Nadal v. A. Costa - Monte Carlo 2003: 10 years on [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Nadal v. A. Costa - Monte Carlo 2003: 10 years on

Ash86
04-01-2013, 11:09 PM
This Monte Carlo will be the 10th anniversary of Nadal playing MC for the first time, when he came through qualies to play his first Masters event and beat the reigning French Open champion, Albert Costa. Worth revisiting that match a decade on - Nadal was so different (so many more dropshots!) but still so much of what we know - the intensity, the insane defence...

Watching this also makes me think when we're going to have a similar moment with one of the younger generation? Tomic would seem best equipped (I've come to the conclusion Dimitrov has the game but not the mentality and that may be a fatal problem given his recent matches v. Djokovic and Murray...) but yet to see Tomic make a statement like this. Maybe it'll be some unknown... But it really is about time someone stepped up (though hopefully not versus the reigning French Open champion at Monte Carlo this year! :p)

8DP0b5-8DWU

GSMnadal
04-01-2013, 11:13 PM
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Rafa is the reason for his clay greatness and not a weak era. Beating the reigning FO champion at 16, he was simply born to rule on clay.

TigerTim
04-01-2013, 11:15 PM
as much as I dislike Nadal

seriously impressive stuff, unreal.

janko05
04-01-2013, 11:16 PM
But it really is about time someone stepped up (though hopefully not versus the reigning French Open champion at Monte Carlo this year! :p)

why not? :p

Belludal
04-01-2013, 11:17 PM
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Rafa is the reason for his clay greatness and not a weak era. Beating the reigning FO champion at 16, he was simply born to rule on clay.

One player that defeat Federer a lot of times in RG is a guy that was born to rule on clay.

Roger would be one of the best clay court players of all time, but Nadal is the biggest. :yeah:

Nadal knows how to be defensive and effective at the same time, for the clay he is the best. :D

Kiedis
04-01-2013, 11:19 PM
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Rafa is the reason for his clay greatness and not a weak era. Beating the reigning FO champion at 16, he was simply born to rule on clay.

but buut but that was a strong era in clay, wasn't it? :confused:

Surcouf
04-01-2013, 11:25 PM
Incredible to see kid Nadal taking on Costa so young and winning in straight set at that.

That's show how much the new generation suck. Nadal was a big prospect at 16 and was a slam champion at 18. Djokovic and Murray were also having great results as teenagers.

Now you see a bunch of 22-23 years old players considered top prospects when they are struggling to make the top 50. The Nadal/Djokovic/Murray generation is exceptionnal in quality.

PedroMarquess
04-01-2013, 11:25 PM
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Rafa is the reason for his clay greatness and not a weak era. Beating the reigning FO champion at 16, he was simply born to rule on clay.

He was 17. Still unbelievable

Surcouf
04-01-2013, 11:29 PM
He was 17. Still unbelievable

He was still 16. Nadal is born in June.

GSMnadal
04-01-2013, 11:29 PM
He was 17. Still unbelievable

He was 16.

He was born 3. June 1986. This was April 2003.

Abel
04-01-2013, 11:31 PM
Amazing stuff.

PedroMarquess
04-01-2013, 11:32 PM
He was still 16. Nadal is born in June.

He was 16.

He was born 3. June 1986. This was April 2003.

In the video says that he is 17 :o, 1:39, the bastards fooled me.

Kiedis
04-01-2013, 11:33 PM
lol at 04:39

Surcouf
04-01-2013, 11:34 PM
In the video says that he is 17 :o, 1:39, the bastards fooled me.

No. Right at the beginnin when Nadal comes in, the speaker says:

"Le plus jeune, Nadal, 16 ans"

The youngest, Nadal, 16 years old

Newcomer
04-01-2013, 11:34 PM
Di Mauro is next clay court GOAT.
Beware of him. Beating Rufus at MC will be 1st step.

Ash86
04-01-2013, 11:35 PM
In the video says that he is 17 :o, 1:39, the bastards fooled me.

The video is wrong - he was 16 - did not turn 17 till 2 months later. Imagine a 16 year old beating any top 10 player at a Master's event today...

r3d_d3v1l_
04-01-2013, 11:35 PM
Just confirms what a raw talent Nadal was.

Baby Nadal bs is just that, bs.

