Nadal is the smartest tennis player of this generation (proved) [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Nadal is the smartest tennis player of this generation (proved)

Rafa = Fed Killa
03-22-2007, 06:56 AM
It appears that to win on clay a player needs to be able to construct a point. Use their intelligence to set the opponent up as in chess.

While on fast courts all you need are good reflexes and serving skills. Nothing which requires higher level strategy.

Is clay disrespected because most people are not smart enough to understand the strategy and athleticism behind it?

brent-o
03-22-2007, 07:18 AM
That's a good point. It's kinda weird that a lot of the game's great champions didn't do so well on the clay courts of Roland Garros. But does this mean they lacked intellect and were mindless ball-bashers? I don't think so.

Myrre
03-22-2007, 07:30 AM
Don't see what's so intelligent about hitting the ball repeatedly with heavy topspinn 10 feet over the net down the middle of the court??? :o

laure xxx
03-22-2007, 07:46 AM
It's actually the complete opposite. You need reflexes and skill to be able to react quickly on quick surfaces - there is less time to decide where you should be on the court. Clay courts require only one thing: patience...and maybe a drop shot.

Rommella
03-22-2007, 07:54 AM
Tennis on hardcourts = chess at 90 mph
Tennis on claycourts = chess at 40 mph

Kolya
03-22-2007, 07:58 AM
Intelligence is needed for all courts - just in a different way.

Slow courts - its a war of attrition.

Stensland
03-22-2007, 08:06 AM
just take a look at gaudio and you're point's gone: all he has are amazingly stable groundstrokes, going for 283-shot-rallies all the time. i guess stuff like that drives guys like roddick or ljubicic nuts. and to be honest, i don't think he (gaudio) thinks that much about "contructing points" in that respect.

Action Jackson
03-22-2007, 08:38 AM
R=FK, I love clay tennis and you are one of the last people that I would want attempting to present an intellectual argument about this topic.

Bobby
03-22-2007, 05:10 PM
It appears that to win on clay a player needs to be able to construct a point. Use their intelligence to set the opponent up as in chess.

While on fast courts all you need are good reflexes and serving skills. Nothing which requires higher level strategy.

Is clay disrespected because most people are not smart enough to understand the strategy and athleticism behind it?

I wouldn't go quite that far, I think you need much more on fast courts than just serve and reflexes. But I see your point. Clay is the one surface which reveals the weaknesses in one's game. On clay, you must have good ground strokes, good serve, consistency, good fitness and a lot of tactical skill. You have to master all to be successful. Whereas on grass one could do well even if your backhand for example is unreliable.

GlennMirnyi
03-22-2007, 05:26 PM
:retard:

scarecrows
03-22-2007, 05:31 PM
there are some people that never let you down with their retardness

:yeah: RFK, keep the good job

TheMightyFed
03-22-2007, 05:36 PM
Only casual fans think fast court playing doesn't require tactical skills. Serve and volley and chip and charge tactics are very clever ones and require anticipation and great placement. Courier game was much less clever for example, turning his backhand time and time again, explain me where is the intellectual superiority of this ? Patience and consistency on groundstrokes are what separate the two types of surface. Intelligence, no way.

atheneglaukopis
03-22-2007, 05:40 PM
Breaking news: intellect not needed for slow or fast thread-starting on MTF.

GlennMirnyi
03-22-2007, 05:53 PM
Only casual fans think fast court playing doesn't require tactical skills. Serve and volley and chip and charge tactics are very clever ones and require anticipation and great placement. Courier game was much less clever for example, turning his backhand time and time again, explain me where is the intellectual superiority of this ? Patience and consistency on groundstrokes are what separate the two types of surface. Intelligence, no way.

Why do you bother writing something to Herr Hitler?

Myrre
03-22-2007, 09:02 PM
I'm quite intelligent, but I'm crap on clay....

Rafa = Fed Killa
03-22-2007, 09:51 PM
Hitting 4 aces to win a game on grass.

Or setting someone up over a 20 shot rally on clay.

Which of the above requires strategy.

Not hard to figure out, even for Glenn.

GlennMirnyi
03-22-2007, 09:52 PM
Some sources say Einstein was a better clay player than Borg and Nadal, but he never got to be a pro...

uglyamerican
03-22-2007, 11:07 PM
Or setting someone up over a 20 shot rally on clay.


Or hitting 20 shots directly to your opponent, waiting for him to blow it.

sondraj06
03-22-2007, 11:08 PM
Or hitting 20 shots directly to your opponent, waiting for him to blow it.

Hey he is better now, he gets the winners and don't blame him because he can out rally his opponents

Jaap
03-22-2007, 11:12 PM
So hitting the ball constantly down the middle time after time again requires intellect? :haha:

uglyamerican
03-22-2007, 11:14 PM
Hey he is better now, he gets the winners and don't blame him because he can out rally his opponents

Are we talking about somebody specific? I wasn't. :confused:

I like the current balance of court speeds.

uglyamerican
03-22-2007, 11:16 PM
Tennis on hardcourts = chess at 90 mph
Tennis on claycourts = chess at 40 mph

In either case, it's important to have a magnetic board. Otherwise you'll end up with a bishop in your gasket.

DrJules
03-22-2007, 11:17 PM
It appears that to win on clay a player needs to be able to construct a point. Use their intelligence to set the opponent up as in chess.

While on fast courts all you need are good reflexes and serving skills. Nothing which requires higher level strategy.

Is clay disrespected because most people are not smart enough to understand the strategy and athleticism behind it?

You forgot to mention return of serve which is vital; key to the success of Federer, Nalbandian and Hewitt on fast courts.

Fast courts often expose technical flaws which are not so evident when the player has more time for shots.

sondraj06
03-22-2007, 11:35 PM
Are we talking about somebody specific? I wasn't. :confused:

I like the current balance of court speeds.

No I guess not, sorry

uglyamerican
03-22-2007, 11:43 PM
No I guess not, sorry

That's okay.

I've also seen 20 shot rallies that don't go anywhere on hard courts, as well. The court isn't the problem.

Rafa = Fed Killa
03-22-2007, 11:59 PM
Angles are used to a higher degree in clay tennis.

Also, you can't get away with ball bashing or just serving aces.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
03-23-2007, 12:10 AM
Angles are used to a higher degree in clay tennis.

Also, you can't get away with ball bashing or just serving aces.

On hard courts, I see clever point construction from Federer, Fat Dave, Murray. On clay, I see cheap topspin moonballing. When it's a moonballer vs a normal player, it carries on until the normal player makes an unforced error. When it's moonballer vs moonballer, it carries on for a very long time. It is a cheap way of playing and I hate it when it's used against me. :(

Look at the king of the dirtballers, Nadal. He has absolutely nothing like the variety or intelligence of the three players I mentioned. He has one strategy and that is it. He plays one way and sticks doggedly to it until the other guy breaks down (and it's almost inevitable that the other guy will break down, as with his moonballing topspin groundstrokes, Nadal can go for whole sets on clay without making a single unforced error).

