Is Rafael Nadal a one-dimensional player? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is Rafael Nadal a one-dimensional player?

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 03:53 AM
No stupid poll here. I want arguments people, so please, no "yes" or "no" answers. Try to back what you say up with facts. As I'm starting this thread, I'll go first.

There's absolutely no doubt that Rafael Nadal is a one-dimensional tennis player. This doesn't mean he isn't very, very good (he is) or that he isn't a worthy world number 2 (he is). What it does mean, however, is that Rafael Nadal only truly masters one aspect of the game, which obviously is baseline grinding with huge topspin shots, primarily intended for making it hard for the opponents to hit winners and to force them to miss. Hence, if the opponents make too many errors, they will lose. If they hit enough winners (easier said than done, no doubt), they will win. The point is that if Nadal cannot win matches with this style, he loses, because he isn't sufficiently good at anything else in order for it to win him matches (just look at the fourth set between him and Youzhny in the US Open when he became frustrated and started going for early winners - didn't go very well, now did it?). It's as simple as that. If you agree and have anything to add, please do. If you disagree, make sure to have an argument and use logics instead of blind fanboyism.

GlennMirnyi
10-24-2006, 03:57 AM
Yeah.
Another fact is that he relies heavily on his physique. Whenever he can't generate the immense power to keep his topspin shots really deep, he becomes an easy prey to offensive players. That's what's been happening since Wimbledon.

World Beater
10-24-2006, 03:59 AM
yes. he is right now.

does he have the tools to become a multi-d player, i believe so...

he hits a decent volley when he gets to net, and is willingness to improve is admirable.

its going to be difficult for him because as federer said, "he might have to totally change up his game to become the best on hardcourts/indoors"

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 03:59 AM
yes. he is right now.

does he have the tools to become a multi-d player, i believe so...

he hits a decent volley when he gets to net, and is willingness to improve is admirable.

Very true. :)

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 04:11 AM
Hey Lafuria, where are you? What's that? You don't have anything to back your "Nadal isn't one-dimensional" nonsense up? Okay, I get it. Never mind then. ;)

mandoura
10-24-2006, 04:14 AM
I agree with what have been said and would add mental toughness. He is definitely, "frustratingly" to his opponents, one of the toughest mentally. He can turn the score, of course not always but on numerous occasions, with his high spirits alone.

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 04:16 AM
I agree with what have been said and would add mental toughness. He is definitely, "frustratingly" to his opponents, one of the toughest mentally. He can turn the score, of course not always but on numerous occasions, with his high spirits alone.

That is also very true. As I think we all know, he is a great player, but still, he's one-dimensional.

mandoura
10-24-2006, 04:23 AM
That is also very true. As I think we all know, he is a great player, but still, he's one-dimensional.

Yeah, I think so too, that's why I said I agree with what was posted. And as you previously stated in your opening post, this does not take away from him as a great player.

I was going to edit my previous post when I saw your reply. I know that maybe some might not include the mental aspect of a player's game when discussing his/her technical game. However, I believe it should be included as it is becoming more and more crucial in winning matches.

Safin_Lova
10-24-2006, 04:44 AM
I think this thred is ridiculous . How many times has this been spoken about?
Yes maybe Rafa is one dimensional, but how many times has he beaten federer already this year? we all know that and have seen it. Sorry to be harsh, but I think federer's only alibi to his losses against nadal have been that he is one dimensional. Nadal maybe just that, but since federer is so great dont you think it is quite embarassing that his looses to someone he regards as low and one dimensional?
I think nadal has something that bothers roger, and roger only comforts himself by continiously saying nadal is one dimesional.
I am sick of this, if roger cant beat the one dimensional kid, how is he beating multi dimensional players? (nalbandian,haas, safin)
I guess tennis is more of a phsycological game after all.