Topspindoctor
04-02-2013, 12:11 AM
GOAT was too good even as a kid :worship: Lol@ the supposedly 'talented' young generation. Tomug, Dimugtrov, Harrison, Young and Sock are challenger level clowns in their 20's :superlol:


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

superslam77
04-02-2013, 12:12 AM
GOAT was too good even as a kid :worship: Lol@ the supposedly 'talented' young generation. Tomug, Dimugtrov, Harrison, Young and Sock are challenger level clowns in their 20's :superlol:


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

so is it a weak era now and before was a strong era? gotcha...
seriously just decide :lol:

GSMnadal
04-02-2013, 12:15 AM
so is it a weak era now and before was a strong era? gotcha...
seriously just decide :lol:

You count this as the era of Dimitrov and Harrison? Okaaay.

Ziggy B
04-02-2013, 12:16 AM
No denying he was an unbelievable talent, just watching that, wow

superslam77
04-02-2013, 12:22 AM
You count this as the era of Dimitrov and Harrison? Okaaay.

so who's era is it? anyone playing is part of an era :confused:

GSMnadal
04-02-2013, 12:23 AM
so who's era is it? anyone playing is part of an era :confused:

It's the era of the big guys who dominate. No one cares about the role players ranked 8 or lower when debating era strength.

Topspindoctor
04-02-2013, 12:25 AM
so who's era is it? anyone playing is part of an era :confused:

It's still big 3. They will completely deny the new guys slams and other titles. By the time the big 3 is gone in 4-5 years, new guys will be coming up. The generation that is in early 20s now is going to get no slams at sll


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

superslam77
04-02-2013, 12:27 AM
again only nole and murray have gotten a bit better....everyone else has gotten worse. but yeah.

blackwell
04-02-2013, 01:12 AM
It's the era of the big guys who dominate.
Who dominate against mugs )) The era where a talentless hack Ferrer is #4 in the world :lol:

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 01:18 AM
I bet Rafa still reminds Costa of this match every chance he gets.

MTwEeZi
04-02-2013, 01:30 AM
Who dominate against mugs )) The era where a talentless hack Ferrer is #4 in the world :lol:

Ferrer >>>> Blake

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 01:32 AM
Ferrer >>>> Blake

In results only. But Blake had way more ability. A prime Blake today would be much more capable of beating the big 4 than Ferrer is.

MTwEeZi
04-02-2013, 01:34 AM
In results only. But Blake had way more ability. A prime Blake today would be much more capable of beating the big 4 than Ferrer is.

#4 Ferrer >>>> #3 Ljubicic

Motoflou
04-02-2013, 01:36 AM
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Rafa is the reason for his clay greatness and not a weak era. Beating the reigning FO champion at 16, he was simply born to rule on clay.

You know, I love Nadal too, but...

Somehow, you make it really weird.

blackwell
04-02-2013, 01:37 AM
#4 Ferrer >>>> #3 Ljubicic

No way.. Lubicic won a "legitimate" masters when he beat a few big players (not Llodra or Janovic). By the way, Lubicic did it in 2010 :lol:

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 01:38 AM
#4 Ferrer >>>> #3 Ljubicic

Same. Ljubo was able to beat Nadal in Rafa's best year ever and would be troubling the big guys today.

Ferrer has benefited a ton by the slowing down of courts and the change the game has taken with valuing fitness above natural talent. I respect him for his work ethic but there is a reason he has become as prominent as he has become the last two years.

BauerAlmeida
04-02-2013, 01:40 AM
In results only. But Blake had way more ability. A prime Blake today would be much more capable of beating the big 4 than Ferrer is.

Blake would have a lot of trouble with these courts. But I agree that on faster courts he would be a serious threat.

rocketassist
04-02-2013, 01:50 AM
Ljubicic had better peaks than Ferrer, even if the latter was more consistent.

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 01:52 AM
Blake would have a lot of trouble with these courts. But I agree that on faster courts he would be a serious threat.

His FH was big enough to be able to hit through the courts just like Soderling, Berdych, Delpo, and Tsonga have been able to do in recent years. He was extremely quick and athletic as well so I think he'd fair well enough. The BH and serve would be the biggest weaknesses as they were in his prime.

A_Skywalker
04-02-2013, 01:57 AM
its amazing, ofcourse I watched it before, but Im having a look now to remember the things.