Johnny Groove
03-23-2007, 12:12 AM
On hard courts, I see clever point construction from Murray.

:spit: OMG, fucking HILARIOUS!!! :haha:

Fed=ATPTourkilla
03-23-2007, 12:15 AM
:spit: OMG, fucking HILARIOUS!!! :haha:

It's not hilarious at all. Murray does construct his points in a clever way. Yes, he does moonball sometimes but he uses it strategically. It's not his one and only tactic.

Johnny Groove
03-23-2007, 12:17 AM
It's not hilarious at all. Murray does construct his points in a clever way. Yes, he does moonball sometimes but he uses it strategically. It's not his one and only tactic.

The fact that you consider Murray to have good point construction is a joke. The further joke is that you believe that Nadal can only moonball as a strategy.

uglyamerican
03-23-2007, 12:19 AM
I wish Nadal would have done some moonballing in the IW final.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
03-23-2007, 12:20 AM
The fact that you consider Murray to have good point construction is a joke. The further joke is that you believe that Nadal can only moonball as a strategy.

It's not just moonballing. He can run as well. :)

as regards Murray - it is a fact that the guy has intelligent point construction. It is also a fact that he has a lot of haters. :(

uglyamerican
03-23-2007, 12:21 AM
It's not hilarious at all. Murray does construct his points in a clever way. Yes, he does moonball sometimes but he uses it strategically. It's not his one and only tactic.

He's also got: falling over, vommitting, yelling at coach.

Johnny Groove
03-23-2007, 12:23 AM
It's not just moonballing. He can run as well. :)

as regards Murray - it is a fact that the guy has intelligent point construction. It is also a fact that he has a lot of haters. :(

faking injuries, dramaqueening it up, and coach BSing :yeah:

Fed=ATPTourkilla
03-23-2007, 12:23 AM
He's also got: falling over, vommitting, yelling at coach.

this wasn't even a Murray thread. Pls restrict your hate to threads where it's actually on topic! :D

GlennMirnyi
03-23-2007, 01:46 AM
Hey he is better now, he gets the winners and don't blame him because he can out rally his opponents

He can out-moonball.

So hitting the ball constantly down the middle time after time again requires intellect? :haha:

Of course.

Angles are used to a higher degree in clay tennis.

Also, you can't get away with ball bashing or just serving aces.

So Nadal plays with technique? He's a ball-basher, Herr Hitler. If he's not a ball-basher he's a ballerina. You're as stupid as it gets.

faking injuries, dramaqueening it up, and coach BSing :yeah:

Why bringing up Nadal's antics?

Johnny Groove
03-23-2007, 02:06 AM
Why bringing up Nadal's antics?

Nadal picks his ass, shouts Vamos, fists pumps, says "no" all the time, is one dimensional, and wears girl pants.

Get it right

GlennMirnyi
03-23-2007, 02:33 AM
Nadal picks his ass, shouts Vamos, fists pumps, says "no" all the time, is one dimensional, and wears girl pants.

Get it right

Delays points, delays opponents' serves, fakes injuries to get a time-off (banana incident, anyone?), never gives credits to other players and retires when losing.

sondraj06
03-23-2007, 02:42 AM
Delays points, delays opponents' serves, fakes injuries to get a time-off (banana incident, anyone?), never gives credits to other players and retires when losing.

You don't give up Glenn, banana incident, that was freaking hilarious. How much do you really know about Rafa, given that I am a fan I think i know a little more. And he always gives credit to his opponent.

Byrd
03-23-2007, 02:44 AM
Majority of the tards on this forum must be crap on clay then according to R=FK including himself, the irony indeed :o

Johnny Groove
03-23-2007, 02:53 AM
Delays points, delays opponents' serves, fakes injuries to get a time-off (banana incident, anyone?), never gives credits to other players and retires when losing.

yes, on-serve in the first set against the king of returns Goochie is "losing" :rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
03-23-2007, 02:56 AM
You don't give up Glenn, banana incident, that was freaking hilarious. How much do you really know about Rafa, given that I am a fan I think i know a little more. And he always gives credit to his opponent.

Yes, against Youzhny the Hawk Eye won the match for the Russian and in the AO he only lost because he was injured. I mean, Gonzalez? Who is Gonzalez? For sure he'd have beaten that guy. :rolleyes:

yes, on-serve in the first set against the king of returns Goochie is "losing" :rolleyes:

He lost, sorry.

sondraj06
03-23-2007, 03:00 AM
Yes, against Youzhny the Hawk Eye won the match for the Russian and in the AO he only lost because he was injured. I mean, Gonzalez? Who is Gonzalez? For sure he'd have beaten that guy. :rolleyes:



He lost, sorry.

:rolleyes: He was injured. You know athlete do get injured.

And so what he complained about a point, one point. No body has a better record than him about not complaining and acting an ass about bad calls, he is one of the most respectful people on tour

tripb19
03-23-2007, 03:02 AM
5 years ago, who was the player who brought out the tardism on MTF like Rafa does today?

GlennMirnyi
03-23-2007, 03:03 AM
:rolleyes: He was injured. You know athlete do get injured.

And so what he complained about a point, one point. No body has a better record than him about not complaining and acting an ass about bad calls, he is one of the most respectful people on tour

When he says he is more correct than the computer system, he's being the worst whiner in the world. Tell the whiner marks only are valid on clay.

Johnny Groove
03-23-2007, 03:03 AM
5 years ago, who was the player who brought out the tardism on MTF like Rafa does today?

probably Hewitt :shrug:

sondraj06
03-23-2007, 03:05 AM
When he says he is more correct than the computer system, he's being the worst whiner in the world. Tell the whiner marks only are valid on clay.

Oh he got pissed once in his career, get over it. And youzney said he was right too, did you read that interview, yeah

Bremen
03-23-2007, 03:05 AM
probably Hewitt :shrug:

It couldn't have been the same though...has there been a player who has inspired so much hate and love at the same time as Nadal? I don't think Hewitt had his fanbase...

GlennMirnyi
03-23-2007, 03:08 AM
Oh he got pissed once in his career, get over it. And youzney said he was right too, did you read that interview, yeah

Who's youzney? :lol:

Youzhny for sure is a trustable viewer, he was some 20 meters away from the ball. :rolleyes:

Johnny Groove
03-23-2007, 03:09 AM
It couldn't have been the same though...has there been a player who has inspired so much hate and love at the same time as Nadal? I don't think Hewitt had his fanbase...

I hear in 03 and 04, roddick was public enemy number 1 around here, but I wasnt here then. My only experience is the past 367 days of MTF :o

sondraj06
03-23-2007, 03:11 AM
Who's youzney? :lol:

Youzhny for sure is a trustable viewer, he was some 20 meters away from the ball. :rolleyes:

Youzney, Youzny shit you know who i'm talking about, and if both players said it was good, his opponent who was whipping on him mind you, who could have just kept his mouth shut but didn't. Get real Glenn, you have got to come up with better reason to dislike Rafa, your arguments are getting old and repetitive.