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 04:47 AM
I think this thred is ridiculous . How many times has this been spoken about?
Yes maybe Rafa is one dimensional, but how many times has he beaten federer already this year? we all know that and have seen it. Sorry to be harsh, but I think federer's only alibi to his losses against nadal have been that he is one dimensional. Nadal maybe just that, but since federer is so great dont you think it is quite embarassing that his looses to someone he regards as low and one dimensional?
I think nadal has something that bothers roger, and roger only comforts himself by continiously saying nadal is one dimesional.
I am sick of this, if roger cant beat the one dimensional kid, how is he beating multi dimensional players? (nalbandian,haas, safin)
I guess tennis is more of a phsycological game after all.

It's not ridiculous. This needs a thread of its own for two reasons, namely that I want to hear the arguments of those who say that he isn't one-dimensional and the fact that this always comes up in other threads as an off-topic spin-off.

As for what you write about Nadal beating Federer: so what? It's completely irrelevant. No one is saying that Nadal isn't a very good player (at least I'm not). That's not what this is about, nor is it about what Roger says or why he says what he says. It's about Nadal's game and Nadals's game only.

GlennMirnyi
10-24-2006, 04:54 AM
It's not ridiculous. This needs a thread of its own for two reasons, namely that I want to hear the arguments of those who say that he isn't one-dimensional and the fact that this always comes up in other threads as an off-topic spin-off.

As for what you write about Nadal beating Federer: so what? It's completely irrelevant. No one is saying that Nadal isn't a very good player (at least I'm not). That's not what this is about, nor is it about what Roger says or why he says what he says. It's about Nadal's game and Nadals's game only.

I am. I think he's a mediocre player with an incredible physique.

deliveryman
10-24-2006, 04:57 AM
I think this thred is ridiculous . How many times has this been spoken about?
Yes maybe Rafa is one dimensional, but how many times has he beaten federer already this year? we all know that and have seen it. Sorry to be harsh, but I think federer's only alibi to his losses against nadal have been that he is one dimensional. Nadal maybe just that, but since federer is so great dont you think it is quite embarassing that his looses to someone he regards as low and one dimensional?
I think nadal has something that bothers roger, and roger only comforts himself by continiously saying nadal is one dimesional.
I am sick of this, if roger cant beat the one dimensional kid, how is he beating multi dimensional players? (nalbandian,haas, safin)
I guess tennis is more of a phsycological game after all.

Congratulations! You're officially retarded. :hatoff:

Safin_Lova
10-24-2006, 04:58 AM
It's not ridiculous. This needs a thread of its own for two reasons, namely that I want to hear the arguments of those who say that he isn't one-dimensional and the fact that this always comes up in other threads as an off-topic spin-off.

As for what you write about Nadal beating Federer: so what? It's completely irrelevant. No one is saying that Nadal isn't a very good player (at least I'm not). That's not what this is about, nor is it about what Roger says or why he says what he says. It's about Nadal's game and Nadals's game only.

I know what this thread is about. I just said what I thought. Sorry you misunderstood. I dont want to casue a fuss or anything.
I admore nadals game, but my point was that yes he is one dimensional and has beaten roger many times. who cares about comapring both players games, this has been done many times. Besides Roger was the one who called rafa one dimensional before anyone else did. Yes federer is better technically and has more variey but its winner of the matches they play against eachother in the end that really matters. I can give you many examples of matches were supposedly the better/ more talented player has lost. Yes federer is better than Rafa, but the head to head shows that nadal can beat him many times. That is pure fact.

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 04:59 AM
I am. I think he's a mediocre player with an incredible physique.

Well, that's just semantics. Those two combined still make him a very good player. How else is he beating Federer? Luck?