BlackSilver
04-02-2013, 02:14 AM
Thought that would be the full match. Highlights are completely useless IMO

SerialKillerToBe
04-02-2013, 02:49 AM
spitting on the court at random moments. Lifeless handshake. Looks like Toni didn't teach his pet common courtesy at that point in Rafa's career

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
04-02-2013, 02:53 AM
Nadal woulda been great in any clay era

Probably could have won rg in 2004

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
04-02-2013, 02:55 AM
Nadals like a Hewitt with better fire power
But worse return of serve

Moonball Pusher
04-02-2013, 04:28 AM
Speaking of old vids, I prefer this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDYsdEzp9is

Also please notice the shit handshake.

Topspindoctor
04-02-2013, 05:22 AM
Nadals like a Hewitt with better fire power
But worse return of serve

Plays nothing like Hewitt :stupid:


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Mountaindewslave
04-02-2013, 05:59 AM
Plays nothing like Hewitt :stupid:


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

this, I never got the comparisons, their styles are actually very different, it's almost as though they are often grouped together purely based on the fact that both were fantastic athletes, successful young, and hit brilliant passing shots, ala the anti thesis to big servers and a new era type of style

but their point construction, serves, ground strokes, etc, are so way off one another. Hewitt does not hit even vaguely similar spin next to Nadal, granted who does, but I hear the comparison so often which I think is rather silly
if Hewitt was remotely similar to Nadal he would have had success on clay, it's just their success young and athleticism

Mountaindewslave
04-02-2013, 06:02 AM
You know, I love Nadal too, but...

Somehow, you make it really weird.

I agree, GSMNadal's cult like worshipping of Nadal makes it hard to take his comments seriously, they often seem full of bias, can't analyze properly if you're blinded by obsession
only concerned with Nadal winning and often expressing flawed exagerrated compliments to Nadal when he wins or when others do
at least with someone like Start the Game he seemed to at least know how absurd his focus on one player was....

on another note, : this thread is making me sad though, how sad young talent these day is

se7en
04-02-2013, 07:17 AM
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Rafa is the reason for his clay greatness and not a weak era. Beating the reigning FO champion at 16, he was simply born to rule on clay.

You speak the truth, man. :worship:

SliceAce
04-02-2013, 07:28 AM
What's shocking to me is how different he looks. Here he looks like a normal kid, athletic obviously but he looks like a human being.

Compare the Rafa of 2003: http://www.nilacharal.com/enter/celeb/images/rafaelnadal.jpg
With 2005 (when he won the French): http://sportsthenandnow.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/rafafrench2005.jpg

Or younger Rafa: http://www.vamosbrigade.com/images/early_1.jpg
With the modern day: http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/289/442/99604002_display_image.jpg?1278543238

The same is true of the physiques Mugray and Fakervic, Federer is the only one who looks basically the same, just better hair. It was just shocking to see the young Rafa vs. the mid-20s that I'm used to.

Surcouf
04-02-2013, 08:00 AM
Federer at 17 years old, in 1999

http://www.rts.ch/2011/12/07/14/36/3634054.image?w=418&h=300

Topspindoctor
04-02-2013, 08:16 AM
Already had a huge nose :haha::spit::superlol:

moon language
04-02-2013, 08:17 AM
I forgot how much Nadal used to grunt. He doesn't do it nearly as much these days.

n8
04-02-2013, 08:59 AM
The same is true of the physiques Mugray and Fakervic, Federer is the only one who looks basically the same, just better hair. It was just shocking to see the young Rafa vs. the mid-20s that I'm used to.

Looks fair enough to me. You don't usually see 17 year olds with rippling muscles.

blackwell
04-02-2013, 09:35 AM
What's shocking to me is how different he looks. Here he looks like a normal kid, athletic obviously but he looks like a human being.
This.. And Rafa will talk about it to Oprah Winfrey soon

Time Violation
04-02-2013, 09:46 AM
No way.. Lubicic won a "legitimate" masters when he beat a few big players (not Llodra or Janovic). By the way, Lubicic did it in 2010 :lol:

So he's legitimate #3 because he somehow managed to win one masters? Gotcha :lol:

70-68
04-02-2013, 10:13 AM
Incredible to see kid Nadal taking on Costa so young and winning in straight set at that.

That's show how much the new generation suck. Nadal was a big prospect at 16 and was a slam champion at 18. Djokovic and Murray were also having great results as teenagers.

Now you see a bunch of 22-23 years old players considered top prospects when they are struggling to make the top 50. The Nadal/Djokovic/Murray generation is exceptionnal in quality.

Back then it wasn't unusual for young players to make the Top 10 around at age 20. Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Del Potro won their slams at 20-21. Even Berdych had a MS title at 20.