GlennMirnyi
03-23-2007, 03:15 AM
Youzney, Youzny shit you know who i'm talking about, and if both players said it was good, his opponent who was whipping on him mind you, who could have just kept his mouth shut but didn't. Get real Glenn, you have got to come up with better reason to dislike Rafa, your arguments are getting old and repetitive.

I don't need better reasons to dislike a whiner, sore loser and moonballer.

Youzhny was being gracious after giving Nadal a beating.

sondraj06
03-23-2007, 03:21 AM
I don't need better reasons to dislike a whiner, sore loser and moonballer.

Youzhny was being gracious after giving Nadal a beating.

Ha, I have no more to say to you. Good day, I said good day

Allure
03-23-2007, 03:21 AM
If clay courts require intelligence and technical skill why did Rafa win 2 RGs?

sondraj06
03-23-2007, 03:22 AM
If clay courts require intelligence and technical skill why did Rafa win 2 RGs?

Because he's brilliant, geez.

Allure
03-23-2007, 03:23 AM
Because he's brilliant, geez.

Okay I give him tennis intellgence but technical skill I'm still not sure about.

Bremen
03-23-2007, 03:28 AM
I hear in 03 and 04, roddick was public enemy number 1 around here, but I wasnt here then. My only experience is the past 367 days of MTF :o

I wasn't around either...but it's hard to imagine this place being worse than it is during the tard battles.

GlennMirnyi
03-23-2007, 03:28 AM
Okay I give him tennis intellgence but technical skill I'm still not sure about.

Yeah, speaking English like this:

"yes, no?" "no, no?" "maybe, no?" "what, no?" is a big signal of intelligence.

Allure
03-23-2007, 03:33 AM
Yeah, speaking English like this:

"yes, no?" "no, no?" "maybe, no?" "what, no?" is a big signal of intelligence.

Glenn, tennis intelligence such as constructing points.:) But then you probably say moonballing doesn't take much intelligence.

sondraj06
03-23-2007, 03:37 AM
Yeah, speaking English like this:

"yes, no?" "no, no?" "maybe, no?" "what, no?" is a big signal of intelligence.

Not everyone speaks perfect English like you Glenn, you must be objective

GlennMirnyi
03-23-2007, 03:38 AM
Glenn, tennis intelligence such as constructing points.:) But then you probably say moonballing doesn't take much intelligence.

Intelligence is something that is applied to everything you do. You can be more adept at X than Y (probably because of studying and all), but someone intelligent is intelligent on everything.

sondraj06
03-23-2007, 03:40 AM
That's not true people have their strengths and weakness, in all areas, logic isn't really yours Glenn

GlennMirnyi
03-23-2007, 03:41 AM
That's not true people have their strengths and weakness, in all areas, logic isn't really yours Glenn

Then you don't know what's intelligence. Well, I should have guessed that anyway. :cool:

sondraj06
03-23-2007, 03:46 AM
Then you don't know what's intelligence. Well, I should have guessed that anyway. :cool:

we already had this discussion about intelligence and the room for error when calculating it.

Some of the smartest people are some of the dingiest folks you will ever meat. Books smarts a lot of the time doesn't translate to common sense. I'd rather have common sense, it keeps you alive in life

GlennMirnyi
03-23-2007, 03:54 AM
we already had this discussion about intelligence and the room for error when calculating it.

Some of the smartest people are some of the dingiest folks you will ever meat. Books smarts a lot of the time doesn't translate to common sense. I'd rather have common sense, it keeps you alive in life

Being a book-worm means you have knowledge, not intelligence. :wavey:

sondraj06
03-23-2007, 04:17 AM
J'torian are you my own personal troll now. Wow I never had one of those before, I feel special

tripb19
03-23-2007, 06:58 AM
but someone intelligent is intelligent on everything.

:confused: I don't think so Glenn . . . ask my Economics professor how I'm going than ask my Finance professor :tape: Worlds apart.

Rafa = Fed Killa
04-18-2007, 01:45 PM
Being a book-worm means you have knowledge, not intelligence.

The ability to apply knowledge is intelligence.

laure xxx
04-18-2007, 02:04 PM
All a player needs on a clay court is fitness and patience. Where is the intelligence in that?

rexman
04-18-2007, 02:19 PM
You forgot to mention return of serve which is vital; key to the success of Federer, Nalbandian and Hewitt on fast courts.

Fast courts often expose technical flaws which are not so evident when the player has more time for shots.

I disagree with the second part. I knew it's WTA, but look at Venus. Her forehand technique is pretty dang bad, however she's still able to excel on grass. On clay, her forehand breaks down.

The slower the ball comes at you, the more sound your technique has to be.

Neely
04-18-2007, 02:25 PM
I love faster surface more and grass court season are festivities for me, but I would not dismiss the possibility that claycourt tennis has its own requirements which are very demanding and require skill.

All a player needs on a clay court is fitness and patience. Where is the intelligence in that?
well, lets play merry-go-round... and where's the intelligence in setting up a point or winning a point with a big serve or any other ball-bashing shot that are helped to be more effective than on slower surfaces?

Rogiman
04-18-2007, 02:30 PM
Is R=FK going to have a chat with his alias now?

Rafa = Fed Killa
04-18-2007, 02:52 PM
well, lets play merry-go-round... and where's the intelligence in setting up a point or winning a point with a big serve or any other ball-bashing shot that are helped to be more effective than on slower surfaces?

Agree.

An ace requires skill not intelligence.

NYCtennisfan
04-18-2007, 03:08 PM
Assuming the original premise is true, would R=FK even be able to find a clay court?

Rafa = Fed Killa
04-18-2007, 03:13 PM
Assuming the original premise is true, would R=FK even be able to find a clay court?

An impressive attempt at an insult.....for a fedtard.

Your logic fails you.

GlennMirnyi
04-18-2007, 04:24 PM
Intelect needed for moonballing = intelect needed for peeling a banana. Of course we know R=FK can't peel a banana, but that's another story.

Rafa = Fed Killa
05-15-2007, 08:04 PM
Mirka has slowly been eating Federer's brain.
It explains his regression on clay.

Glenn don't try and insult your betters. Your lack of logic astounds me.

t0x
05-15-2007, 08:49 PM
I honestly don't see how more 'intellect' is required for clay...

If anything, it's digging a trench 10 miles behind the baseline, point after point, and running until one player hits an error.

Faster courts require much more quick thinking and balls 10m of the net wont do the job. You have no time to respond and have to act on instinct (arguably, it requires more talent to do this...).

