Nevertheless, it is a condition which has contributed to Nadal’s success.

And the final piece of good fortune running through Nadal’s career is that, time and time again, he has been able to meet Roger Federer in the finals of grand slam tournaments. It might be argued that it is silly to suggest that meeting the supposed GOAT in the finals of grand slams is good luck. However, even the most casual of tennis fans should be able to recognise that tennis is essentially a game of match-ups, and that Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer. Playing Federer in 7/8 of his grand slam finals has, quite simply, been a piece of good fortune for Nadal. He has only had to play one other player in all the many grand slam finals he has reached, a highly unlikely statistic in tennis history. Indeed, it is worth noting that Mariano Puerta – Nadal’s only other opponent in a grand slam final – tested Nadal more in that Roland Garros final than Federer ever did Nadal in any of their own French Open finals.

Now, one rebuttal which I have seen raised to such arguments as the above is, ‘Why do you only attribute this supposed good fortune to Nadal and not Federer?’ For example, I have often seen people argue, ‘Federer won most of his Wimbledons on “slow grass”, so why is that not lucky for him?’
I will say, firstly, that to some extent Federer has been fortunate as well. In particular, I think it unlikely that Federer would have won Roland Garros in the 1990s with the level of competition on clay back then. However, the other conditions mentioned above certainly do not operate in Federer’s favour. Federer, an attacking player with a game well-suited to traditional grasscourts, would likely prefer Wimbledon to be faster than it is now. Indeed, in 2003 he proved that he can win the tournament whilst serve-volleying on his first serve. His game would likely increase in effectiveness on a faster court. Of course, he would have to contend with other players playing better at the net, but would be less threatened by ‘slower-court’ players such as Nadal. Moreover, Federer would prefer Roland Garros to be slower. His success at Hamburg in the past evidences that slow clay is more suitable for his game.

Another rebuttal that might be made is that Nadal has been unlucky, particularly with injuries. However, I would refute such an argument out of hand. Obviously, there are different kinds of injuries – some caused by bad luck, some by lack of fitness, and some simply by an unsustainable game-style. Nadal’s injuries are clearly an example of the latter. They should not be classed as unfortunate.

I do not mean this post to suggest that Nadal is not a superb tennis player. Of course he is – after all, you can only play in the conditions which you are given. However, his achievements have undoubtedly been largely inflated by the fortunate conditions in which he has played. There have been other striking examples of good fortune for legendary players in tennis history – for example, Agassi’s draw in the 1999 French Open. However, never before have so many factors conspired together to produce great achievements as has happened in the case of Nadal. Out of all the many great players in along whom he will stand in tennis history, he is, for me, “The Accidental Champion”. And I hope that some discerning tennis fans will indeed recognise him as such.

Don't you have anything better in life than writing all this bullshit?
Is Nadal also lucky for all his knee injuries? It might be interesting if you could write a book about that topic? My advice for you is to find a girlfriend and spend time with her. It will be much better than wasting time writing nonsense.

@Sweet Cleopatra
04-27-2010, 06:22 PM
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

90s players are lucky they were not playing against Nadal,

He would have kicked their asses.

It is not that I am not agreeing with you that Tennis has changed and I don't really like how aggressive tennis is now. But Nadal is not only strong he is a very talented player.
Plus his Wimbledon win wasn't that easy he trained so hard and played many finals with the same player.I honestly think that he would still win whatever the year and the grass condition due to his insist on winning plus his strength and super talent.

Improvement in rackets benefited every one, not only Nadal.

I totally agree with the injury part, todays tennis is for super humans, Serena Sharapova Nadal all suffered from injuries due to their new style.

@Sweet Cleopatra
04-27-2010, 06:47 PM
Just to give you some idea of how ridiculous this thread is:

- Nadal is one of the top two tennis players in the world. And that's out of several million players. There are 23.6 million tennis players in the US alone: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Rec/rec.sport.tennis/2007-09/msg07543.pdf (admittedly not all of those players are the same age group/ gender as Nadal - but several million players worldwide must be).