FleetSeb
04-02-2013, 10:49 AM
Incredible...

Also interesting as an aside that he wore normal (in fact notably short) shorts and no tank top... I always thought his determination to stick with that look for so many years was because he had grown up with that look.

Kiedis
04-02-2013, 02:06 PM
What's shocking to me is how different he looks. Here he looks like a normal kid, athletic obviously but he looks like a human being.


Kids look different when they become men. Ballerinas don't :shrug:

Some people say that Nadal is all physical and zero talent. We can see here than he was weak physically at this age but his talent allowed him to be a superb player already :worship:

abraxas21
04-02-2013, 03:26 PM
better player lost

MTwEeZi
04-02-2013, 03:26 PM
Same. Ljubo was able to beat Nadal in Rafa's best year ever and would be troubling the big guys today.

Ferrer has benefited a ton by the slowing down of courts and the change the game has taken with valuing fitness above natural talent. I respect him for his work ethic but there is a reason he has become as prominent as he has become the last two years.

Ferrer beat Djokovic in Djokovic's best year ever.

abraxas21
04-02-2013, 03:26 PM
also, nadal forum

Burrow
04-02-2013, 03:49 PM
Obviously very impressive, but it's an exaggeration to think that Costa was in the sort of form that won him Roland Garros in 2002. It's still one of the most surprising runs in tennis for me, Costa reaching the SF of RG 2003 on the back of 4 5 setters. He only reached 2 SF in the entire year.

It was obvious for those who watched this tournament at the time that Nadal was going to be a top player.

Priam
04-02-2013, 04:20 PM
Costa had a good RG later that year too, thought he'd win it. I miss John Barrett's commentary.

Burrow
04-02-2013, 05:26 PM
Costa had a good RG later that year too, thought he'd win it. I miss John Barrett's commentary.

On what basis?

Priam
04-02-2013, 05:46 PM
On what basis?

He wasn't playing particularly well that tournament, unlike the previous year. I thought it'd be another magical run but ultimately he ran out of gas and into a pretty good JCF. Verkerk though :mad:

Kyle_Johansen
04-02-2013, 11:59 PM
Ferrer beat Djokovic in Djokovic's best year ever.

At the end when he was completely burned out. Ivan beat Rafa two tournaments before he went on that amazing streak from the clay season to Tokyo.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
04-03-2013, 12:05 AM
Plays nothing like Hewitt :stupid:


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

The point construction is different but the mentality, the retrieval ability and the ability to hit near impossible winners is the same

Of course their shots are different, nasal has much more firepower,

My ipad auto corrects nadall as nasal lol

Burrow
04-03-2013, 11:14 AM
He wasn't playing particularly well that tournament, unlike the previous year. I thought it'd be another magical run but ultimately he ran out of gas and into a pretty good JCF. Verkerk though :mad:

I was extremely surprised to see him so deep into the tournament. If he were fresh, the SF could have been a true classic. Verkerk was absolutely incredible, but let the occasion get to him.

Orka_n
04-03-2013, 11:34 AM
It's the era of the big guys who dominate. No one cares about the role players ranked 8 or lower when debating era strength.:haha: Give this idiocy a rest. Why don't you just count the top 3 while you're at it?

I know why you're saying this though, if we started talking about the top 20 or 100 instead then this current era looks weak as shit. And that wouldn't suit your agenda.

My ipad auto corrects nadall as nasal lolWell that's fitting isn't it, considering what Nadal does with his finger after he's picked his ass with it.

Nasal it is then.

TBkeeper
04-03-2013, 11:36 AM
Nadal is the ClayGOAT :worship: Hands down.

leng jai
04-03-2013, 11:37 AM
Ferrero was garbage in the first two sets of the 2002 final and by then it was too late. Conversely Costa was cooked by the SF in 2003 so there was zero chance of him defending his title. The disparity between Verkerk's level in the final and the rest of the tournament was diabolical.

Burrow
04-03-2013, 12:13 PM
Ferrero was garbage in the first two sets of the 2002 final and by then it was too late. Conversely Costa was cooked by the SF in 2003 so there was zero chance of him defending his title. The disparity between Verkerk's level in the final and the rest of the tournament was diabolical.

Not unlike Norman in the 2000 final.