(although it's worth noting, some frauds like Roddick have success due to power... but true talent and quick reactions always prevails ;] )

Fumus
05-15-2007, 08:54 PM
Um...big shots can only get you so far on any surface. A small intellect with great talent will always lose out to decent talent with a bright intellect. On Grass, on Hard Court, on Wood, on Ice, on Mars.

trixtah
05-15-2007, 09:25 PM
When he says he is more correct than the computer system, he's being the worst whiner in the world. Tell the whiner marks only are valid on clay.

Hawkeye isn't 100% correct. You obviously know nothing about technology.

Who's youzney? :lol:

Youzhny for sure is a trustable viewer, he was some 20 meters away from the ball. :rolleyes:

and you were miles away watching the ball from a camera that was some 50 feet from the ball...great logic. Good to see you judging calls like you know more than both of the players.

Intelligence is something that is applied to everything you do. You can be more adept at X than Y (probably because of studying and all), but someone intelligent is intelligent on everything.

lmfao, this alone proves you know nothing about intelligence. You need to take a few college level classes, your middle school diploma gives you no credibility here.


Most of the people in this thread bashing clay are only watching players who are mediocre on clay, thus the long rallies up the middle. Watching a master on clay like Nadal will show you that point construction is important. Nadal doesn't bash the ball 10 feet over the net down the middle every point (maybe he does in some people's minds since they obviously like to comment on matches they haven't watched). In fact, he has some of the best angles on the tour and a great mind for shot selection. If you want to bring in the argument that he has great angles because he's left handed, you might as well stop watching tennis and possibly quit life. That given, I'm not sure I agree with the original post. Clay courts, Hard courts, Grass courts, Carpet...all courts require different skills. One thing that distinguishes clay from hard is that great clay court players have great balance and move flawlessly on the surface. Movement is featured more than say, instinct. All this given, I'm pretty sure that nobody on this forum has any right to judge Rafa's style of play on any court. If you've ever played at a high level--and I'm not talking about your shitty high school team--you know that the type of ball he hits isn't easy to deal with.

ps: glenn, please feel free to open up a dictionary someday. You are always making arguments (often contradictory to things you've said in the past which further diminishes your credibility) and you have no idea what you are saying. You have no knowledge (which is apparent to those of us who actually graduated form high school [feel free to join the club one day]) and thus you sadly argue only with opinion.

Rafa = Fed Killa
05-15-2007, 09:34 PM
Trixtah :worship:

One of the best posts I have ever read on MTF

Johnny Groove
05-15-2007, 09:42 PM
Trixtah :worship:

One of the best posts I have ever read on MTF

Agreed :yeah:

The_Nadal_effect
05-15-2007, 09:50 PM
Awesome write up, Trixtah!

d3ck
05-15-2007, 10:27 PM
Hard courts are not only S&V, Clay is not only endless rallies...

There are boring clay rallies ending with a tired unforced error, and rallies with some nice almost-winners, some lovely defensive shots and great clapping from public at the end... in hard courts too...

Jogy
05-17-2007, 05:39 PM
it's clear that Federer does not have the intellegence for the clay

if the surface does not help him to make the ball fast, he simple has not the best play on clay to beat the Best

clay is not that easy that you just throw up the ball on your serve and have a serve winner or an easy volley to finish at net

Beforehand
05-17-2007, 05:41 PM
I'm not sure intelligence or intellect is necessarily the right word.

Jogy
05-17-2007, 05:44 PM
I'm not sure intelligence or intellect is necessarily the right word.
then call it resistance, physical body or the willing to get dirty to go a 25 shot rally three or four times each serve game if you can't hit a winner or if your serve is too slowed down on clay --- and not only a serve and a follow stroke like on grass

that's what winning you on clay, not ballerina play or wearing a jacket like when you play on grass

Beforehand
05-17-2007, 05:45 PM
That's not what the thread was about...

Forehander
05-17-2007, 05:46 PM
Fast courts requires much quicker reflexes so it's more of a tactical game. CLay court is more of a physical game. But of course both crosses a bit.

rafagirlno1
05-17-2007, 05:46 PM
Hawkeye isn't 100% correct. You obviously know nothing about technology.



and you were miles away watching the ball from a camera that was some 50 feet from the ball...great logic. Good to see you judging calls like you know more than both of the players.



lmfao, this alone proves you know nothing about intelligence. You need to take a few college level classes, your middle school diploma gives you no credibility here.


Most of the people in this thread bashing clay are only watching players who are mediocre on clay, thus the long rallies up the middle. Watching a master on clay like Nadal will show you that point construction is important. Nadal doesn't bash the ball 10 feet over the net down the middle every point (maybe he does in some people's minds since they obviously like to comment on matches they haven't watched). In fact, he has some of the best angles on the tour and a great mind for shot selection. If you want to bring in the argument that he has great angles because he's left handed, you might as well stop watching tennis and possibly quit life. That given, I'm not sure I agree with the original post. Clay courts, Hard courts, Grass courts, Carpet...all courts require different skills. One thing that distinguishes clay from hard is that great clay court players have great balance and move flawlessly on the surface. Movement is featured more than say, instinct. All this given, I'm pretty sure that nobody on this forum has any right to judge Rafa's style of play on any court. If you've ever played at a high level--and I'm not talking about your shitty high school team--you know that the type of ball he hits isn't easy to deal with.

ps: glenn, please feel free to open up a dictionary someday. You are always making arguments (often contradictory to things you've said in the past which further diminishes your credibility) and you have no idea what you are saying. You have no knowledge (which is apparent to those of us who actually graduated form high school [feel free to join the club one day]) and thus you sadly argue only with opinion.

:worship: brilliant post :worship:

GlennMirnyi
05-17-2007, 06:02 PM
Hawkeye isn't 100% correct. You obviously know nothing about technology.



and you were miles away watching the ball from a camera that was some 50 feet from the ball...great logic. Good to see you judging calls like you know more than both of the players.



lmfao, this alone proves you know nothing about intelligence. You need to take a few college level classes, your middle school diploma gives you no credibility here.


Most of the people in this thread bashing clay are only watching players who are mediocre on clay, thus the long rallies up the middle. Watching a master on clay like Nadal will show you that point construction is important. Nadal doesn't bash the ball 10 feet over the net down the middle every point (maybe he does in some people's minds since they obviously like to comment on matches they haven't watched). In fact, he has some of the best angles on the tour and a great mind for shot selection. If you want to bring in the argument that he has great angles because he's left handed, you might as well stop watching tennis and possibly quit life. That given, I'm not sure I agree with the original post. Clay courts, Hard courts, Grass courts, Carpet...all courts require different skills. One thing that distinguishes clay from hard is that great clay court players have great balance and move flawlessly on the surface. Movement is featured more than say, instinct. All this given, I'm pretty sure that nobody on this forum has any right to judge Rafa's style of play on any court. If you've ever played at a high level--and I'm not talking about your shitty high school team--you know that the type of ball he hits isn't easy to deal with.

ps: glenn, please feel free to open up a dictionary someday. You are always making arguments (often contradictory to things you've said in the past which further diminishes your credibility) and you have no idea what you are saying. You have no knowledge (which is apparent to those of us who actually graduated form high school [feel free to join the club one day]) and thus you sadly argue only with opinion.

