Video: Berdych saying Nadal one dimensional, Federer multidimensional after match [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Video: Berdych saying Nadal one dimensional, Federer multidimensional after match

hasanahmad
10-22-2006, 06:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpkuUL_Uvk&NR

DrJules
10-22-2006, 06:39 PM
His description of the tennis of Roger and Rafael seems accurate. Does anyone disagree and if so what aspect of his analysis?

mangoes
10-22-2006, 06:42 PM
:scratch: Is this suppose to turn into another Berdych bashing session??

I think his description is fair. Nadal is young and can always try and add more dimensions to his game :shrug:

mir
10-22-2006, 06:49 PM
I think he was very "nice" about what happened to him, :worship:
I watched the highlights and he was surprised about the reaction from the crowd and Rafa to his "shussh".

So he finds Rafa a more comfortable opponent than Rog, good for him no harm in that.

adee-gee
10-22-2006, 06:53 PM
I hope Rafa listens to him :lol: he's right.

GlennMirnyi
10-22-2006, 06:57 PM
Berdych's speaking the truth. What do you want him to say? Do you want him to lie and do like most other people that know nothing about tennis and say that Nadal is "very talented and can play offensively"?

Cristine
10-22-2006, 07:15 PM
He didn't use these words, and he's right.

CooCooCachoo
10-22-2006, 07:56 PM
Tomas is right :shrug: :worship:

He's only gained more respect from my side this week :yeah:

World Beater
10-22-2006, 07:58 PM
for all the shi%, nadal has said, tomas hasnt said anything in return...

yes this boy certainly has no class. he could have been much more nasty.

TJL
10-22-2006, 08:07 PM
There's nothing wrong in what Berdych said. It's nice to see he didn't degrade to Nadal's level on his comments :p Seriously speaking, he's not saying that Nadal is a bad player, just stating that Nadal is one demensional and that's something that even Nadal's fans should be able to admit.

stebs
10-22-2006, 08:12 PM
I think the problem which some people have is seeing one dimensional as a big insult. Most players are one dimensional. Berdych himslef is every bit as one dimensional as Nadal. There are few players in the top 10 who aren't to be honest. Federer, Nalbandian and Baghdatis are the only guys who can definately be said not to be one dimensional.

World Beater
10-22-2006, 08:21 PM
I think the problem which some people have is seeing one dimensional as a big insult. Most players are one dimensional. Berdych himslef is every bit as one dimensional as Nadal. There are few players in the top 10 who aren't to be honest. Federer, Nalbandian and Baghdatis are the only guys who can definately be said not to be one dimensional.

berdych is not one dimensional

he has great groundstrokes.

great serve.

he can volley and come into net

good return

What other dimensions are you speaking of? he cant play great defense, and his movement isnt the best...but other than that, he has shown the ability all over the court.

as far as the groundstrokes are concerned berdych does hit the ball flat, and doesnt use the slice. but nearly all of the players play one style.

for example, safin is considered to be multi, but he hits the ball very flat and rarely hits the ball with much topspin at all. In fact, many of the great have had a traditional way of hitting the ball. sampras eastern fh meant he hit fh's with very little spin. So is he one dimensional too?

if you are talking about the ability to strike the ball differently, only federer and nalbandian are the top players who can do this. if you talking about all-round ability, as in weapons vs weaknesses, quite a few have a multi-dimensional game.

tangerine_dream
10-22-2006, 08:25 PM
Perhaps the list would be shorter if we named those few players who weren't one-dimensional?

Berdych seems to have a personal vendetta against Nadal for some reason. Anybody know their history? :aplot:

stebs
10-22-2006, 08:30 PM
berdych is not one dimensional

he has great groundstrokes.

great serve.

he can volley and come into net

good return

What other dimensions are you speaking of? he cant play great defense, and his movement isnt the best...but other than that, he has shown the ability all over the court.

as far as the groundstrokes are concerned berdych does hit the ball flat, and doesnt use the slice. but nearly all of the players play one style.

for example, safin is considered to be multi, but he hits the ball very flat and rarely hits the ball with much topspin at all. In fact, many of the great have had a traditional way of hitting the ball. sampras eastern fh meant he hit fh's with very little spin. So is he one dimensional too?

if you are talking about the ability to strike the ball differently, only federer and nalbandian are the top players who can do this. if you talking about all-round ability, as in weapons vs weaknesses, quite a few have a multi-dimensional game.

I bolded that part of your post as that is what I feel many of here see as being one-dimensional. It doesn't have a set in stone meaning so it is easy to misunderstand what others are meaning. There are few players who don't play in one style. Safin, Federer, Nalbandian and just a handful of other players. That is what I interpreted as the meaning but if you disagree that's fine.

What Berdych means in the interview is that Federer can change his style to adapt to other guys games. Most players struggle to do this. It is probably as much about tactical nous as it is about ability and game. For instance, Nadal is clearly a better player than Murray but I would say Murray can adapt his game better and in a more clever way than Nadal.

LK_22
10-22-2006, 08:33 PM
Berdych is right. Nadal IS one dimensional. Berdych again beats the robot grinding machine

Frooty_Bazooty
10-22-2006, 09:06 PM
wow that was a really great interview. Had to admit i was kinda doubting his character after the ssshing thing but he's won me over now

zicofirol
10-22-2006, 09:15 PM
he is right.

GlennMirnyi
10-22-2006, 11:46 PM
I think the problem which some people have is seeing one dimensional as a big insult. Most players are one dimensional. Berdych himslef is every bit as one dimensional as Nadal. There are few players in the top 10 who aren't to be honest. Federer, Nalbandian and Baghdatis are the only guys who can definately be said not to be one dimensional.

Yeah right. :haha:

You're embarassing yourself saying that. What's the other dimension of Baghdatis?

Andre♥
10-23-2006, 12:19 AM
Yeah right. :haha:

You're embarassing yourself saying that. What's the other dimension of Baghdatis?

Baghdatis in a good day can be multi dimensional. His match against Agassi showed that.

But in a normal day, Baghdatis has no patience to do that. He just hits the ball flat and let's rock & roll! :p

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 03:08 AM
Yeah right. :haha:

You're embarassing yourself saying that. What's the other dimension of Baghdatis?

You want me to be serious with that above statement?:p

Just typical Berdych really. If someone asks him a question, he will answer it honestly and it's not like he isn't saying anything that is revolutionary.

alfonsojose
10-23-2006, 03:10 AM
Homodimensional anyone :drool: ?

GlennMirnyi
10-23-2006, 03:11 AM
You want me to be serious with that above statement?:p

Just typical Berdych really. If someone asks him a question, he will answer it honestly and it's not like he isn't saying anything that is revolutionary.

Please do! ;)

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 03:12 AM
Homodimensional anyone :drool: ?

Stop pretending to be gay:p

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 03:20 AM
Please do! ;)

Tell me what your definition of one dimensional is? I have seen a lot of Baghdatis playing and he is far from one dimensional.

Sure he is not going to serve/volley, but he has good changes of pace and a perfect example of this was when he was playing Roddick at the AO. They were just rallying, and he was giving some no pace shots and then he'd slap a forehand winner from nowhere significantly quicker and he does that a lot, and he uses the court very well and doesn't just blast away and Roddick couldn't handle it. His goofy outlook on court helps him in this way.

Acasuso is someone who is one dimensional or Ferrero, but not Baghdatis.

GlennMirnyi
10-23-2006, 03:29 AM
Tell me what your definition of one dimensional is? I have seen a lot of Baghdatis playing and he is far from one dimensional.

Sure he is not going to serve/volley, but he has good changes of pace and a perfect example of this was when he was playing Roddick at the AO. They were just rallying, and he was giving some no pace shots and then he'd slap a forehand winner from nowhere significantly quicker and he does that a lot, and he uses the court very well and doesn't just blast away and Roddick couldn't handle it. His goofy outlook on court helps him in this way.

Acasuso is someone who is one dimensional or Ferrero, but not Baghdatis.

Well, unidimensional is any player that relies on just one stroke and/or style of play to win.

Baghdatis is unidimensional in my point of view. He only goes to the net if forced. I've seen many matches where he simply doesn't follow a good approach going to the net, and this is as unidimensional as it can get.
Going seldom to the net doesn't mean to me that someone can play there.

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 03:33 AM
Well, unidimensional is any player that relies on just one stroke and/or style of play to win.

Baghdatis is unidimensional in my point of view. He only goes to the net if forced. I've seen many matches where he simply doesn't follow a good approach going to the net, and this is as unidimensional as it can get.
Going seldom to the net doesn't mean to me that someone can play there.

If that is the case, then the whole tour is one dimensional and Rafter was one dimensional as well, but to you he wouldn't be cause he played a style that you liked and Mirnyi is one dimensional as well.

It's not just about going to the net, the overall context has to be looked at. If a player changes their game style cause it's not working and is successful more often than not, irrespective of whether they are attacking or defensive baseliners or serve/volleyers they aren't one dimensional.

GlennMirnyi
10-23-2006, 03:38 AM
If that is the case, then the whole tour is one dimensional and Rafter was one dimensional as well, but to you he wouldn't be cause he played a style that you liked and Mirnyi is one dimensional as well.

It's not just about going to the net, the overall context has to be looked at. If a player changes their game style cause it's not working and is successful more often than not, irrespective of whether they are attacking or defensive baseliners or serve/volleyers they aren't one dimensional.

S&V players can't be unidimensional. If they were, they would have to return serve at the net. They have to know something about the baseline. Baseliners most of the time know nothing about the net.

Metis
10-23-2006, 03:42 AM
S&V players can't be unidimensional. If they were, they would have to return serve at the net. They have to know something about the baseline. Baseliners most of the time know nothing about the net.
Well, since there aren't any S&V players anymore, the whole tour is 1-D according to you as GWH said. :p

GlennMirnyi
10-23-2006, 03:45 AM
Well, since there aren't any S&V players anymore, the whole tour is 1-D according to you as GWH said. :p

It's coming to that, yes. A few players aren't like that.

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 03:45 AM
S&V players can't be unidimensional. If they were, they would have to return serve at the net. They have to know something about the baseline. Baseliners most of the time know nothing about the net.

They can be one dimensional of course they can. I mean for example Mirnyi can't go another game if he is serving or volleying poorly can he? Every player has a basic structure to their game. As Berdych said about Federer, he can go any style you want. If he wants to S&V and go to the net more, then he can, if he wants to stay back on the baseline and win, then he can do that most of the time.

Even with baseliners in their passing shots, they can be used differently, there are some who always go the same direction on a particular shot and don't vary the speed of their shots, that is one dimensional.

It's like Karlovic is one dimensional and he volleys more than most modern players.

GlennMirnyi
10-23-2006, 03:47 AM
They can be one dimensional of course they can. I mean for example Mirnyi can't go another game if he is serving or volleying poorly can he? Every player has a basic structure to their game. As Berdych said about Federer, he can go any style you want. If he wants to S&V and go to the net more, then he can, if he wants to stay back on the baseline and win, then he can do that most of the time.

Even with baseliners in their passing shots, they can be used differently, there are some who always go the same direction on a particular shot and don't vary the speed of their shots, that is one dimensional.

It's like Karlovic is one dimensional and he volleys more than most modern players.

The thing is that most S&V players are this way because they want, it's not like their strokes from the baseline are McEnroe-material.

selesfan
10-23-2006, 03:48 AM
Tomas was very nice in his assessment of Nadal's game and he was right. It was nice that he didn't stoop down to Nadal's level and badmouth him. Go Tomas!

El Legenda
10-23-2006, 03:50 AM
way to Tomas, i am fan of your work now...not a fan of your tennis...but a fan of your trash talk :yeah:

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 03:52 AM
The thing is that most S&V players are this way because they want, it's not like their strokes from the baseline are McEnroe-material.

McEnroe had excellent strokes, so did Michael Stich and Edberg had a fantastic forehand and big Boris was no monkey from the baseline.

Rafter was average from the baseline and look at Noah, he was ordinary but still did well on clay.

The game has changed and there are plenty of one dimensional players around, but Baghdatis is far from one of them.

admiralpye
10-23-2006, 03:55 AM
Berdych is hardly a reliable analyst of the game. These are just his opinions, and they should be treated as that.

El Legenda
10-23-2006, 04:12 AM
Berdych is hardly a reliable analyst of the game. These are just his opinions, and they should be treated as that.

well he is out there playing vs Nadal..i would take his opinion over anyone else that watches from the seats or broadcaster.

Monteque
10-23-2006, 05:09 AM
I'm just too confused with one or two or three dimensional. There's no line to border it.

But i know one thing:
Nadal's style: Physically with heavy top-spin. His volley and serve and net game is just average. And he can't do the flat ball...omg.

But at least he is multi-dimensional player as well in the break time between games. He is competent to intimidate his enemy, he is good to make the match to be longer, and he is mastery for ass-picking thing. So everybody has a multi-dimensional side of their own, just different area.:rolleyes:

mrserenawilliams
10-23-2006, 05:30 AM
wow, Tomas is an ass

Hokit
10-23-2006, 05:46 AM
Can someone explain to me what "one-dimensional" means? :confused: I asked my tennis coach about it, and he told me there are 4 styles in tennis (all-around, serve-volley, aggressive baseliner and defensive). Since Roger's an "all-around" player, does that count him as "one-dimensional"? :confused: Sorry, I just assume "one-dimensional" means a tennis player has only one game play style ;)

Fed-Express
10-23-2006, 05:54 AM
wow, Tomas is an ass

:rolleyes: Wow, here is an opinion.

Fed-Express
10-23-2006, 06:11 AM
His comments on the Madrid crowd are so true. A crowd like that really isn't good for the sport. Go and cheer for your player but still respect his opponent, especially when he is playing great. This nationalistic crap is just poor.

RonE
10-23-2006, 06:35 AM
wow, Tomas is an ass

:rolleyes: Wow, here is an opinion.

And just to combine the two sentiments: opinions are like assholes- everyone has one :p

Allure
10-23-2006, 07:10 AM
I'm just too confused with one or two or three dimensional. There's no line to border it.

But i know one thing:
Nadal's style: Physically with heavy top-spin. His volley and serve and net game is just average. And he can't do the flat ball...omg.

But at least he is multi-dimensional player as well in the break time between games. He is competent to intimidate his enemy, he is good to make the match to be longer, and he is mastery for ass-picking thing. So everybody has a multi-dimensional side of their own, just different area.:rolleyes:

:lol:

Exodus
10-23-2006, 07:30 AM
wow, Tomas is an ass

no nadal is an arrogant sore loser for saying things to berdych after he beat the crap out of him.

nadal is one-dimensional it's so true

moon language
10-23-2006, 07:31 AM
I actually think that the title of this thread does Berdych a disservice. His comments aren't as negative as this thread title makes them out to be, and he never actually says those words anyway.

Exodus
10-23-2006, 07:36 AM
I actually think that the title of this thread does Berdych a disservice. His comments aren't as negative as this thread title makes them out to be, and he never actually says those words anyway.

you are right he wasn't disrespectful or anything towards nadal he was just telling the truth. if i was in his place i would call nadal a loser for saying things to me after the match

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 08:03 AM
I actually think that the title of this thread does Berdych a disservice. His comments aren't as negative as this thread title makes them out to be, and he never actually says those words anyway.

The thread starter is one of the brighest Mensa members we have here. There wasn't anything wrong with what Berdych said or anything inflammatory.

oz_boz
10-23-2006, 08:50 AM
The thread title is just begging fr keeping the flame war going. Berdych says that Nadal's game fits him well because he stands so far from te baseline and retrieves, plus he hasn't changed his tactics over the four matches they've played. Roger's game is more difficult for Tomas because it is more varied, and his serve is harder to return. No big news there.

The one-dimensional debate again...I don't agree that Nadal is one-dimensional. He can be good at attacking AND retrieving, and he is not bad tactically. His serve is not the best but far from the liability some people say, and he does OK with his volley - albeit he almost never uses it unless he's certain of success.

Of course I agree that Roger has a much more varied game than Rafa, there are just too many players who deserve the 1-dim-label a lot more than Nadal.

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 09:03 AM
Of course the misleading title is there in true tabloid style, to stir up the MTF natives, but so far it has seemed to go down relatively well.

Naranoc
10-23-2006, 09:18 AM
Or alternatively, he could have chosen the tite:

Video: Berdych says Nadal is stupid, Federer is smart.

admiralpye
10-23-2006, 10:14 AM
well he is out there playing vs Nadal..i would take his opinion over anyone else that watches from the seats or broadcaster.

If you're a player, you generally concentrate very much on your own game rather than analysing your opponent's in the heat of battle. You can't have much of an objective perspective of the other guy's game.

Tomas was only saying what it was he thought he did to be able to defeat Rafa's game for, what, 3 times now?

And he's right to compliment Roger; he's a consistently undefeated number one player for years. And of course somebody like Berdych won't have an answer to his kind of game; the guy isn't even capable of that kind of level yet. So he is correct in expressing his admiration for Roger. Any other tennis player could have said what he said about Federer.

A coach or a sports analyst who watches the game closely, though he may have some biases, can offer a more complete take on both players' games -- most of the time. Fans and recreational players like me can't because I admit I'd be too busy rooting for one player and looking at his game, not in relation to his opponent's game.

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 10:19 AM
A coach or a sports analyst who watches the game closely, though he may have some biases, can offer a more complete take on both players' games -- most of the time. Fans and recreational players like me can't because I admit I'd be too busy rooting for one player and looking at his game, not in relation to his opponent's game.

Tell me what Berdych said wrong about Nadal's game.

1. Berdych has known Nadal for quite a long time, they are around the same age and have played in events prior to them turning pro.

2. Nadal is a very good match up for Berdych. That is not exactly surprising, just like Nadal at the moment on slower surfaces is a bad match up for Federer. That is not exactly surprising and he is the only guy to have beaten them both in a 12 month period when they were #1 and #2 respectively.

As hard as it may be, there are some players who can analyse another peers game and Berdych gave reasons as to why he is comfortable against Nadal and not so against Federer.

admiralpye
10-23-2006, 11:26 AM
Tell me what Berdych said wrong about Nadal's game.

1. Berdych has known Nadal for quite a long time, they are around the same age and have played in events prior to them turning pro.

2. Nadal is a very good match up for Berdych. That is not exactly surprising, just like Nadal at the moment on slower surfaces is a bad match up for Federer. That is not exactly surprising and he is the only guy to have beaten them both in a 12 month period when they were #1 and #2 respectively.

As hard as it may be, there are some players who can analyse another peers game and Berdych gave reasons as to why he is comfortable against Nadal and not so against Federer.

You're really going for it GWH, but before you say anything else, get this straight: I'm not The Enemy.

I actually agreed that Tomas said NOTHING WRONG about Nadal's game (Didn't I just say that Tomas was simply expressing his own take on what he was doing to be able to beat Rafa?) I watched the video. And I'm saying I agree with what he said about Federer. A person has to be blind not to see Roger as a complete player.

Read my two previous posts again before you launch into a diatribe.

P.S. There was also nothing wrong with what I said that a player in the heat of the game may only have a limited assessment of his opponent's game because aside from "feeling" it, he can't really see all the aspects of the match, whereas a sports analyst with years of experience might if he was following the game closely.

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 11:33 AM
I actually agree that Tomas said NOTHING WRONG about Nadal's game. I watched the video. And I'm saying I agree with what he said about Federer. A person has to be blind not to see Roger as a complete player.

Read my two previous posts again before you launch into a diatribe.

You said this "You can't have much of an objective perspective of the other guy's game". Considering every opinion is subjective to varying degrees, as for diatribe you wish.

As for Berdych not being reliable, well if you agree he got it right in this particular case concerning Federer and Nadal, then what is the problem?

admiralpye
10-23-2006, 11:38 AM
You said this "You can't have much of an objective perspective of the other guy's game". Considering every opinion is subjective to varying degrees, as for diatribe you wish.

As for Berdych not being reliable, well if you agree he got it right in this particular case concerning Federer and Nadal, then what is the problem?

You have the problem, not me.

Because I was reacting to what the other guy when he said he thought Berdych's assessment in the interview was more reliable than someone else's.

My take on it is: that's Berdych's opinion, and he's free to make it. But I also threw in my opinion that a sports analyst could make a better assessment of the players' games considering most don't have the perspective of the whole match while they're concentrating on their own game.

The problem is YOU jump in without understanding the context.

I don't care if you're a mod or if you have seniority. If you jumped the gun unreasonably you have to admit it.

I'm not the antagonist here. "What's the problem?" I think you better ask yourself, not me.

admiralpye
10-23-2006, 11:43 AM
If you're a player, you generally concentrate very much on your own game rather than analysing your opponent's in the heat of battle. You can't have much of an objective perspective of the other guy's game.

Tomas was only saying what it was he thought he did to be able to defeat Rafa's game for, what, 3 times now?

This is the complete quote, which you conveniently cut-out.

And it's hard for you to get into the context because I was reacting to someone else's comment.

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 11:47 AM
You have the problem, not me.

Because I was reacting to what the other guy when he said he thought Berdych's assessment in the interview was more reliable than someone else's.

My take on it is: that's Berdych's opinion, and he's free to make it. But I also threw in my opinion that a sports analyst could make a better assessment of the players' games considering most don't have the perspective of the whole match while they're concentrating on their own game.

The problem is YOU jump in without understanding the context.

I don't care if you're a mod or if you have seniority. If you jumped the gun unreasonably you have to admit it.

I'm not the antagonist here. "What's the problem?" I think you better ask yourself, not me.

As for what Costanza said, well doesn't this depend on the individual player? In this case this individual player (Berdych) has played both of these guys a combined amount of 9 times, so it stands to reason that he would have a basic clue about the particular subjects and the way he stated his views, he does in this case.

As for an analyst, well wouldn't that depend on the particular analyst? Like any profession there are good ones and bad ones and why would that be any different in tennis and it isn't. There are some sharp ones and some duds.

You are implying that sports analysts would do a better job and this is not necessarily the case and as it depends on the individual. There are many posters here NYCTennisfan, RonE, Sjengster for example among others who could do a much better job than many of the analysts around who are getting paid for this job.

admiralpye
10-23-2006, 11:52 AM
As for what Costanza said, well doesn't this depend on the individual player? In this case this individual player (Berdych) has played both of these guys a combined amount of 9 times, so it stands to reason that he would have a basic clue about the particular subjects and the way he stated his views, he does in this case.

As for an analyst, well wouldn't that depend on the particular analyst? Like any profession there are good ones and bad ones and why would that be any different in tennis and it isn't. There are some sharp ones and some duds.

You are implying that sports analysts would do a better job and this is not necessarily the case and as it depends on the individual. There are many posters here NYCTennisfan, RonE, Sjengster for example among others who could do a much better job than many of the analysts around who are getting paid for this job.


And AS I SAID, I only offer it as MY OPINION, which is also valid in some respect, and would probably be an interesting addition to the discussion.

And of course, you and others are free to disagree. Tomas' take on it is one thing, and shouldn't be taken negatively nor as dogma because he, like all other players, do have limitations in their perspective as well.

So there is actually no problem here.

Action Jackson
10-23-2006, 11:59 AM
And AS I SAID, I only offer it as MY OPINION, which is also valid in some respect, and would probably be an interesting addition to the discussion.

And of course, you and others are free to disagree. Tomas' take on it is one thing, and shouldn't be taken negatively nor as dogma because he, like all other players, do have limitations in their perspective as well.

So there is actually no problem here.

You can admit there are some players who have more of a clue than analysts and vice versa?

Well the thread starter wanted to start a flamewar or deliberately mislead like many journalists like to do with the thread title, but that hasn't happened.

Berdych got it right in this case and backed up his particular reasons as to why he came to that view, which goes back to the 1st paragraph.