Caesar1844
04-03-2013, 02:26 PM
Thank you for posting this video. I had forgotten what a worthless excuse for a grand slam winner Costa was.

juan27
04-03-2013, 03:23 PM
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Rafa is the reason for his clay greatness and not a weak era. Beating the reigning FO champion at 16, he was simply born to rule on clay.

it`s only one match.

he had a negative h2h against corretja , or a 3-3 against gaudio in clay , even with coria were all very hard matches.

not even talk of guys like borg or vilas , muster on clay , kuerten , wilander , courier , kafelnikov and others.

after 2005 , only federer and nole were opponents for nadal in clay-

bouncer7
04-03-2013, 04:12 PM
Joke era lol 16y old kid beat GS champ lol

In strong era he could only dream to beat one match on challenger level like many kids do these days.

Transitional Fedmug and Hewitt eras are simply disgrace for humanity, but at least they connect Sampras-Agassi and Djodal eras.

GSMnadal
04-03-2013, 04:20 PM
it`s only one match.

he had a negative h2h against corretja , or a 3-3 against gaudio in clay , even with coria were all very hard matches.

not even talk of guys like borg or vilas , muster on clay , kuerten , wilander , courier , kafelnikov and others.

after 2005 , only federer and nole were opponents for nadal in clay-

He lost to Corretja twice when he was 16, both in a deciding set.

He lost those 3 matches to Gaudio when he was 16-17. At 18/19 he beat him 3 times in a row.

No one has anything on Nadal, the ones lucky enough to have only played him when he was 16-17 have a few, hard fought wins. After that, not so much. Coria was a fantastic clay court player in his prime, baby Nadal basically retired him.

The guy is a machine, give it a rest.

Timot
04-03-2013, 05:06 PM
Joke era lol 16y old kid beat GS champ lol

In strong era he could only dream to beat one match on challenger level like many kids do these days.

Transitional Fedmug and Hewitt eras are simply disgrace for humanity, but at least they connect Sampras-Agassi and Djodal eras.

By your logic, you should call this era very weak, since a challenger-level guy ranked 100 managed to beat no. 2 (and 11 GS champion) in the most important tennis tournament.

Gotta love these endless strong/weak era debates.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 05:12 PM
By your logic, you should call this era very weak, since a challenger-level guy ranked 100 managed to beat no. 2 (and 11 GS champion) in the most important tennis tournament.

Gotta love these endless strong/weak era debates.

Are you talking about the match where Nadal was injured and then out of the tour for 8 months?

Timot
04-03-2013, 05:38 PM
Are you talking about the match where Nadal was injured and then out of the tour for 8 months?

Anyone who watched that match could see he wasn't playing bad. It's Rosol's incredible game that caused the upset, eg. Nadal made just one UE in 3rd set and still lost it. If I remember correctly, Nadal even had a positive W/UE ratio throughout the match. He played better than in some matches he easily won.

My point is: you can't bash any era based on a single upset because upsets are a part of the game. That's what makes it more interesting: unpredictability.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 05:39 PM
Anyone who watched that match could see he wasn't playing bad. It's Rosol's incredible game that caused the upset, eg. Nadal made just one UE in 3rd set and still lost it. If I remember correctly, Nadal even had a positive W/UE ratio throughout the match. He played better than that in some matches he easily won.



You are full of denial.

Tell me why Nadal was out of the courts for 8 months if he wasn't badly injured?

rocketassist
04-03-2013, 05:45 PM
You are full of denial.

Tell me why Nadal was out of the courts for 8 months if he wasn't badly injured?

I saw the match and he looked just fine. He even fell over at the net, a fall that should have left him in agonising pain going by what Nadal fans come out with.

It's more likely playing in the match did him in and caused him to be out, not that he was injured during it.

For all Nadal's slam defeats the same tedious excuse gets trotted out. Only one I'll accept it for was Ferrer at the 11 AO, guy could barely move then.

Timot
04-03-2013, 06:03 PM
You are full of denial.

Tell me why Nadal was out of the courts for 8 months if he wasn't badly injured?

I'm telling you the facts. Nadal's knee problems had been the case for a longer time, which didn't stop him from winning RG. This full match with Rosol is even available on youtube. Watch it again and if you still think that Nadal played badly against Rosol than, sorry, but you're a tennis ignorant. No crippled player could move like that.

He took a brake probably because his loss psychologically encouraged him to deal with his knee problems, he'd had for some time.

juan27
04-03-2013, 06:47 PM
He lost to Corretja twice when he was 16, both in a deciding set.