I study engineering, idiot, and the only way you can understand more about physics than me, :retard: is dying and resurrecting as someone with brains and not an empty space instead of it.

What do you know about how I play, joker? Who do you think you are to make up assumptions about how I am? Time to go to tennis basics again. Oh, you're too old for that. :haha:

I can judge anything I want. Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot judge? Get a clue, :retard:

"Master on clay". :retard:ed fanboy. Why don't you buy some old footage of Borg, then Muster, then Kuerten. Nadal is just a moonballer. No kind of strategy or tactics.

Apemant
05-17-2007, 06:08 PM
it's clear that Federer does not have the intellegence for the clay

Intelligence has zero to do with it. It is true that clay offers opportunities for some interesting point construction, which can be intriguing to watch - but since the thread startes is a diehard fan of Nadal, it must be said that Rafa is a particularly bad example for that.

Coria would be a much much better one, as his game did depend on smart point construction, in an attacking sense of the term. I mean, Coria's game was to think of a way to WIN the point actively - while Nadal's plan is to defend and wait for a mistake or an opportunity for a killer shot, which arises randomly in otherwise neutral rallies. So Nadal relies mainly on his intuition: he doesn't think ahead, he just figures out (since he has a natural feel for that) what's the best thing to do RIGHT NOW. And if there is nothing worth exploiting, he will contend to just retrieve the ball (going as deep as possible without risking too much, which is realatively easy with his heavy topspin FH).

Thus point construction is relatively unimportant aspect of Nadal's game; it's 1) his relentless retrieving which drives the opposition into UEs, and 2) his ability to both see & effectively take advantage of weak spots in his opponent's attack (AND defense, as of 2007) - that wins 80-90% of his points. Basicaly, it's what makes him the clay god. Not smart point construction. So while the main premise of this thread does hold some water, it fails utterly in it's purpose, if I am right in guessing that purpose, given the profile of the thread starter. :devil:

Jogy
05-17-2007, 06:15 PM
I study engineering, idiot, and the only way you can understand more about physics than me, :retard:
exactly the right smiley to describe you
from your posts, I always think you are studying "assclowness" in your main subject


"Master on clay". :retard:ed fanboy. Why don't you buy some old footage of Borg, then Muster, then Kuerten. Nadal is just a moonballer. No kind of strategy or tactics.
too long ago, has no relation to presence, especially Borg is too long ago

Apemant
05-17-2007, 06:20 PM
"Master on clay". :retard:ed fanboy. Why don't you buy some old footage of Borg, then Muster, then Kuerten. Nadal is just a moonballer. No kind of strategy or tactics.

Amazingly enough, I actually agree with your claim, just not the way you value it. Nadal IS a moonballer, but a damn good one, in fact the best one I've seen. His gameplan is simple; he doesn't vary it - but what he does, he does almost perfectly. He executes his FH topspin forehand incredibly consistently, with just a handful of errors in loong matches; it is a great asset. His defense is the best on the tour, bar none - I don't think anyone can actually retrieve balls from so many difficult positions I've seen Nadal do. What's more, not just retrieve, but often convert them into straight winners or at least something the opponent won't be able to kill off easily.

In other words, I agree that the thread starter's intentions are completely off: Nadal's game has about nothing to do with intelligence. It's sheer instincts. Nadal is a beast, but a mighty beast for that matter :worship: - not something to write off easily, as you seem to do.

G4.
05-17-2007, 06:20 PM
it's clear that Federer does not have the intellegence for the clay


then your idol Tommy Haas must be very retarded

Beforehand
05-17-2007, 08:41 PM
Apemant wins this thread. Congratulations!

FluffyYellowBall
05-17-2007, 09:42 PM
Don't see what's so intelligent about hitting the ball repeatedly with heavy topspinn 10 feet over the net down the middle of the court??? :o

Its u who doenst see the amount of times a point changes during a rally. You need to make quick decisions and going offense to defense and back is non exisitant on fast surfaces..

FluffyYellowBall
05-17-2007, 09:45 PM
Intelect needed for moonballing = intelect needed for peeling a banana. Of course we know R=FK can't peel a banana, but that's another story.

If the answer to winning on clay was moonballing then

a- A 2 winning match streak wouldnt exisit coz everybody would be eually bad moonballers.

b-Federer would have figured it out before u did

c-PLayers who do so well on fast surfaces wouldnt have trouble on clay since its only moonballing:rolleyes:

A_Skywalker
05-17-2007, 09:47 PM
Why are you trying to explain to the engineer, he understand only engineering :)

FluffyYellowBall
05-17-2007, 09:54 PM
Why are you trying to explain to the engineer, he understand only engineering :)

yea go study Glenn...Unless pissing of fanboys is engineering course u take:smash:

marcRD
05-17-2007, 11:24 PM
Federer has a greater intellect than Nadal both on and off court, only the most diehard Nadal tard would disagree with that statement.

You can see on hard court NAdals difficulty to adapt when facing powerful players, he just cant change tactics or find weak spots in the opponents game. He just runs and runs and keep attacking the backhand with lot of spin everytime he faces Blake, Berdyh and Youzhny, he just do the same match after match and lose all of them.

Federer has been forced to work with his tactics to beat players he used to have problems with like Hewitt, Agassi, Nalbandian and even Nadal on hardcourt. He just seem to have all options in the bag and find the perfect solution for each player, he can slice alot or hit alot of top spin with his backhand, play aggresive from the baseline or be patient, play with angles or power, serve his 2nd serve with all kind of spin and angles, go to the net often or not.

Federer seems to have tested everything against Nadal on clay but just doesnt have the weapons to find a tactical solution to the puzzle.

What Nadal lacks in intellect he makes up with great guts, the greatest out there.

Beforehand
05-18-2007, 12:26 AM
Coria's point construction. That's good stuff right there. The mention of it alone makes this thread better.

trixtah
05-18-2007, 01:29 AM
@Glenn Three words: Get Angry clown!!

hahaha what a sucker. Should study a little harder in engineering and maybe review the basics of physics.

Forehander
05-18-2007, 08:22 AM
wow Glenn that post totally got you there :) You need to fight back with a better post lol.

VolandriFan
05-18-2007, 09:50 AM
Neither requires more intelligence, it's just a completely different game on the slow surfaces as opposed to the fast ones.

leng jai
05-18-2007, 10:07 AM
The fact that Nadal's style of play can dominate the surface suggests that intelligence doesn't mean jack shit on it.

VolandriFan
05-18-2007, 10:13 AM
The fact that Nadal's style of play can dominate the surface suggests that intelligence doesn't mean jack shit on it.

What about the fact that he can beat the most dominant player on hardcourt?

leng jai
05-18-2007, 10:15 AM
What about the fact that he can beat the most dominant player on hardcourt?