- In other words, he is a "one in several million" player. You cannot rise to the top of several million competitors without being exceptional. There is no way on earth that you could do it by "accident."

- Nadal has managed it through (i) incredible work ethic and tenacity; (ii) positive "can do" attitude which is a model for everyone, in any walk of life - e.g. winning Wimbledon and reaching two finals in the face of everyone telling him he had no hope given his style of play; (iii) incredible mental strength - repeatedly made other players choke away a winning position again against him, eg Federer, Djokovic - he's the only player who's managed to stare down the guy everyone else is terrified of; (iv) physical gifts of amazing speed and strength (v) very underrated ball-striking ability - he hits amazing winners from anywhere on the court.

Maybe (iv) and (v) are "accidental" - but not in the way you mean. You cannot reach the pinnacle of a sport with millions of participants without being exceptional, which Nadal clearly is. There is nothing "accidental" about it.

:worship::worship:

heya
04-27-2010, 08:51 PM
Don't you have anything better in life than writing all this bullshit?
Is Nadal also lucky for all his knee injuries? It might be interesting if you could write a book about that topic? My advice for you is to find a girlfriend and spend time with her. It will be much better than wasting time writing nonsense.Maybe another bitter boy would be a good gay companion. Fed must be proud that he has many fans.

FairWeatherFan
09-12-2010, 01:46 AM
We now see that Nadal, with the possibility of a career grand slam, has received one of the easiest draws in living memory at the 2010 US Open. Moreover, against a fatigued opponent, we are told that there is a high prospect of rain on the day of the final, which will undoubtedly slow the conditions in Nadal's favour.

The 2010 US Open is an example of even more strikingly good fortune in the career of the most fortunate champion of them all.

CCBH
09-12-2010, 02:14 AM
We now see that Nadal, with the possibility of a career grand slam, has received one of the easiest draws in living memory at the 2010 US Open. Moreover, against a fatigued opponent, we are told that there is a high prospect of rain on the day of the final, which will undoubtedly slow the conditions in Nadal's favour.

The 2010 US Open is an example of even more strikingly good fortune in the career of the most fortunate champion of them all.

Of course, the tennis (and weather, and playing surface, and ball fluff, and racket technology) Gods are all on Rafa's payroll. Duh... :rolleyes:

Snowwy
09-12-2010, 02:28 AM
Although this is well written, here is my short opinion.

You know how he had a 100MPH serve and now it is 130MPH. He is that talented that he can do that. He could have changed his game. He is one of the best volleyers on the mens tour. If you don't believe me, stop stereotyping and watch him play doubles.

brent-o
09-12-2010, 02:33 AM
I like how this topic was presented. Very mature, and I thank you for that.

However, I'm not so sure your point about racket technology stands. If strings like this weren't around, Nadal would never have developed such a spin-y forehand in the first place. And I believe that he's a natural talent enough that he still would have been a huge factor on tour (based on his defensive abilities alone).

star
09-12-2010, 02:36 AM
We now see that Nadal, with the possibility of a career grand slam, has received one of the easiest draws in living memory at the 2010 US Open. Moreover, against a fatigued opponent, we are told that there is a high prospect of rain on the day of the final, which will undoubtedly slow the conditions in Nadal's favour.

The 2010 US Open is an example of even more strikingly good fortune in the career of the most fortunate champion of them all.

:hug: You are such a bitter fanboy.

The wet conditions will cause the ball to bounce even lower than it does now. The problem for Rafa at the USO has always been the low ball bounce. As he says, it's not the speed of the court as much as it is the softer balls used at the USO.

Clay Death
09-12-2010, 02:44 AM
There's nothing accidental about Nadal's achievements. This thread sucks.

excactly affirmative.

what we have here is a clueless and a completely mindless rodent--who is studying to be a sewer rat--- who is not watching tennis at all.

it has to be some other sport. like termite eating contests or something.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-12-2010, 03:40 AM
excellent points but the nadal drones will block their ears and chant their mantra about dull boy being the best ever

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-12-2010, 03:44 AM
excactly affirmative.

what we have here is a clueless and a completely mindless rodent--who is studying to be a sewer rat--- who is not watching tennis at all.

it has to be some other sport. like termite eating contests or something.

clay..... this post doesn't even make sense

you are like an attack drone with one mission in mind

attack anything you perceive as being negative about nadal

key point being perception, if you bothered reading the actual post you'd see that the TC didnt really put nadal down as say nadal is the right guy at the right time

fate if you will

he got the right raquet, strings and an opponent

roger huge ego who would play as his bitch in finals, making it easy for rafa

Clay Death
09-12-2010, 03:48 AM
clay..... this post doesn't even make sense

you are like an attack drone with one mission in mind

attack anything you perceive as being negative about nadal

key point being perception, if you bothered reading the actual post you'd see that the TC didnt really put nadal down as say nadal is the right guy at the right time

fate if you will

he got the right raquet, strings and an opponent

roger huge ego who would play as his bitch in finals, making it easy for rafa

you alreaqdy know nothing has ever been easy for the clay warrior old sport. nothing.

he has never had the big serve or even a decent return on quick hard courts. his slice is pathetic and he cannot volley. he lack the confidence to go forward on the average.

**translation: he has to work twice as hard as the next guy to win his matches. he wills his wins.

anyway i am going to snatch some sleep. we will talk tomorrow.

take care old sport. and when are you going to visit me at the "ye olde castle" thread at the chat section. we can have some good discussions there.

MalwareDie
09-14-2010, 03:57 AM
:secret::angel:

born_on_clay
09-14-2010, 11:52 AM
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/3526/usopen0913finalvsdjokou.jpg

.-Federers_Mate-.
09-14-2010, 11:58 AM
i agree with the article on every point. Nadal has benifited from circumstance,

Federer always has to fight through tough draws whilst playing magical tennis i.e AO 2007.

It sad how thier have been legends like federer,Courier etc.

Now their is just Rafael Nadal. What a joke

.-Federers_Mate-.
09-14-2010, 12:00 PM
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/3526/usopen0913finalvsdjokou.jpg

that is a horrifying picture. Its like Rafa knows he has killed tennis and is smiling about it :rolleyes:

timafi
09-14-2010, 12:05 PM
with the draw he had I would celebrate too:rolleyes::lol: he had ZERO opposition all the way to the finals:shrug:
I like Nadal but he got lucky:shrug:

Topspindoctor
09-14-2010, 12:10 PM
i agree with the article on every point. Nadal has benifited from circumstance,

Federer always has to fight through tough draws whilst playing magical tennis i.e AO 2007.

It sad how thier have been legends like federer,Courier etc.

Now their is just Rafael Nadal. What a joke

Really? Always? Wimbledon 2009 with not a top 10 player until final with his pigeon Roddick inevitably choking in the end? How about RG 2009, the most undeserved slam in existence where Robin didn't even try to win the final? Or RG 2008 where Federer played mugs all tournament until the final? Let's not forget contesting slam finals against guys like Hewitt, Phillipousis, Gonzalez and Bagdhatis. Federer won so many clown slams it's mind boggling :o

.-Federers_Mate-.
09-14-2010, 12:20 PM
Really? Always? Wimbledon 2009 with not a top 10 player until final with his pigeon Roddick inevitably choking in the end? How about RG 2009, the most undeserved slam in existence where Robin didn't even try to win the final? Or RG 2008 where Federer played mugs all tournament until the final? Let's not forget contesting slam finals against guys like Hewitt, Phillipousis, Gonzalez and Bagdhatis. Federer won so many clown slams it's mind boggling :o

Fed played these players at their peaks e.g Nadal vs Gonzo ;) and came out the victor in straights every time. It is not wise to judge hewitt and co based on their form today. RG 09 was a tough slam. Fed had to beat a hot Mathieu infront of the home crowd, a revenge seeking tommy haas, Paris's golden boy and the payer of the year to reach the final. In the final he played the man who beat Nadal and in straight sets.

Nadal played 2 spainards, a guy that had just seen his wife give birth, two balkan head cases and a guy who had just come of the match of his life.

Wimby 09 he played all the inform players like haas (coming of halle), karlovic, kohlscreiber and Roddick playing the tennis of his life as well as soderling

Chair Umpire
09-14-2010, 12:32 PM
zzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

.-Federers_Mate-.
09-14-2010, 12:39 PM
zzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

im sick of your shit.

Chair Umpire
09-14-2010, 12:42 PM
http://fruityoaty.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/biggest_whiner_statue_1.jpg

Sillyrabbit
09-14-2010, 01:09 PM
I'd love to know how someone becomes an "accidental" champion? Can I pick up a racquet and hope that I "accidentally" get registered to the ATP, and then "accidentally" win some challenger events after which I "accidentally" win some ATP events, then "accidentally" win a slam?

You can make a case for Nadal being fortunate in some respects, though that would be disrespecting his achievements a bit, but as far as I know, none of his slams have been won by a retirement or walk over. Neither did he "accidentally" make an easy draw for himself in tourneys where his draw have been slightly easy, nor did he "accidentally" hit the winners he has on championship points or "accidentally" caused his opponents to make errors. A 9-time "accidental" champion is really one bad accident gone too far.

oddkayla
09-14-2010, 01:21 PM
Every succesful player has benefited from some advancement or changes during their era. The evolution from wooden rackets. The change from one surface to the other. The amount of prizemoney and sponsorship opportunities. The advancement in training and sports medicine in general.

Hell every player who has not benefited or adapted to the opportunties presented has no place in the sport, what ever it is. Everyone plays with what they have. Its not as though other pllayers do not have the same opportunites. While Nadal is busy being a beneficiary, what are they doing anyway?

star
09-14-2010, 01:24 PM
I'd love to know how someone becomes an "accidental" champion? Can I pick up a racquet and hope that I "accidentally" get registered to the ATP, and then "accidentally" win some challenger events after which I "accidentally" win some ATP events, then "accidentally" win a slam?

You can make a case for Nadal being fortunate in some respects, though that would be disrespecting his achievements a bit, but as far as I know, none of his slams have been won by a retirement or walk over. Neither did he "accidentally" make an easy draw for himself in tourneys where his draw have been slightly easy, nor did he "accidentally" hit the winners he has on championship points or "accidentally" caused his opponents to make errors. A 9-time "accidental" champion is really one bad accident gone too far.

And you might add that in the majority of his GS finals he has defeated the acclaimed GOAT. :)

thrust
09-14-2010, 01:30 PM
1. Homogenization of the surfaces has benefitted Nadal but so it has beneffitted other players so what gives...

2- Disagree completely with that point. People are always saying here that we're having a weak grass era or a weak clay era and I never buy it as it is most often than not an idealization of the past. People like Mantilla, Moyá and Ferrero were good back in their prime days but they were certainly not that good as people around here would like you to believe.

3- Probably so but what gives? Everyone has benefitted from racquet technology so the question you're posing is one of degrees.

4- Would Nadal have less titles if he hadn't faced Federer in so many finals? It's really imposible to say... Maybe he would have more.

4- Of course Rafa would have more. Nadal and Fed got to the finals because they were the best players in those tournaments. Nadal is the only player, mentally and physically, capable of beating Roger in Slam finals, except for Del Potro once. Unfortunately, Del Potro has been injured ever since.

For whatever reason, Nadal is the best player in the world today. Accept the reality!

scoobs
09-14-2010, 01:35 PM
To win one Grand Slam might be regarded as an accident.

To win nine begins to look suspiciously like a pattern of excellence.

laurie-1
09-14-2010, 01:42 PM
To win one Grand Slam might be regarded as an accident.

To win nine begins to look suspiciously like a pattern of excellence.

:D

azinna
09-14-2010, 02:16 PM
To win one Grand Slam might be regarded as an accident.

To win nine begins to look suspiciously like a pattern of excellence.

Too much insight.

peribsen
09-14-2010, 02:21 PM
To win one Grand Slam might be regarded as an accident.

To win nine begins to look suspiciously like a pattern of excellence.