He lost those 3 matches to Gaudio when he was 16-17. At 18/19 he beat him 3 times in a row.

No one has anything on Nadal, the ones lucky enough to have only played him when he was 16-17 have a few, hard fought wins. After that, not so much. Coria was a fantastic clay court player in his prime, baby Nadal basically retired him.

The guy is a machine, give it a rest.

no , nadal not retired coria man....

gaudio retired coria and the injurys , coria was very bad with his shoulder , he can`t even serve , that injury retired coria of the elite forever.

gaudio defeated nadal the same year that nadal won rg.....2005 , even past peak ferrero did the same in rome 2008.

Nadal is the best of all in clay , but with guys like courier , muster , kuerten , mendenedev , brugera and more , he would needs much more work than against fed , monaco , ferrer , almagro and more.

Surcouf
04-03-2013, 06:58 PM
I'm telling you the facts. Nadal's knee problems had been the case for a longer time, which didn't stop him from winning RG. This full match with Rosol is even available on youtube. Watch it again and if you still think that Nadal played badly against Rosol than, sorry, but you're a tennis ignorant. No crippled player could move like that.

He took a brake probably because his loss psychologically encouraged him to deal with his knee problems, he'd had for some time.

You don't take 8 months out of the cours, miss two slams, and 10 millions $ for a bad "psychological" loss. Nadal haters are unreal.

Johnny Groove
04-03-2013, 07:27 PM
Come on, now.

First off, the #1 reason Nadal lost was because Rosol was simply too good.

However, Nadal was clearly hampered in his movement in the Rosol match and I even noticed it in Halle a few weeks before. The haters may claim "he was running like a rabbit", but as someone who has watched lord knows how many Nadal matches, he looked a step slow to me. :shrug:

I did not expect him to be out 8 months after that, but in tennis, even one step slower can mean the difference between making the finals and losing 2nd round. They were numbing knee during RG SF and F, and it really isn't healthy to keep doing that, shredding the knee while you can't feel it.

Fed fordawin
04-03-2013, 07:47 PM
Then again at that age Nadull was getting owned everywhere by Gasquet.

Timot
04-03-2013, 07:47 PM
You don't take 8 months out of the cours, miss two slams, and 10 millions $ for a bad "psychological" loss. Nadal haters are unreal.

Double fault on your part:
a) I'm not a Nadal hater. Is saying that Nadal played good in that match also "hating" him?
b) I didn't deny that he had problems with his knees. Just that they weren't as serious as you make them. If you think that someone could move like Nadal did on that day if he was nearly crippled, then you don't know what a really serious injury is. Nadal's surprising loss probably made his knee problems seem bigger for him than if he'd won the match. And the fact that he postponed his comeback a few times also suggests that he was really extremely careful about his knee issues. I don't think he'd be so careful about it if he had to play a GS final with the same knees, instead of going home after surprising loss.

You constantly talk about what happened AFTER the match. If you'd checked how did it look DURING the match you wouldn't make such a needless rant about it.

Kyle_Johansen
04-03-2013, 08:05 PM
Rafa served over 20 aces. That wouldn't have happened if he was seriously injured. He also wouldn't have played as well as he did if there was something very wrong.

ProdigyEng
04-03-2013, 08:07 PM
How has a thread about Nadal vs Costa turned into one about Nadal vs Rosol?

Typical MTF.

Rosol was a fluke.

BlackSilver
04-05-2013, 07:39 AM
Coria was a fantastic clay court player in his prime, baby Nadal basically retired him.

Coria retired because he couldn't serve anymore genius

Topspindoctor
04-05-2013, 12:54 PM
Then again at that age Nadull was getting owned everywhere by Gasquet.

Nadal is 10 - 0 against Gascoke

GSMnadal
04-05-2013, 01:01 PM
Come on, now.

First off, the #1 reason Nadal lost was because Rosol was simply too good.

However, Nadal was clearly hampered in his movement in the Rosol match and I even noticed it in Halle a few weeks before. The haters may claim "he was running like a rabbit", but as someone who has watched lord knows how many Nadal matches, he looked a step slow to me. :shrug:

I did not expect him to be out 8 months after that, but in tennis, even one step slower can mean the difference between making the finals and losing 2nd round. They were numbing knee during RG SF and F, and it really isn't healthy to keep doing that, shredding the knee while you can't feel it.

Only Groove can claim Rosol was too good and then say it was clear Nadal was a step slower.