Matchups.

G4.
05-18-2007, 10:28 AM
What about the fact that he can beat the most dominant player on hardcourt?

Did he win Wimbledon the USO and the masters cup last year ?

bokehlicious
05-18-2007, 10:33 AM
Did he win Wimbledon the USO and the masters cup last year ?

People have short memories when the clay season is on... They'll face tough reality once again as soon as the summer US hardcourt season starts, no worries :)

Jogy
05-18-2007, 10:57 AM
People have short memories when the clay season is on... They'll face tough reality once again as soon as the summer US hardcourt season starts, no worries :)
that's why Nadal won Masters on hardcourt and indoor already :)

well done, now go to your poker thread or play a bit poker on the internet :wavey:

Action Jackson
05-18-2007, 11:07 AM
Amazingly enough, I actually agree with your claim, just not the way you value it. Nadal IS a moonballer, but a damn good one, in fact the best one I've seen. His gameplan is simple; he doesn't vary it - but what he does, he does almost perfectly. He executes his FH topspin forehand incredibly consistently, with just a handful of errors in loong matches; it is a great asset. His defense is the best on the tour, bar none - I don't think anyone can actually retrieve balls from so many difficult positions I've seen Nadal do. What's more, not just retrieve, but often convert them into straight winners or at least something the opponent won't be able to kill off easily.

In other words, I agree that the thread starter's intentions are completely off: Nadal's game has about nothing to do with intelligence. It's sheer instincts. Nadal is a beast, but a mighty beast for that matter :worship: - not something to write off easily, as you seem to do.

Pretty much says it all. The funny thing is that Glenn must hate how often Nadal has been coming to the net in recent matches and how well he has been doing when he is up there.

BgStallion
05-18-2007, 11:30 AM
No matter what the surface is tennis is tennis . If one can play intelligent tennis on one surface he can play intelligently on all surfaces. I think that Nadal doesn't play intelligently like guys like Gilbert or Santoro , he's just cunning - animal cunning - it's just an instinct.

Deivid23
05-18-2007, 11:33 AM
Intelligence has zero to do with it. It is true that clay offers opportunities for some interesting point construction, which can be intriguing to watch - but since the thread startes is a diehard fan of Nadal, it must be said that Rafa is a particularly bad example for that.

Coria would be a much much better one, as his game did depend on smart point construction, in an attacking sense of the term. I mean, Coria's game was to think of a way to WIN the point actively - while Nadal's plan is to defend and wait for a mistake or an opportunity for a killer shot, which arises randomly in otherwise neutral rallies. So Nadal relies mainly on his intuition: he doesn't think ahead, he just figures out (since he has a natural feel for that) what's the best thing to do RIGHT NOW. And if there is nothing worth exploiting, he will contend to just retrieve the ball (going as deep as possible without risking too much, which is realatively easy with his heavy topspin FH).

Thus point construction is relatively unimportant aspect of Nadal's game; it's 1) his relentless retrieving which drives the opposition into UEs, and 2) his ability to both see & effectively take advantage of weak spots in his opponent's attack (AND defense, as of 2007) - that wins 80-90% of his points. Basicaly, it's what makes him the clay god. Not smart point construction. So while the main premise of this thread does hold some water, it fails utterly in it's purpose, if I am right in guessing that purpose, given the profile of the thread starter. :devil:


Pretty much I can call this bullshit, sorry. I guess you´ve never heard one of the many Corretja´s interviews courtside to Nadal analyzing a match just 2 minutes after it ended. Corretja is a brilliant tennis commentator, for sure, but I´ve never heard such an accuracy and smartness justifying some of his tactics or analyzing technical aspects of that particular match in any other Spanish player.

anon57
05-18-2007, 11:35 AM
I do think that's the best way of describing Nadal's play, it's very cunning and instinctive. He does what comes naturally to him, and his game is just perfectly suited for clay. That's also why when he comes to the net he does fairly well even if he doesn't have the best volleying skills, he very fast and has great insticts as to were the ball is going to go

Apemant
05-18-2007, 11:40 AM
Pretty much says it all. The funny thing is that Glenn must hate how often Nadal has been coming to the net in recent matches and how well he has been doing when he is up there.

Yep, Nadal is a very competent volleyer (on clay at least) - he usually manages to kill the ball right away, something that other people rarely do to him. Also, his overhead is excellent - almost always a direct winner, which is not a trivial thing to do on clay.

His dropshots are also very good and deadly on clay, with people standing 2 meters behing the baseline. But against Nadal himself, you need nothing less than an awesome dropshot to actually win a point, even though he's even further back behind the baseline. Great mover on clay, no doubt about it.

Apemant
05-18-2007, 11:59 AM
Pretty much I can call this bullshit, sorry. I guess you´ve never heard one of the many Corretja´s interviews courtside to Nadal analyzing a match just 2 minutes after it ended. Corretja is a brilliant tennis commentator, for sure, but I´ve never heard such an accuracy and smartness justifying some of his tactics or analyzing technical aspects of that particular match in any other Spanish player.

Nope, I never heard Corretja's comments, but anyway, his opinion and analysis mean to me about as much as Glenn's diploma means to you. I have my own pair of eyes and my own reason. Comentators tend to overpraise people because it sounds attractive (need I remind you of what people say about Federer? In his case 'expert opinion' doesn't mean jack to you, right?) and you have to think about your audience. No matter what Corretja says, it can't convince me Nadal is something other than a great intuitive, instinctive player - and not some intellectual mastermind. He has a great 'feel' for the game on clay, and reacts on exact circumstances in any given moment - but he doesn't plan aynthing complicated in advance; it's not his style. He doesn't seek to constantly be on the initiative, to actively find ways of winning points; he's perfectly happy letting you dictate rallies (if you can - few really do against him) and then exploit weaknesses in your attack.

True, lately he's became much more agressive than last year, but those attacks are still reactions to circumstances on the field (some weakness in his opponent defense in that exact moment), not something planned ahead and constructed on purpose. Of course, it's not that he never tries that - he does, but not very often; it's not an important aspect of his game, meaning he would be the same force as he is now even if he never did that (and BTW, when he really does that, he loses more points than when he sticks to plan A).

Deivid23
05-18-2007, 12:04 PM
Nope, I never heard Corretja's comments, but anyway, his opinion and analysis mean to me about as much as Glenn's diploma means to you. I have my own pair of eyes and my own reason. Comentators tend to overpraise people because it sounds attractive (need I remind you of what people say about Federer? In his case 'expert opinion' doesn't mean jack to you, right?) and you have to think about your audience. No matter what Corretja says, it can't convince me Nadal is something other than a great intuitive, instinctive player - and not some intellectual mastermind. He has a great 'feel' for the game on clay, and reacts on exact circumstances in any given moment - but he doesn't plan aynthing complicated in advance; it's not his style. He doesn't seek to constantly be on the initiative, to actively find ways of winning points; he's perfectly happy letting you dictate rallies (if you can - few really do against him) and then exploit weaknesses in your attack.


ermmm, please read with more attention next time, I´m not talking about Corretja´s analysis, I´m talking about Nadal´s ones :scratch:

True, lately he's became much more agressive than last year, but those attacks are still reactions to circumstances on the field (some weakness in his opponent defense in that exact moment), not something planned ahead and constructed on purpose. Of course, it's not that he never tries that - he does, but not very often; it's not an important aspect of his game, meaning he would be the same force as he is now even if he never did that (and BTW, when he really does, he loses more points than when he sticks to plan A).

Yep, so Nadal doesn´t think on court, just retrieves ball by instict, hooray for you :lol:

Action Jackson
05-18-2007, 12:06 PM
Yep, Nadal is a very competent volleyer (on clay at least) - he usually manages to kill the ball right away, something that other people rarely do to him. Also, his overhead is excellent - almost always a direct winner, which is not a trivial thing to do on clay.


He plays to patterns and doesn't usually do more than he needs to, well he comes in on the right shot and that's commonsense.

His dropshots are also very good and deadly on clay, with people standing 2 meters behing the baseline. But against Nadal himself, you need nothing less than an awesome dropshot to actually win a point, even though he's even further back behind the baseline. Great mover on clay, no doubt about it.

He is getting better at them and he has the element of surprise on his side, he doesn't do it often, but does it at the right time. He isn't the fastest player on tour, but he has some of the best anticipation.

Apemant
05-18-2007, 12:16 PM
ermmm, please read with more attention next time, I´m not talking about Corretja´s analysis, I´m talking about Nadal´s ones :scratch:

Sorry. Anyway, I don't speak spanish, and Nadal doesn't really speak english so for the time being I can't dive into his brilliant analysis. Except if someone would be so kind as to translate it to english for me. But to take your word that it's indeed brilliant - no thanks. :devil: Various people have various ideas about what brilliant analysis is.


Yep, so Nadal doesn´t think on court, just retrieves ball by instict, hooray for you :lol:

He does think: something in lines of 'what's the best shot to play right now'? He might even think further ahead, but like I said, it's just not an important factor of his game - his instincts are quite enough to dominate everyone. I'm not saying Nadal is stupid, or unable to think - I'm saying that his GAME doesn't depend on it. It's not a trademark of his game. Sorry if it spoils it for you.

Deivid23
05-18-2007, 12:33 PM
Sorry. Anyway, I don't speak spanish, and Nadal doesn't really speak english so for the time being I can't dive into his brilliant analysis. Except if someone would be so kind as to translate it to english for me. But to take your word that it's indeed brilliant - no thanks. :devil: Various people have various ideas about what brilliant analysis is.

I´m not trying to convince anyone, hadn´t yet noticed you till today tbh, I was just expressing my views about that bullshit you wrote, nothing personal ;). I think you´d be surprised to hear some of those interviews if you could understand them, not gonna make it easier for you as I couldn´t care less about your opinon, sorry.


He does think: something in lines of 'what's the best shot to play right now'? He might even think further ahead, but like I said, it's just not an important factor of his game - his instincts are quite enough to dominate everyone. I'm not saying Nadal is stupid, or unable to think - I'm saying that his GAME doesn't depend on it. It's not a trademark of his game. Sorry if it spoils it for you.

His game does depend aswell on his smartness on court, maybe that what you call instinct (anticipation, reading his rivals´ preferred construction of the point after 10 mins of play, not going for the passing-shot outright winner everytime) is also thinking on court for others, he´s volleying more every time and also using his once-non-existent slice to change rythms more often as well.

Maybe you´re one of those who fall in the common mistake that the more technically perfect a player is the more intelligent appears to be and that´s some big fat bullshit as well. It´s not like Nalbandian and Federer are not supposed to be the better strategists in the game bc of this as they have all the shots in the book and they can do whatever they want with the ball as long as they´re sharp, at least for me

Apemant
05-18-2007, 02:20 PM
I´m not trying to convince anyone, hadn´t yet noticed you till today tbh, I was just expressing my views about that bullshit you wrote, nothing personal ;). I think you´d be surprised to hear some of those interviews if you could understand them, not gonna make it easier for you as I couldn´t care less about your opinon, sorry.

Your views on what you *think* is bullshit. Of course, it's not bullshit, it's something everyone can see unless they are blinded by their fanboyism. I'm not Glenn to take out everything from Nadal just because I'm no fan of his; on the contrary, I never failed to admit his great strengths where they really lie. But I'm also not a fanboy to think my hero must not only be the strongest and the fastest, but also the most intelligent, most talented for music, dancing, military strategies or whatnot - just because I so happen to like him. You can reiterate it as much as you want, but you ain't making an Einstein out of Nadal on court. Off court - I don't know him, can't judge his intellect; but I've seen plenty of his matches and intellect is but a small part of his game. Physique and instinct, natural feel for the surface - yes; intelligent point construction - only marginally. He just doesn't rely on thinking how to win points. So far he's been winning points with ease without having to bother with figuring out how to do it. So why fix what ain't broken?


His game does depend aswell on his smartness on court, maybe that what you call instinct (anticipation, reading his rivals´ preferred construction of the point after 10 mins of play, not going for the passing-shot outright winner everytime) is also thinking on court for others, he´s volleying more every time and also using his once-non-existent slice to change rythms more often as well.

Like I said, he started being more aggresive this year - but let's not kid ourselves, last year he went undefeated playing defense 90% of the time. What does it tell us? That he simply didn't need any aggression or any point construction or any complicated tactics. What he had was already enough to beat everyone. So why are you mentioning his recent alterations to the game as if THEY made Nadal who he really is? Obviously you are missing the point of what I'm saying - let me repeat once more, though it will probably still be futile: I'm not saying Nadal is a stupid troglodyte as a person. As far as I'm concerned he might be an intelligent kid who reads Shakespeare in his free time. I'm just saying what his game is and what isn't, no matter what fanboys want to make out of it.


Maybe you´re one of those who fall in the common mistake that the more technically perfect a player is the more intelligent appears to be and that´s some big fat bullshit as well. It´s not like Nalbandian and Federer are not supposed to be the better strategists in the game bc of this as they have all the shots in the book and they can do whatever they want with the ball as long as they´re sharp, at least for me

I never mentioned Federer in this context. I mentioned Coria, unless you confuse those two? Coria was a genuine attacking claycourter; Nadal wasn't - so far. I'm not saying he can't try to focus more on that aspect in the future. He's still young. But the vast majority of his 79 matches streak was won by defending, not by constructing points intelligently. Why it is so hard for you to acknowledge something so obvious?

Beforehand
05-18-2007, 02:36 PM
I never mentioned Federer in this context. I mentioned Coria, unless you confuse those two? Coria was a genuine attacking claycourter; Nadal wasn't - so far. I'm not saying he can't try to focus more on that aspect in the future. He's still young. But the vast majority of his 79 matches streak was won by defending, not by constructing points intelligently. Why it is so hard for you to acknowledge something so obvious?
Maybe the problem they're having is that Nadal CAN construct a point well, but they don't get that you're just saying that's not really what he does or needs to do. That's why I think Coria was the best example of what you're talking about. I think when Nadal plays, you get the sense a lot more that, like you said, he still THINKS the point, but he usually thinks about what the best thing to do NOW is. Coria was very good at thinking 4 or more shots ahead, and I assume that's the kind of point construction you're talking about, no?

Apemant
05-18-2007, 03:47 PM
Maybe the problem they're having is that Nadal CAN construct a point well, but they don't get that you're just saying that's not really what he does or needs to do. That's why I think Coria was the best example of what you're talking about. I think when Nadal plays, you get the sense a lot more that, like you said, he still THINKS the point, but he usually thinks about what the best thing to do NOW is. Coria was very good at thinking 4 or more shots ahead, and I assume that's the kind of point construction you're talking about, no?

Precisely.

Actually, it's a scary thought that Nadal might get even more dangerous on clay than he is now. A hint of that we already see this year; I remember very well that last year a bunch of people were able to dictate points vs. Nadal (deluding themselves into believing they were in control :devil: ) - as he was mainly on the defense. Whereas this year he really seems to step it up once you leave a hole in your own defense, or give him a weaker shot etc. If he actually implemented Coria's tactics as well... no, I don't want to think about it :eek: ;)

Maybe that's what makes people so scared of him - they think 'even if I penetrate his normal defense, he will just pull out his reserves and I'm pretty much screwed'. Basically the same thing as with Federer - you know they CAN do amazing stuff (seen them do it), and that you can't do much about it except hope it doesn't work on a given day, for any reason.

Rafa = Fed Killa
06-11-2007, 10:24 PM
Poor Federer just isn't smart enough to win on clay.

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-13-2007, 03:56 AM
No matter what the surface is tennis is tennis . If one can play intelligent tennis on one surface he can play intelligently on all surfaces. I think that Nadal doesn't play intelligently like guys like Gilbert or Santoro , he's just cunning - animal cunning - it's just an instinct.

Completely and utterly wrong.

Clay requires the greatest intellect.

Therefore Borg and Nadal are the smartest tennis players of all time.

TMJordan
11-13-2007, 03:58 AM
Completely and utterly wrong.

Clay requires the greatest intellect.

Therefore Borg and Nadal are the smartest tennis players of all time.

Soderling is smarter than Nadal.

FedFan_2007
11-13-2007, 04:53 AM
Actually grass requires the greatest sheer intellect to master. I wonder who's done that recently(5x)? :eek:

RFK, I know you're still devastated by mowgli's 5th set collapse. But life goes on.

ZakMcCrack
11-13-2007, 08:13 AM
It appears that to win on clay a player needs to be able to construct a point. Use their intelligence to set the opponent up as in chess.

While on fast courts all you need are good reflexes and serving skills. Nothing which requires higher level strategy.

Is clay disrespected because most people are not smart enough to understand the strategy and athleticism behind it?

Well, If that truly was the case, Martina Hingis would have won the French...a couple of times ;-) Endurance is more what it takes, patience as well. Maybe you should focus more on how Nadal plays and not, on how he grabs his ass, duuuuude.

anakyn
11-13-2007, 11:27 AM
Maybe we can say that fast courts most require technique and reflexes, while clay courts require mental and physical toughness.
Being patient is being mentally strong, in tennis as well in other competitions.
It doesn't mean that this kind of play (clay court play) is beautiful to watch; but I think that a silly player can't reach important results on a clay court.

In some ways, I think it's not completely wrong to say that playing on clay courts needs more strategy than other courts.


P.S.: sorry for the english, I'm italian.

acionescu
11-13-2007, 12:06 PM
Actually, as much I adore him, I don't think he's the smartest player out there.He's pur instinct first and this is the reason for which I like him so much.
I followd him since 2005 and I clearly saw the improvment in the "smart" aspect of his game.And the funny thing is that I saw his intelligence starting to show more obvious in the second half of this year when his results have not been so good.It's very clear that he's learning and this is never a sign of stupidity!

ReturnWinner
11-13-2007, 12:58 PM
no , that is not right. he is not very very smart,not he is a fool either :p. just both mental and physically very strong ,a tenacious fighter and great mover who dominates with his massive lefty topspin fh.

OldSilentHill
11-13-2007, 02:07 PM
Nalbandian seems far more smarter in any court.


He´s problem is that he´s far more stupid off the court :smash:

Rafa = Fed Killa
07-03-2010, 04:22 AM
Nadals court tactics and positioning seem to keep improving.

azinna
07-03-2010, 04:44 AM
^True. No denying that, really.

fran70
07-03-2010, 05:42 PM
Nadal is not the smartest player. Federer or Nalbandian for instance are smarter players than Nadal and they are not the only ones.

Rafa = Fed Killa
07-12-2011, 05:10 AM
Nadal has competition now I guess.

Who has more tennis intelligence Nole or Rafa.

abraxas21
07-12-2011, 05:22 AM
only worthwhile thing in this thread is glenn owning the pigtards

Mimi
07-12-2011, 09:07 AM
only worthwhile thing in this thread is glenn owning the pigtards

but the pigtards are smarter coz they avoided the ban and can still post while poor Glenn cannot :p

Everko
07-12-2011, 10:24 AM
only worthwhile thing in this thread is glenn owning the pigtards

actually Glenn never owned any Rafa fan. He has the biggest delusionaltard this forum has ever seen. He denied Rafa's greatness by praying to the moonball god.

cocrcici
07-12-2011, 11:07 AM
:shrug:Glenn was an arrogant egomaniac

bokehlicious
07-12-2011, 11:16 AM
:shrug:Glenn was an arrogant egomaniac

You're describing clay death here ;)

RAFA2005RG
07-12-2011, 11:18 AM
It appears that to win on clay a player needs to be able to construct a point. Use their intelligence to set the opponent up as in chess.

While on fast courts all you need are good reflexes and serving skills. Nothing which requires higher level strategy.

Is clay disrespected because most people are not smart enough to understand the strategy and athleticism behind it?

First man in 41 years to win 3 consecutive slams in a calendar year :yeah: and first man in history to win 3 consecutive masters shields :yeah:

Fumus
07-12-2011, 04:28 PM
Nadal has competition now I guess.

Who has more tennis intelligence Nole or Rafa.

How smart to either one of these guys have to be?

98% of the tour just rolls over for them.

No competition >>>>>>> Intelligence.

EliSter
07-12-2011, 04:48 PM
First man in 41 years to win 3 consecutive slams in a calendar year :yeah: and first man in history to win 3 consecutive masters shields :yeah:

Shitzzilla? :o

Everko
07-25-2011, 03:00 PM
You're describing clay death here ;)

It's Glenn