:worship: You should be named poet laureate.

maskedmuffin
09-14-2010, 02:21 PM
3- Probably so but what gives? Everyone has benefitted from racquet technology so the question you're posing is one of degrees.





To gloss over this point indicates how absolutely thick headed all the turds on these forums are

The discrepancy between the Babolt apdc 100 and blx 90 is far greater than any discrepancy that was around in the past.

To even suggest that nadul's ball would land with anywhere close the spin and depth with the relative ease he can flick it is to ignore all the physical video evidence that is on display in front of you day after day after day.

maskedmuffin
09-14-2010, 02:25 PM
once again, to debunk this whole "nadul is sparta" argument, exhibit A straight from Toni's mouth

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575480023126380744.html


Nadul needs all the spin he can get to aid him because his strokes are not timing based, but based on how much brute brush up he can produce when given an oncoming ball.

His game would not translate to an earlier era, and you give him a blx 90 and he would fall apart trying to produce that amount of topspin shot after shot after shot

He is the largest by product of the technological age to date. Delpo is just a genetic freak tall enough to smack down those loopy forehands that rafa can hit while looking oh so ugly doing it


responses from turds welcomed to debunk this most basic of points

FormerRafaFan
09-14-2010, 02:26 PM
I'd love to know how someone becomes an "accidental" champion? Can I pick up a racquet and hope that I "accidentally" get registered to the ATP, and then "accidentally" win some challenger events after which I "accidentally" win some ATP events, then "accidentally" win a slam?

You can make a case for Nadal being fortunate in some respects, though that would be disrespecting his achievements a bit, but as far as I know, none of his slams have been won by a retirement or walk over. Neither did he "accidentally" make an easy draw for himself in tourneys where his draw have been slightly easy, nor did he "accidentally" hit the winners he has on championship points or "accidentally" caused his opponents to make errors. A 9-time "accidental" champion is really one bad accident gone too far.

+1000. Couldn't agree more :worship:

nadal4ever
06-18-2011, 02:58 PM
i agree with the article on every point. Nadal has benifited from circumstance,

Federer always has to fight through tough draws whilst playing magical tennis i.e AO 2007.

It sad how thier have been legends like federer,Courier etc.

Now their is just Rafael Nadal. What a joke

:wavey:Rafa does not make the draw. He just plays it.

PiggyGotRoasted
06-18-2011, 04:44 PM
Whose accidental double account are you?
:rolleyes: Did I really just read that post?

Complete fail

hipolymer
06-18-2011, 04:44 PM
Nadal is simply a product of today's era. I wouldn't call him an accidental champion though.

abraxas21
07-05-2011, 07:53 PM
finally nadull's one-dimensional game is being exposed for the muggery that it is.

one can only hope this mug won't win more GS or get back to número uno ever again.

EliSter
07-05-2011, 08:03 PM
He will win 1-2 more fluke GS nothing more i hope...:o

superslam77
07-05-2011, 08:06 PM
justin bieber of tennis.

sacrilege to our great sport.

peribsen
07-05-2011, 08:10 PM
This thread... soooo expected... some people are just soooo sour...

:zzz::zzz::zzz:

SheepleBuster
07-05-2011, 08:11 PM
Do you guys know when the Nadal Djokovic Wimbledon Final 2011 will be out on Blu-Ray? I might order all the copies to send them to random people around the world.

chenx15
07-05-2011, 08:29 PM
Do you guys know when the Nadal Djokovic Wimbledon Final 2011 will be out on Blu-Ray? I might order all the copies to send them to random people around the world.

Too Funny!!!:devil:

peribsen
07-05-2011, 08:33 PM
Do you guys know when the Nadal Djokovic Wimbledon Final 2011 will be out on Blu-Ray? I might order all the copies to send them to random people around the world.

Really? If you are fair (which you by now have given abundant proof you are not), do you think watching a Blue-Ray of the 2008 RG final really says much about Roger Federer's place in the history of tennis?

I don't. How expected you should think WB 2011 does.

Please go on showing all of us just how sour you are. You are the sort who doesn't enjoy tennis for the winners, it's the people losing who turn you on. Sickening.