Yes, Rosol was obviously too good. But only for a 50% healthy Nadal. That's what we're all saying, man.

Coria retired because he couldn't serve anymore genius

The prospect of having to beat Nadal sucked all the belief out of him

juan27
04-05-2013, 03:27 PM
Only Groove can claim Rosol was too good and then say it was clear Nadal was a step slower.

Yes, Rosol was obviously too good. But only for a 50% healthy Nadal. That's what we're all saying, man.



The prospect of having to beat Nadal sucked all the belief out of him

no.

50% nadal????

nadal won the first set , after that rosol started to serve and ballbashing like never in his life and beated nadal.

simply as that.

the grass it`s much more harder than the clay , if you face a great serve player in a good day , you can go home in the first match.

do yo remember haase and petzchner???

StevieMardenboro
04-05-2013, 04:34 PM
Getting away from the hate for a moment - how exciting would it be to have been there knowing you were watching the emergence of a true great at 16.

I know people say that its more difficult for younger players these days as the conditions and courts change but I'm sure if you put this young Nadal on the tour today he would very quickly tear it up.

Marcoo
04-05-2013, 07:32 PM
Pure talent. No wonder why he's the king of clay now, he'll great things in the future still :)

GSMnadal
04-05-2013, 07:39 PM
The first teen to show something close to the heart Nadal had as a teenager will have a big fan in me, that's for sure.

Shame none seem to come close. Expected though, talent like this doesn't come every 5-10 years. More like once every 30 years or so.

Topspindoctor
04-05-2013, 07:41 PM
The first teen to show something close to the heart Nadal had as a teenager will have a big fan in me, that's for sure.

Shame none seem to come close. Expected though, talent like this doesn't come every 5-10 years. More like once every 30 years or so.

Sadly, I think a player of Nadal's intensity, killer instinct, attitude, desire to improve and talent doesn't come very often :sad: I think we will be stuck watching useless mugs winning big titles in 4-5 years. I already know RG will be tainted when Nadal retires. Random mug winning it every year, WTA style :facepalm:

ProdigyEng
04-05-2013, 07:45 PM
The first teen to show something close to the heart Nadal had as a teenager will have a big fan in me, that's for sure.

Shame none seem to come close. Expected though, talent like this doesn't come every 5-10 years. More like once every 30 years or so.

Garin probably will

rocketassist
04-05-2013, 07:45 PM
Sadly, I think a player of Nadal's intensity, killer instinct, attitude, desire to improve and talent doesn't come very often :sad: I think we will be stuck watching useless mugs winning big titles in 4-5 years. I already know RG will be tainted when Nadal retires. Random mug winning it every year, WTA style :facepalm:

It was like that pre-Nadal though- aside from Guga's 3, every winner since 1995 won it just the once :shrug:

Topspindoctor
04-05-2013, 07:48 PM
It was like that pre-Nadal though- aside from Guga's 3, every winner since 1995 won it just the once :shrug:

Borg won it 6 times. Lendl, Wilander were solid clay courters. Kuerten was good too. I just don't want the title in the hands of someone like Young, Tomic or Dimitrov :o

GSMnadal
04-05-2013, 07:48 PM
Sadly, I think a player of Nadal's intensity, killer instinct, attitude, desire to improve and talent doesn't come very often :sad: I think we will be stuck watching useless mugs winning big titles in 4-5 years. I already know RG will be tainted when Nadal retires. Random mug winning it every year, WTA style :facepalm:

Awful. Just awful.

But on the other hand, if players like him did come around a lot, it wouldn't be so special. So I'm savouring every moment of it.

Garin probably will

The kid needs to start producing then. He's already as old as Nadal was in 03, is he not?

It was like that pre-Nadal though- aside from Guga's 3, every winner since 1995 won it just the once :shrug:

Yeah, and that was terrible.

rocketassist
04-05-2013, 07:49 PM
Borg won it 6 times. Lendl, Wilander were solid clay courters. Kuerten was good too. I just don't want the title in the hands of someone like Young, Tomic or Dimitrov :o

the chances of Bnard/Dimitrov winning A slam is pretty slim right now, but the chances of that slam being RG are about a hundred times slimmer, even after Nadal departs the tour.

rocketassist
04-05-2013, 07:53 PM
Yeah, and that was terrible.

Not quite. There was a greater contrast between clay and the other surfaces back then than there is now, so you had a lot of out and out dirt specialists who stuck to the red stuff and produced brilliant results on it yet little elsewhere.