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 05:00 AM
I know what this thread is about. I just said what I thought. Sorry you misunderstood. I dont want to casue a fuss or anything.
I admore nadals game, but my point was that yes he is one dimensional and has beaten roger many times. who cares about comapring both players games, this has been done many times. Besides Roger was the one who called rafa one dimensional before anyone else did. Yes federer is better technically and has more variey but its winner of the matches they play against eachother in the end that really matters. I can give you many examples of matches were supposedly the better/ more talented player has lost. Yes federer is better than Rafa, but the head to head shows that nadal can beat him many times. That is pure fact.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not comparing them. I just want to know the reasoning of those who say Nadal isn't one-dimensional. This thread isn't intended as an attack on Nadal in any way, so why are you defending him? :confused:

Safin_Lova
10-24-2006, 05:02 AM
Congratulations! You're officially retarded. :hatoff:


How am I retarded? The facts clearly show that however one dimensional nadal may be- he beats federer in most matches they play.
We know federer is a better player, but he looses to nadal most of the time.
Sorry if i may look retarded to you guys but that is the truth.

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 05:04 AM
How am I retarded? The facts clearly show that however one dimensional nadal may be- he beats federer in most matches they play.
We know federer is a better player, but he looses to nadal most of the time.
Sorry if i may look retarded to you guys but that is the truth.

I won't say you are retarded, but I will say this - the retarded part isn't WHAT you're saying but WHY you're saying it here. It's completely irrelevant. :wavey:

deliveryman
10-24-2006, 05:05 AM
How am I retarded? The facts clearly show that however one dimensional nadal may be- he beats federer in most matches they play.
We know federer is a better player, but he looses to nadal most of the time.
Sorry if i may look retarded to you guys but that is the truth.

You're retarded because...

are you ready for it?

BECAUSE IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND

World Beater
10-24-2006, 05:07 AM
:haha:

safinlova...you are completely correct, however the point is ...

multi D is not neccesarily better than single D

Safin_Lova
10-24-2006, 05:07 AM
You're retarded because...

are you ready for it?

BECAUSE IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND

iT HAS ALOT TO DO WITH THE TOPIC.
because by calling nadal one dimesional it is like you are bashing him or something, thats how I took this thread. Sorry if I misunderstood.

deliveryman
10-24-2006, 05:11 AM
Why is being one-dimensional necessarily a bad thing?

We've already established (well at least the thread creator did) that Nadal is very, very, very good at that one thing he does and is able to beat most players with his style (including Roger Federer).

But that's not what this thread is about. It's asking the question whether or not Nadal is one-dimensional.

If you disagree, please sure us other aspects of Nadals game that prove otherwise.

Safin_Lova
10-24-2006, 05:11 AM
:haha:

safinlova...you are completely correct, however the point is ...

multi D is not neccesarily better than single D


I never said one was better than the other, I just felt that this thread was another nadal bashing thread. Do you understand know why i responed that way?
Besides does it really matter whether nadal is one dimesional or not?

mandoura
10-24-2006, 05:12 AM
I think this thred is ridiculous . How many times has this been spoken about?
Yes maybe Rafa is one dimensional, but how many times has he beaten federer already this year? we all know that and have seen it. Sorry to be harsh, but I think federer's only alibi to his losses against nadal have been that he is one dimensional. Nadal maybe just that, but since federer is so great dont you think it is quite embarassing that his looses to someone he regards as low and one dimensional?
I think nadal has something that bothers roger, and roger only comforts himself by continiously saying nadal is one dimesional.
I am sick of this, if roger cant beat the one dimensional kid, how is he beating multi dimensional players? (nalbandian,haas, safin)
I guess tennis is more of a phsycological game after all.

I don't think this thread was meant in any way to degrade Rafa's way of playing so please don't be on the defensive. :)

I, for one, like Rafa a lot (he's one of my favourite players) and enjoy watching him play, one dimensional or not. When I say or read the term "one-dimensional", I don't take it as an accusation but rather as a description of his game. It doesn't bother me at all as long as he is confortable playing this way and winning. For me, he is an extremely good player

I guess this thread was meant to evaluate the game of the #2 player, what it is now, what makes it percieved as one-dimensional and how/to where it may evolve. :)

World Beater
10-24-2006, 05:13 AM
I never said one was better than the other, I just felt that this thread was another nadal bashing thread. Do you understand know why i responed that way?
Besides does it really matter whether nadal is one dimesional or not?

yes i do...but you have to realize that it is not a bashing thread...

if you read the first post carefully, you will understand it this way.

if it doesnt matter to you, dont bother to respond to thread...its that simple

World Beater
10-24-2006, 05:14 AM
I never said one was better than the other, I just felt that this thread was another nadal bashing thread. Do you understand know why i responed that way?
Besides does it really matter whether nadal is one dimesional or not?

yes i do...but you have to realize that it is not a bashing thread...

if you read the first post carefully, you will understand it this way.

if it doesnt matter to you, dont bother to respond to thread...its that simple

Safin_Lova
10-24-2006, 05:14 AM
:haha:

safinlova...you are completely correct, however the point is ...

multi D is not neccesarily better than single D


I never said one was better than the other, I just felt that this thread was another nadal bashing thread. Do you understand know why i responed that way?
Besides does it really matter whether nadal is one dimesional or not? Thanks for being the only one to actually agree with me on some things i said

deliveryman
10-24-2006, 05:19 AM
I never said one was better than the other, I just felt that this thread was another nadal bashing thread. Do you understand know why i responed that way?
Besides does it really matter whether nadal is one dimesional or not? Thanks for being the only one to actually agree with me on some things i said

For the last time, Sherlock:

No one is disagreeing with WHAT you said.

We're laughing at the REASON you said it.

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 05:21 AM
iT HAS ALOT TO DO WITH THE TOPIC.
because by calling nadal one dimesional it is like you are bashing him or something, thats how I took this thread. Sorry if I misunderstood.

I pointed out many times that the point was not to bash anyone but to understand what those who say nadal isn't one-dimensional are thinking (if they are thinking, that is).

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 05:23 AM
I never said one was better than the other, I just felt that this thread was another nadal bashing thread. Do you understand know why i responed that way?
Besides does it really matter whether nadal is one dimesional or not? Thanks for being the only one to actually agree with me on some things i said

HAHAHAHAHAH! Are you serious? Everyone agreed with what you said! The funny thing is that it was completely irrelevant, not that it wasn't true.

Safin_Lova
10-24-2006, 05:25 AM
For the last time, Sherlock:

No one is disagreeing with WHAT you said.

We're laughing at the REASON you said it.


Okay I get what your saying, I made a mistake, sorry, but amyway my answer to the initial question of the thread was, yes nadal is one domesional, for the reasons you have already said.
Sorry once again.
I must look like an idiot right know, I am even laughing at myself right know beleive me. I seriously got the wrong idea about the thread.
Sorry Guys.

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 05:27 AM
Okay I get what your saying, I made a mistake, sorry, but amyway my answer to the initial question of the thread was, yes nadal is one domesional, for the reasons you have already said.
Sorry once again.
I must look like an idiot right know, I am even laughing at myself right know beleive me. I seriously got the wrong idea about the thread.
Sorry Guys.

Hahaha. No problem. :D Glad that we finally straightened this out. :)

mandoura
10-24-2006, 05:29 AM
Okay I get what your saying, I made a mistake, sorry, but amyway my answer to the initial question of the thread was, yes nadal is one domesional, for the reasons you have already said.
Sorry once again.
I must look like an idiot right know, I am even laughing at myself right know beleive me. I seriously got the wrong idea about the thread.
Sorry Guys.

:lol: It's ok. It happens to the best of us. :D

Action Jackson
10-24-2006, 06:11 AM
Unlike SafinLova, I will try and answer the thread question.

Is Nadal one dimensional ? At the moment he is and is this a bad thing in some ways yes and others no.

Well Nadal has a game that works well for him and tennis isn't a beauty contest, especially at pro level he has to do what is best for him to win and he does that very well.

The basis of his game is to outlast the opponent and to pin them to the corners with heavy topspin and either induce the errors from them or finish off weak shots cause they can't handle the spin. When he keeps excellent length and with his fitness levels then this will prove too much for most opponents.

When Plan A isn't working and has an opponent who can handle the spin, then he has to rely on his mental strength to get through matches and more often than not it has been successful.

At the same time Nadal can't blow people away with his serve and while it's improving, it pretty much is used to start the point and to get the opponent out of the court with the spin. So if his main game isn't working, then he doesn't have say the changes of pace to throw the opponent off their timing or to come forward more.

He knows he has to get more aggressive and that will take time for that to happen and in tough times like most players, they will resort to what they do best and Nadal is no different from most players in this regard.

Aphex
10-24-2006, 06:19 AM
I think he has a pretty good counter-punching game as well, at least on clay. So there you go, another dimension. :)

Alvarillo
10-24-2006, 07:13 AM
:retard:

oz_boz
10-24-2006, 08:09 AM
If a player is to be called one-dimensional, it should refer to either

PLAYING STYLE: for me Nadal has both a defense and an attacking game. His defending game is extraordinary as we know, his attack is not the best on the tour but also far from bad - we could see that in Wimbledon where he hit more winners than usual. He needs to develop that aspect of his game though.

ARSENAL: His groundstrokes are also good enough on both wings, and his volley decent enough, to avoid the 1-dim-label IMO. He has good touch. His serve isn't super but not bad either.

LACK OF BRAIN: Nadal is not the best thinker on tour but absolutely not in the worse end. He can construct points and he nows when it's time to up his gear and switch to attack.

NUMBER OF SURFACES FOR SUCCESS: one-dimensional could refer to Berasategui for example. Nadal has won two TMS on hc and defeated Fed in a final and reached Wimbly F.

I say no, for the simple reason that if Nadal is one-dimensional, then 95% of the ATP tour is. A typical MTF member who is asked to name multidimensional players says "Fed, Nalby, Baggy etc.". I'd like to know at least ten players who deserve to be included in that 'etc' before Nadal.

Action Jackson
10-24-2006, 08:18 AM
I say no, for the simple reason that if Nadal is one-dimensional, then 95% of the ATP tour is. A typical MTF member who is asked to name multidimensional players says "Fed, Nalby, Baggy etc.". I'd like to know at least ten players who deserve to be included in that 'etc' before Nadal.

98% of the tour are one dimensional, then again Lendl was one dimensional, but did that hurt him overall?

Are Stepanek, Kiefer, Santoro, Malisse, Ancic, Melzer and Olivier Rochus one dimensional for example? Actually being denigrated as a one surface specialist while doing well on others is worse than being labelled one dimensional in many ways.

World Beater
10-24-2006, 08:22 AM
If a player is to be called one-dimensional, it should refer to either

PLAYING STYLE: for me Nadal has both a defense and an attacking game. His defending game is extraordinary as we know, his attack is not the best on the tour but also far from bad - we could see that in Wimbledon where he hit more winners than usual. He needs to develop that aspect of his game though.

ARSENAL: His groundstrokes are also good enough on both wings, and his volley decent enough, to avoid the 1-dim-label IMO. He has good touch. His serve isn't super but not bad either.

LACK OF BRAIN: Nadal is not the best thinker on tour but absolutely not in the worse end. He can construct points and he nows when it's time to up his gear and switch to attack.

I say no, for the simple reason that if Nadal is one-dimensional, then 95% of the ATP tour is. A typical MTF member who is asked to name multidimensional players says "Fed, Nalby, Baggy etc.". I'd like to know at least ten players who deserve to be included in that 'etc' before Nadal.


safin, haas, henman, berdych, ancic. You have 8 who i would consider before nadal.

being multi-d isnt just about having different weapons, its also being able to implement a different style.

right now all the people i quoted have the potential to come into net or stay on baseline and be aggressive w/ the exception of nalbandian and baghdatis. however, both these players are able to hit the ball differently to such an extent that both still classify as multi-d. they are both highly capable of the flat ball and the top spin and can vary the pace better than nadal. nadal just doesnt want to flatten out the ball enough to fall into this category.

Action Jackson
10-24-2006, 08:25 AM
Vliegen is another one to the list as well.

oz_boz
10-24-2006, 08:26 AM
98% of the tour are one dimensional, then again Lendl was one dimensional, but did that hurt him overall?

Are Stepanek, Kiefer, Santoro, Malisse, Ancic, Melzer and Olivier Rochus one dimensional for example? Actually being denigrated as a one surface specialist while doing well on others is worse than being labelled one dimensional in many ways.

I asked for 10 players and you gave me seven ;)

OK, if you think so, fine. But since the term is so obviously degrading I think it's a bit silly to use it on 98% of the tour.

World Beater
10-24-2006, 08:28 AM
I asked for 10 players and you gave me seven ;)

OK, if you think so, fine. But since the term is so obviously degrading I think it's a bit silly to use it on 98% of the tour.

combine the lists.

its nothing more than a fictional alternative ranking scheme...

Action Jackson
10-24-2006, 08:31 AM
I asked for 10 players and you gave me seven ;)

OK, if you think so, fine. But since the term is so obviously degrading I think it's a bit silly to use it on 98% of the tour.

8 including Federer, Nalbandian and Baghdatis which are obvious enough.

Ok, of all the players that I like currently. Many of them are one dimensional, this does not mean they aren't any less successful or I am going to like them less, and I explained my reasons why Nadal came into that category. If you want to take the term literally without taking everything into account, then it could be.

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 02:12 PM
Unlike SafinLova, I will try and answer the thread question.

Is Nadal one dimensional ? At the moment he is and is this a bad thing in some ways yes and others no.

Well Nadal has a game that works well for him and tennis isn't a beauty contest, especially at pro level he has to do what is best for him to win and he does that very well.

The basis of his game is to outlast the opponent and to pin them to the corners with heavy topspin and either induce the errors from them or finish off weak shots cause they can't handle the spin. When he keeps excellent length and with his fitness levels then this will prove too much for most opponents.

When Plan A isn't working and has an opponent who can handle the spin, then he has to rely on his mental strength to get through matches and more often than not it has been successful.

At the same time Nadal can't blow people away with his serve and while it's improving, it pretty much is used to start the point and to get the opponent out of the court with the spin. So if his main game isn't working, then he doesn't have say the changes of pace to throw the opponent off their timing or to come forward more.

He knows he has to get more aggressive and that will take time for that to happen and in tough times like most players, they will resort to what they do best and Nadal is no different from most players in this regard.

Great post GWH! :worship:

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 02:16 PM
I asked for 10 players and you gave me seven ;)

OK, if you think so, fine. But since the term is so obviously degrading I think it's a bit silly to use it on 98% of the tour.

That's the silly part. It's not degrading at all. It's not meant to be degrading in any way.

Action Jackson
10-24-2006, 03:16 PM
Great post GWH! :worship:

Thanks, but I was just answering your original question which was whether Nadal at this moment in time was one-dimensional. As I said elsewhere there isn't any point in being a fanboy.

Neely
10-24-2006, 04:34 PM
If a player is to be called one-dimensional, it should refer to either

PLAYING STYLE: for me Nadal has both a defense and an attacking game. His defending game is extraordinary as we know, his attack is not the best on the tour but also far from bad - we could see that in Wimbledon where he hit more winners than usual. He needs to develop that aspect of his game though.

ARSENAL: His groundstrokes are also good enough on both wings, and his volley decent enough, to avoid the 1-dim-label IMO. He has good touch. His serve isn't super but not bad either.

LACK OF BRAIN: Nadal is not the best thinker on tour but absolutely not in the worse end. He can construct points and he nows when it's time to up his gear and switch to attack.

NUMBER OF SURFACES FOR SUCCESS: one-dimensional could refer to Berasategui for example. Nadal has won two TMS on hc and defeated Fed in a final and reached Wimbly F.

I say no, for the simple reason that if Nadal is one-dimensional, then 95% of the ATP tour is. A typical MTF member who is asked to name multidimensional players says "Fed, Nalby, Baggy etc.". I'd like to know at least ten players who deserve to be included in that 'etc' before Nadal.
Good post and a good start to try a definition of the "one-dimensional" aspect.

What I have read so far, I agree with the person that said that some other people are able to hit the ball more differently, at least on their forehand side: flatter or with topspin whereas Nadal almost only knows topspin. But this shot is brilliant and he do everything with it: lob, producing a winner, shot angles, constructing the point. And he is able to dropshot opponents on both sides.

As for the backhand side, there is no point to complain he is one-dimensional. It's not the best backhand, but far from being bad and he can produce awesome winners under pressure.

What George said about his game plan A and alternative plan relying on mental strenghts, is certainly right too and there is some reason to call him one-dimensional.
(Another question would be whether he had more success if he had a real plan B and plan C or plan D or if this is solely a matchup issue, which exist, that you can try whatever you want and still end up losing most of the times against certain players.)

Then again, if I'm watching exchanges of him with the best players which include a serve & volley surprise attack on the 2nd serve, a lob, a dropshot, turning defense into attack and some more components which other players don't show once in a complete match, I can just come to the conclusion for myself that calling Nadal one-dimensional is only true for very isolated and special parts of his game which he shows not enough or is not capable of; and that this sets the standard quite high if you want to be called not only a multi-dimensional player, but also a successful one.

DDrago2
10-24-2006, 05:37 PM
One dimensional or not Nadal is a limited player, and much more so than you would expect from "Federer's main rival"

Peoples
10-24-2006, 06:43 PM
No he is a multimedia player

bandabou
10-24-2006, 07:16 PM
Just want to react to the poster who likes to bring up the fact that Rafa beats Roger, despite being one-dimensional. Rafa beating Roger hasn't got anything to do with Rafa's game..it has to do with the one weakness that Roger still has in his game: he can't keep his concentration up for an entire match..always has a loose game here and there. And that's why Rafa is beating him. 'Cause Rafa's game is BUILT around this: waiting for the opponent to slip up.

Examples: Dubai...Roger was cruisiing totally destroying Rafa, but lets his foot off the pedal and lets Rafa back in the match. Even Rome..should have won the second set also, but fails to convert then.

RG final..wins first set 6-1, although had to save some bp's..then lets Rafa back in the match by blowing 40-15 lead in the first game....same almost happened at Wimbledon...wins 6-0, then blows 40-0 lead in the 1st game of the second.

flyguydsl
10-24-2006, 09:03 PM
I don't think of him as one-dimensional. When I saw him reach the final of Wimbledon this year, I saw flatter shots harder serves and crisp net play. Quite the opposite of his 'A' game in fact.

BIGMARAT
10-24-2006, 09:08 PM
Nadal is good but yeah, she is so much beatable and one dimensional player.

As of now, his game only fits on slow surfaces. and he does'nt have anyuthing to hurt you on hardcourts.

frenchie
10-24-2006, 09:10 PM
yes

cartmancop
10-24-2006, 09:59 PM
currently I would say yes, but he has the ability to become a much more versatile player with experience...

KaxMisha
10-24-2006, 11:05 PM
Thanks, but I was just answering your original question which was whether Nadal at this moment in time was one-dimensional. As I said elsewhere there isn't any point in being a fanboy.

I know you were, and you did in a great manner. I totally agree about the fanboyism, by the way. Totally pointless, dogmatic and illogical.

jrm
10-25-2006, 12:03 AM
There a few players that aren't one-dimensional

Being one-dimentional doesn't mean bad player

muggy
10-25-2006, 01:29 AM
So how are you guys defining dimensions?

Styles of play? Shots owned? Ability to adapt to different surfaces?

I think Rafa has proven to us that he is moving towards becoming a more polished player in all of these areas. Are we trying to say baseliners are one-dimensional and all-court players aren't? What about serve and volley players, even they can't come to net all the time.

To me, Rafa is one of the baseliners today with a more diverse game, as he has chosen to make it so. Yes, his topspin shots and speed have wreaked havoc on people and brought him to where he is, but he's won more than his fair share of points on overheads, at the net, and with running shots to the open court.

I think we can all agree that Rafa has this type of ability, and we can agree on this because he's attempted to use it. He's only been somewhat successful at these endeavors, and that is why we hesitate to say he has added these facets to his game. I've seen plenty of well placed overheads, drop shots, and timely volleys to say that Nadal has a good amount of touch, and combined with his speed I think we can say he has somewhat of an all-court game when he chooses to use it.

The fact that he has changed his style on different surfaces, and has used this type of "all-court" game to get his way into the finals of Wimbledon, says that he's not afraid to open up this part of his game and that he can be successful using it. The mere fact that he can take a set off of Roger there shows it, Nadal didn't shy away from moving up and down the court, he didn't fall back to his "one-dimensional" baseline game. He felt he was going to play his best all over, not just sluggin it.

People are going to say he had an easy draw, Roger moved him up and down the court with the slice, his mental ability is what helps him win those points, etc. I'm not gonna say all of that is completely false, I'm just saying Rafa doesn't want to be one-dimensional, has the ability not to be, and is in the process of becoming the all-court player that we all are going to expect from him.

Neely
10-25-2006, 02:05 PM
Just want to react to the poster who likes to bring up the fact that Rafa beats Roger, despite being one-dimensional. Rafa beating Roger hasn't got anything to do with Rafa's game..it has to do with the one weakness that Roger still has in his game: he can't keep his concentration up for an entire match..always has a loose game here and there. And that's why Rafa is beating him. 'Cause Rafa's game is BUILT around this: waiting for the opponent to slip up.

Examples: Dubai...Roger was cruisiing totally destroying Rafa, but lets his foot off the pedal and lets Rafa back in the match. Even Rome..should have won the second set also, but fails to convert then.

RG final..wins first set 6-1, although had to save some bp's..then lets Rafa back in the match by blowing 40-15 lead in the first game....same almost happened at Wimbledon...wins 6-0, then blows 40-0 lead in the 1st game of the second.
It would be too easy if every team could play 100% concentrated in a football match from beginning to end, if every player could play the same high level needed to beat another top player the whole match, the whole best-of-five match.
Ups-and-downs are frequent, and often they do not only have to do with the player whose level drops, but that the other player has impact on this as well.

oz_boz
10-25-2006, 02:14 PM
Just want to react to the poster who likes to bring up the fact that Rafa beats Roger, despite being one-dimensional. Rafa beating Roger hasn't got anything to do with Rafa's game..it has to do with the one weakness that Roger still has in his game: he can't keep his concentration up for an entire match..always has a loose game here and there. And that's why Rafa is beating him. 'Cause Rafa's game is BUILT around this: waiting for the opponent to slip up.

Examples: Dubai...Roger was cruisiing totally destroying Rafa, but lets his foot off the pedal and lets Rafa back in the match. Even Rome..should have won the second set also, but fails to convert then.

RG final..wins first set 6-1, although had to save some bp's..then lets Rafa back in the match by blowing 40-15 lead in the first game....same almost happened at Wimbledon...wins 6-0, then blows 40-0 lead in the 1st game of the second.

I thought that idea was pretty extinct after Roger losing so many times. Boy was I wrong; however I'm no more wrong than you are in the bolded quote.

Fumus
10-25-2006, 02:29 PM
Is your mom one dimensional?