Nadal's intensity and topspin has taken the clay game to a new level but it would be crass to dismiss clay court brutes like Muster- his 1995 season was Nadal-esque.

GSMnadal
04-05-2013, 07:55 PM
Yeah, one season. Try doing that 8 times.

Why is everyone always raving about Muster? The guy reached the final once? Sure he had a spectacular year, but what about the others?

rocketassist
04-05-2013, 07:56 PM
Yeah, one season. Try doing that 8 times.

Why is everyone always raving about Muster? The guy reached the final once? Sure he had a spectacular year, but what about the others?

He hated serve-volleyers who took his time away. The guy of that era who had more in common with Nadal was Bruguera.

Topspindoctor
04-05-2013, 08:00 PM
I actually agree that Muster was overrated. He was an excellent clay courter. He had a great 1995 season. He won RG. Of course this demands respect. But as GSMNadal has mentioned already, Nadal has done the same thing in a routine manner for years. Winning 7 titles in 8 years is sick. I don't think that's possible to repeat even if Nadal doesn't win another RG, which I highly doubt as despite not being close to his 2008 level, he is still by far the best clay player on the tour right now.

Johnny Groove
04-05-2013, 08:06 PM
TSD, GSMNadal, if you are expecting to find another Nadal, don't hold your breath.

No one has ever won French Open 7 times in the history of the game. He is historic, he is not once in 30 years, he is once in 130 years.

It is not fair to Garin or other youngsters to compare them to Nadal.

ProdigyEng
04-05-2013, 08:10 PM
The kid needs to start producing then. He's already as old as Nadal was in 03, is he not?



True, being signed by the GOAT's agency will help though, won't it?

GSMnadal
04-05-2013, 08:34 PM
TSD, GSMNadal, if you are expecting to find another Nadal, don't hold your breath.

No one has ever won French Open 7 times in the history of the game. He is historic, he is not once in 30 years, he is once in 130 years.

It is not fair to Garin or other youngsters to compare them to Nadal.

You just never know. Too often people say 'we will never see this again', and then a new great takes it even further. I would like to think Nadal was so unique, but I doubt it. He has shown how important topspin is and that it's a superior tactic than the classic flat hitting we were used to.

Only a matter of time before another young gun can reproduce that amount of spin and going one stop further. The game is always evolving.

True, being signed by the GOAT's agency will help though, won't it?

Won't hurt him, that's for sure. But no matter who's backing you, you always have to do it yourself in tennis.

Kiedis
04-05-2013, 09:39 PM
Nadal won this match despite an horrendous 30% in his first service.

Kyle_Johansen
04-06-2013, 05:24 AM
There will never be another Nadal and not anyone even close to him. Just like there will never be another Federer or another Borg or another "enter legend's name here."

Caesar1844
04-06-2013, 05:27 AM
There will never be another Gulbis.

Action Jackson
04-06-2013, 05:44 AM
I can't be bothered with the pollution from TSD or GSMNadal. Stevie Wonder has more clue about tennis, lets see the classic trying to compare what happened before Nadal, with that is happening now. Time travel has not been invented. It can't be done and stop searching for the next bandwagon.

Onto the subject itself. One of my Spanish friends told me about this kid named Nadal. First thing I wondered what relation he was to Miguel Angel, then saw what he did on the court and his attitude were the first things I noticed. Costa had a great 2 weeks when he won RG, he actually struggled the year before that and never won a title after RG.

In spite of this it was impressive from Nadal.

GSMnadal
04-06-2013, 08:49 AM
There will never be another Nadal and not anyone even close to him. Just like there will never be another Federer or another Borg or another "enter legend's name here."

Well, Nadal is pretty close to Borg I'd say. 'Never' is a long time when you think about the fact the open era has only been around for like 40-50 years.

I can't be bothered with the pollution from TSD or GSMNadal. Stevie Wonder has more clue about tennis, lets see the classic trying to compare what happened before Nadal, with that is happening now. Time travel has not been invented. It can't be done and stop searching for the next bandwagon.

Onto the subject itself. One of my Spanish friends told me about this kid named Nadal. First thing I wondered what relation he was to Miguel Angel, then saw what he did on the court and his attitude were the first things I noticed. Costa had a great 2 weeks when he won RG, he actually struggled the year before that and never won a title after RG.

In spite of this it was impressive from Nadal.

Luckily we're not mods, otherwise that would've been moderator bashing :unsure: