Nadal doubtful for shanghai?? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Nadal doubtful for shanghai??

Pages : [1] 2

FluffyYellowBall
10-30-2006, 07:39 PM
Lesión podría dejar a Nadal fuera de Shanghai
http://deporte.canal13.cl/deportes/html/Deportes/Tenis/282340.html


Nadal's injury could cause him to miss Shanghai

The abdominal injury that has caused Rafael Nadal to pull out of the Masters Series Paris might also lead to the Spaniard missing the Shanghai Masters, as he has to have 8 days complete rest.

His personal doctor, Angel Ruiz Cotorro, said that it "is not a typical injury and it hurts him when he serves". While his uncle and trainer, Toni Nadal, put his presence at the Masters Cup in doubt by confirming that: "Rafa is doubtful for Shanghai, because he has to have a minimum of 8 days without playing at all".

In spite of this, the lad himself is still confident that he will be in Asia. "I'm sorry for the (Paris) public, but the doctors have told me to rest for a week to be well for the Masters," he stated.

At any rate, we will have to wait a few days to discover if the Spaniard will be in Shanghai or if he will miss the event just as he did last year because of an other injury.

But then theres this interview a few days later

Nadal confident he will recover in time to play in Shanghai

Mallorcan tennis player Rafael Nadal demonstrated this Monday that he was confident about recovering in time from a small tear (microrrotura fibrilar de 4mm) in his abdominal muscles to be able to contest the Masters Cup in Shanghai, 12-19 November.

After informing the organizers of the Masters Paris-Bercy that he could not compete in the French capital because of the injury he sustained last week, Nadal appeared before the media today in Barcelona to explain how he felt and confirm that he felt "better" and "confident" about playing in Shanghai, a tournament he already missed last year because of a problem with his ankle.

"I've had tests done in Mallorca, Paris and Barcelona, and each one has given better results, so I'm confident I'll be fit for Shanghai," stated Nadal, who will remain in Barcelona for one more day to have treatment with ice and medication to prevent any swelling.

The player from Manacor injured himself while training last week. "I started to feel it on Thursday, especially when I served, but at first I thought it was only cramp, but on Saturday morning I felt faint and that's why we did a scan," commented Nadal, aware that "with this type of injury you have to be careful that it doesn't get more serious."

Of the top ATP players only Federer, Nadal, Ljubicic and Roddick have secured their ticket to Shanghai, so there are still four places left to be decided in Paris. (3 in fact because Davydenko has also qualified).

Tommy Robredo has the chance of getting one of them: "the good thing is that it depends on him alone, if he wins one or two games in Paris, he could be in Shanghai," reckoned Nadal.

The world number two, who plans to travel to the Chinese city to prepare for the Masters Cup next Tuesday, will be back training in three days to prepare for the last big tournament of the year and arrive at the Australian Open "with better guarantees and aiming really high".

Nadal also explained that he hoped the changes he had been trying to introduce into his game, especially since the summer - "a more powerful serve, a more aggressive forehand" - , would soon be translated into victories."

"But you never can tell because sport is not an exact science. Perhaps it's not noticeable, but I think I'm at a good level and I'm confident I'll begin to demonstrate that in Shanghai," he said.

The double Roland Garros champion reflected on the early age at which he had begun to win tournaments, which to a certain extent had prevented him from refining some aspects of his game, because "when you start winning so young, you don't develop so much because you concentrate on winning matches and tournaments."

"Federer, for example, didn't begin winning so soon, and he went on improving without paying too much attention to the results," he cited as an example.

The Mallorcan player also admitted that the world number one is "on a level above the rest" of the players and stated that "his results practically make him the best player ever."

http://newstec.sportec.es/noticias.asp?deporte=tenis&fichero=2006/10/20061030_6&p=1&t=1


I didnt even know he had an abdominal injury! This is all from vamosbrigade.com

GlennMirnyi
10-30-2006, 07:43 PM
If he keeps playing like that chances are he will always be injured when the MC comes.

scarecrows
10-30-2006, 07:47 PM
If he keeps playing like that chances are he will always be injured when the MC comes.

true dat

his game is very much injury-prone

Johnny Groove
10-30-2006, 07:49 PM
I really hope he can get well and make it, then he and Tio Toni can work in the off-season with the tweaking of his game to be less injury-prone :awww:

DrJules
10-30-2006, 07:51 PM
Unless he is fully fit he should not play. Players who are injured usually make injuries worse and have to withdraw in matches or cannot play their full 3 matches. Hope he does not do a Coria of 2004.

Naranoc
10-30-2006, 07:52 PM
I hope he makes it, and it would especially be ineteresting if we get to see a Nalbandian/Nadal and Roddick/Nadal match at last :D

And for those who don't even like him, surely you'd prefer Nadal being there to Robredo... :unsure:

Katastrophe
10-30-2006, 07:53 PM
Oh boy, I am very sorry to hear this news.:sad: Hopefully, Rafa heals quickly. He's a great competitor, and always exciting to watch.

DrJules
10-30-2006, 07:56 PM
And for those who don't even like him, surely you'd prefer Nadal being there to Robredo... :unsure:

Nobody benefits if he is not fully fit.

marti_228
10-30-2006, 07:59 PM
If he only has to stay 8 days resting then I don't see why he wouldn't play. He can prepare well enough in these 2 or 3 weeks before Shangai.
And yes, with his game style he can't pretend not to feel tired and not to suffer any injury.

Naranoc
10-30-2006, 08:00 PM
Nobody benefits if he is not fully fit.

It doesn't seem to be as serious as initially thought though :shrug: I'm sure they wouldn't risk him playing and getting injured if that was the case anyway.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 08:06 PM
Oh well. I'm sure he will be as good as new come clay season.

Sunset of Age
10-30-2006, 08:06 PM
I so hope he'll be there! GET WELL SOON, Rafa!

Good to read his nice words on Rogi again, BTW.

mandoura
10-30-2006, 08:11 PM
Hope he'll recover in time.

guga2120
10-30-2006, 08:15 PM
the way he throws himself at every point its not suprising but very disappointing, he could miss China, like he did last year. Hoping he plays.

mallorn
10-30-2006, 08:18 PM
This is much better news than yesterday and I hope he'll make it to Shanghai if he's completely healthy, but I'm not reading too much into his confidence that he'll be fit. Last year he was confident enough to travel all the way to China and look what happened. :shrug:

Metis
10-30-2006, 08:19 PM
The situation doesn't seem very promising. I hope he gets better soon, otherwise it is going to be a very boring MC with a predictable outcome...

My only consolation right now is the WTA YEC. They better not start withdrawing too. :armed:

Johnny Groove
10-30-2006, 08:21 PM
My only consolation right now is the WTA YEC

:scared: I hope for your sake as well that he makes it

Skyward
10-30-2006, 08:26 PM
it is going to be a very boring MC with a predictable outcome...


:rolleyes:

Yep, we all knew that Fat Dave was destined to win last year.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 08:27 PM
:scared: I hope for your sake as well that he makes it

We will know as soon as the draw comes out. :angel:

Godiva
10-30-2006, 08:33 PM
We will know as soon as the draw comes out. :angel:

:tape:

Metis
10-30-2006, 08:39 PM
:rolleyes:

Yep, we all knew that Fat Dave was destined to win last year.
Feds was injured last year. People weren't even sure he was going play.

Lebowski
10-30-2006, 08:41 PM
Nadal has already peaked.... HAHA.... nothing but downhill

R.Federer
10-30-2006, 08:43 PM
Can't wait to see the vitriol from the Shanghai committee this year if there are more withdrawals. It was so bad last year already.

I hope all 8 that earn the berths make it there, enough already!

Sunset of Age
10-30-2006, 08:43 PM
Nadal has already peaked.... HAHA.... nothing but downhill

:rolleyes:
It's not very nice to laugh at someone's injury/lost form/whatever trouble.
Give the guy a break, okay? :angel:

nanoman
10-30-2006, 08:57 PM
I hope he recovers in time. I'm certainly no fan of him, but having him around will provide an extra tension to this federer fan.

Sunset of Age
10-30-2006, 09:04 PM
I hope he recovers in time. I'm certainly no fan of him, but having him around will provide an extra tension to this federer fan.

That sounds like a reasonable opinion indeed. ;)
The tennis circuit wouldn't be as enjoyable without Rafa. Reason enough to want to see him BACK on the court asap.
(apart from me loving the guy anyways, BTW)

marti_228
10-30-2006, 09:06 PM
Feds was injured last year. People weren't even sure he was going play.

Oh yes,he was in a wheelchair the day before the Masters Cup started!
Nalbandian was even training, he was going fishing to Patagonia with some friends. I think it's unfair what a lot of people say about his title last year.
Again, i think Nadal is going to win.
I'm definetely not waiting for the WTA YEC to start. Women's tennis is soooo boring these days with some exceptions.

RogersGirl
10-30-2006, 09:09 PM
aww this sucks, feel better rafa :hug: i was so looking forward to his masters cup debut

Johnny Groove
10-30-2006, 09:11 PM
Without Nadal, Federer is undefeated this year (except for that Murray BS)

:rolleyes:

Sunset of Age
10-30-2006, 09:14 PM
Without Nadal, Federer is undefeated this year (except for that Murray BS)

:rolleyes:

Yeah indeed.
Reason enough to want Rafa to return!

Metis
10-30-2006, 09:21 PM
I'm definetely not waiting for the WTA YEC to start. Women's tennis is soooo boring these days with some exceptions.
On the contrary, I think that the YEC are going to be much more exciting than the MC, if all 8 qualifiers show up healthy. Just look at the list. :)

Skyward
10-30-2006, 09:28 PM
Feds was injured last year. People weren't even sure he was going play.

I smell Fedtardism. :p He was healthy enough to reach the final.

gooner88
10-30-2006, 09:33 PM
This injury to Rafa sounds similar to the one Nalbo had at the Aussie and French Opens earlier this year.
Get well soon Rafa.

Metis
10-30-2006, 09:37 PM
I smell Fedtardism. :p He was healthy enough to reach the final.
:haha: That is indeed very serious. What should I do doctor? How can I be cured?

Regenbogen
10-30-2006, 09:40 PM
I hope he's able to play, I don't want a TMC like last year :lol:

Rogiman
10-30-2006, 10:24 PM
:haha: That is indeed very serious. What should I do doctor? How can I be cured?Only Rafa=Fed Killa's perfection will cure you :lol:

Seriously though, I hope he recovers soon, he's by far world #2 and the TMC will lose some of its credibility if he doesn't show up.

Bremen
10-30-2006, 10:27 PM
I so hope he'll be there! GET WELL SOON, Rafa!

Good to read his nice words on Rogi again, BTW.

Oh please...he's constantly saying this. I've mentioned this before how it benefits nadal to proclaim roger the best ever.

exampe..."Roger is the best of all time. By the way who has beaten him 6 times??? That's right, me!"

Give me a break.

Ernham
10-30-2006, 10:31 PM
Oh please...he's constantly saying this. I've mentioned this before how it benefits nadal to proclaim roger the best ever.

exampe..."Roger is the best of all time. By the way who has beaten him 6 times??? That's right, me!"

Give me a break.

My avatar says it all. Dude is just a hypocritical, self-serving dickwad.

Bremen
10-30-2006, 10:41 PM
My avatar says it all. Dude is just a hypocritical, self-serving dickwad.

I love that avatar...don't change it for a while!:worship:

Sunset of Age
10-30-2006, 11:18 PM
My avatar says it all. Dude is just a hypocritical, self-serving dickwad.

Oh, come on. The guy isn't the Angel some of his fans think he is :rolleyes: - but this goes too far. He's a nice guy, and I truly hope that he'll regain his form soon.

WF4EVER
10-30-2006, 11:34 PM
I have to wonder why these players won't take sufficient time to allow themselves to heal properly. Sometimes you see players pulling out of matches on consecutive weeks citing injury. Why not just stay away from the courts until you are properly healed?

Kim Clijsters is a major culprit of this; she's always returning from injury too soon. Nadal better not follow because he could end up with a more serious injury than he started with.

GlennMirnyi
10-30-2006, 11:37 PM
Nobody benefits if he is not fully fit.

Everybody that likes tennis as a sport benefits.

Sunset of Age
10-30-2006, 11:47 PM
Oh please...he's constantly saying this. I've mentioned this before how it benefits nadal to proclaim roger the best ever.

exampe..."Roger is the best of all time. By the way who has beaten him 6 times??? That's right, me!"

Give me a break.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And what if Rafa actually MEANS what he says?
I get that impression. If he were the hypocrite a lot of people seem to think he is, do you really think he'd be there watching a Real Madrid-Barcelona football match - sitting next to Roger???

The guy's okay. Roger thinks so. I do as well. Give the guy a break, people. :wavey:

marti_228
10-31-2006, 12:04 AM
On the contrary, I think that the YEC are going to be much more exciting than the MC, if all 8 qualifiers show up healthy. Just look at the list. :)

It can be exciting but I don't find the way most of the women play attractive. And i think the Williams are quite responsible for that, in a way, I think they imposed the style of who hits the ball harder. It has less variations.

guga2120
10-31-2006, 12:13 AM
Everybody that likes tennis as a sport benefits.


thats a bunch of crap, its the opposite of that, Nadal is the only guy that can step on a court with Federer,playing well, since Safin AUS 2005, and straight up beat him.

Ernham
10-31-2006, 12:16 AM
Oh, come on. The guy isn't the Angel some of his fans think he is :rolleyes: - but this goes too far. He's a nice guy, and I truly hope that he'll regain his form soon.

A nice guy? Nope. I used to think that he was an decent guy. Sure he is ugly, and sure his game is even uglier, but as far as the person? That was harder to figure out due his mediocre English. But actions speak louder than words, and I read those loud and clear. Maybe you'd like to explain why your "nice guy" is here shushing a crowd with his finger yet when someone else does it to him, they are suddenly "a bad person". What's that make Rafa?

guga2120
10-31-2006, 12:22 AM
A nice guy? Nope. I used to think that he was an decent guy. Sure he is ugly, and sure his game is even uglier, but as far as the person? That was harder to figure out due his mediocre English. But actions speak louder than words, and I read those loud and clear. Maybe you'd like to explain why your "nice guy" is here shushing a crowd with his finger yet when someone else does it to him, they are suddenly "a bad person". What's that make Rafa?


did he do that after beating somebody in there homecountry? Its one thing to shut people up during a point its a another to do it after you win the match. When was that from?

Metis
10-31-2006, 12:22 AM
It can be exciting but I don't find the way most of the women play attractive. And i think the Williams are quite responsible for that, in a way, I think they imposed the style of who hits the ball harder. It has less variations.
Well, Amelie, JHH and Martina at least have variety in their game.

Deboogle!.
10-31-2006, 12:24 AM
did he do that after beating somebody in there homecountry? Its one thing to shut people up during a point its a another to do it after you win the match. When was that from?I don't really see what the difference is, i don't think it's better or worse whether it's after a point during the match or at the end of the match, it's the same gesture. On the other hand, I don't think it's evidence that someone's a bad person anyway.

Hopefully he's ok for Shanghai but if he's not I hope he doesn't push it.

marti_228
10-31-2006, 12:28 AM
Well, Amelie, JHH and Martina at least have variety in their game.

Yes, of course. I'd add Clijsters to that list. In the first post I said there were some exceptions.

Ernham
10-31-2006, 12:40 AM
Berdych wins, walks toward the net....
Berdych "good match..."
Nadal "You are a bad person..."
Berdych "??????"
Nadal " ...very bad"

Nadal immediately gets an interview on the court where he adds "stupid" as well as "bad" to describe Berdych. Much later he is given another interview where he "confirms" that Berdych is indeed a bad person, and that shushing the crowd is bad because it's good that the crowd is involved in matches. he's got an attitude only a mother could excuse.

TenHound
10-31-2006, 12:42 AM
Not play on the slowcourts of YearEnds - Horseshit. That's just CYA nonsense to cover for the fact that he refused to play Basel 'cuz Roger would have creamed him. And he likewise would have gotten crushed on fast courts of Paris, but had to come up w/a better excuse since it's a Masters. He's a poor sport par excellence, as he demonstated most recently in Madrid. Just an arrogant punk who can't disappear from tennis soon enough :(

guga2120
10-31-2006, 12:45 AM
Berdych wins, walks toward the net....
Berdych "good match..."
Nadal "You are a bad person..."
Berdych "??????"
Nadal " ...very bad"

Nadal immediately gets an interview on the court where he adds "stupid" as well as "bad" to describe Berdych. Much later he is given another interview where he "confirms" that Berdych is indeed a bad person, and that shushing the crowd is bad because it's good that the crowd is involved in matches. he's got an attitude only a mother could excuse.

So if Nadal had beaten Agassi in New York, and did that, it would be no big deal, and if Agassi said he is wrong, hes a bad person?

cmurray
10-31-2006, 12:52 AM
So if Nadal had beaten Agassi in New York, and did that, it would be no big deal, and if Agassi said he is wrong, hes a bad person?


Don't bother, Guga. It isn't worth it.

Ernham
10-31-2006, 12:53 AM
So if Nadal had beaten Agassi in New York, and did that, it would be no big deal, and if Agassi said he is wrong, hes a bad person?

Agassi would not call someone stupid or "bad person" for something like that. Since Nadal's hypocrisy and actions are completely inexcusable, I'm not even sure what you are rambling on about here.

Metis
10-31-2006, 12:55 AM
Yes, of course. I'd add Clijsters to that list. In the first post I said there were some exceptions.
That's 4 out of 8 YEC participants. Variety versus power!

Of course this is not representative of the WTA tour as a whole. I was only comparing the top players' field of the WTA versus the ATP now that both men's and women's championship tournaments are coming up. My point was that the women's field will provide for more exciting competition and entertainment.


As for the posters that are still stuck on the whole shushing incident: Please move on! Don't you have anything else to talk about? This subject has been discussed to death. :rolleyes: :help:

cmurray
10-31-2006, 01:04 AM
That's 4 out of 8 YEC participants. Variety versus power!

Of course this is not representative of the WTA tour as a whole. I was only comparing the top players' field of the WTA versus the ATP now that both men's and women's championship tournaments are coming up. My point was that the women's field will provide for more exciting competition and entertainment.


As for the posters that are still stuck on the whole shushing incident: Please move on! Don't you have anything else to talk about? This subject has been discussed to death. :rolleyes: :help:

Why, no they don't have anything else to talk about. How silly of you to ask. And just for the record (in case you missed the point made ad nauseum) Berdych=saint Rafa=all that has ever been wrong with tennis.

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 01:10 AM
thats a bunch of crap, its the opposite of that, Nadal is the only guy that can step on a court with Federer,playing well, since Safin AUS 2005, and straight up beat him.

Bunch of crap? He's a moonballer, it's good for the sport that he's not playing again the TMC.

oschemi
10-31-2006, 01:11 AM
Agassi would not call someone stupid or "bad person" for something like that. Since Nadal's hypocrisy and actions are completely inexcusable, I'm not even sure what you are rambling on about here.

Dikwads like you seriously need a life. This dead horse has been pummelled to pulp, move on, asshole!:mad:

Metis
10-31-2006, 01:11 AM
Why, no they don't have anything else to talk about. How silly of you to ask. And just for the record (in case you missed the point made ad nauseum) Berdych=saint Rafa=all that has ever been wrong with tennis.
Or rather: Feds=Jesus and Rafa=the Antichrist ;)

RickDaStick
10-31-2006, 01:12 AM
doesnt really matter. He wouldnt win a match anyways. this isnt clay

cmurray
10-31-2006, 01:14 AM
Or rather: Feds=Jesus and Rafa=the Antichrist ;)

Well, that much was a given. I just wanted to let you know that Berdych is now Saint Peter. And I think we can safely just call Rafi Satan and be done with it.

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 01:15 AM
doesnt really matter. He wouldnt win a match anyways. this isnt clay

They were fooled by Wimbledon's cupcake draw, they can't understand that.

oschemi
10-31-2006, 01:15 AM
doesnt really matter. He wouldnt win a match anyways. this isnt clay

Wow, Ivan 'the real no 2' Ljubicic has been winning a lot of matches lately:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 01:17 AM
Wow, Ivan 'the real no 2' Ljubicic has been winning a lot of matches lately:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Since the end of the clay season, he's won more titles than the "saint Nadal".

cmurray
10-31-2006, 01:18 AM
doesnt really matter. He wouldnt win a match anyways. this isnt clay

Yes. Because Rafael has NEVER won a match on anything except clay. Does the term village idiot mean anything to you?

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 01:21 AM
Watch out IvanLjubicic, you'll be called "stupid" and a "bad person". :haha:

Metis
10-31-2006, 01:22 AM
Bunch of crap? He's a moonballer, it's good for the sport that he's not playing again the TMC.

Moderators please ban the use of the word moonballer, so that some people can make at least an effort to become more original, enrich their vocabulary and not repeat themselves to the point of complete ...stupidification. :lol: :p

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 01:23 AM
Moderators please ban the use of the word moonballer, so that some people can make at least an effort to become more original, enrich their vocabulary and not repeat themselves to the point of complete ...stupidification. :lol: :p

Sorry, please don't call me a bad person! :rolleyes:

Metis
10-31-2006, 01:26 AM
Sorry, please don't call me a bad person! :rolleyes:

No, you deserve better. You're ...EVIL :p

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 01:27 AM
No, you deserve better. You're ...EVIL :p

You devil! :sad:

Metis
10-31-2006, 01:29 AM
You devil! :sad:

:devil: :devil: :devil: :lol:

Ernham
10-31-2006, 01:30 AM
Moderators please ban the use of the word moonballer, so that some people can make at least an effort to become more original, enrich their vocabulary and not repeat themselves to the point of complete ...stupidification. :lol: :p

Hey, Nadal himself likes the term. See his comments on his next years strategy for winning at Roland Garros:

http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song

Lee
10-31-2006, 01:30 AM
Sssh! :(

J'torian, you need this http://img2.menstennisforums.com/753/silence.gif

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 01:33 AM
Hey, Nadal himself likes the term. See his comments on his next years strategy for winning at Roland Garros:

http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song

:haha:

Metis
10-31-2006, 01:35 AM
Hey, Nadal himself likes the term. See his comments on his next years strategy for winning at Roland Garros:

http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song

:haha: Yes but he likes spoons more. I wouldn't mind spooning with Nadal under the moon...:devil:

Johnny Groove
10-31-2006, 01:39 AM
Wow, a thread where Nadal is bashed to no end. How original of you guys :rolleyes:

guga2120
10-31-2006, 01:41 AM
They were fooled by Wimbledon's cupcake draw, they can't understand that.

and what is his head to head with Federer on hardcourts? they did play this year on one, and a fast one at that? who won?

Moonballer? b/c he puts topspin on his shots, no Chang was a Moonballer, Nadal can hit winners off either side, defense is part of the game.
No matter if you dislike him or not, if hes not there Fed will run away with Shanghai, if Nadal is there, and Healthy, Fed might still win but atleast there is one player that is not afraid of him and can step up and give him a match.

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 01:48 AM
and what is his head to head with Federer on hardcourts? they did play this year on one, and a fast one at that? who won?

Moonballer? b/c he puts topspin on his shots, no Chang was a Moonballer, Nadal can hit winners off either side, defense is part of the game.
No matter if you dislike him or not, if hes not there Fed will run away with Shanghai, if Nadal is there, and Healthy, Fed might still win but atleast there is one player that is not afraid of him and can step up and give him a match.

Yeah, Dubai is so fast Phau defeated Agassi there and Schüttler made the SF. :rolleyes:

Ok ok ok ok.
Clement. Johansson. Berdych. Blake. Ferrero. Youzhny. Hewitt.

They are bad persons. :rolleyes:

guga2120
10-31-2006, 01:53 AM
Yeah, Dubai is so fast Phau defeated Agassi there and Schüttler made the SF. :rolleyes:

Ok ok ok ok.
Clement. Johansson. Berdych. Blake. Ferrero. Youzhny. Hewitt.

They are bad persons. :rolleyes:


ok your right Nadal sucks, hes over the hill and washed up:silly: , i know all great players at 20 won everything they play. And Agassi did say Dubai was so fast it was like playing with golfballs.
He's,Nadal, a moonballer, he puts topspin on his forehand, is that supposed to be a negative? I guess real tennis is what Max Miryni plays,:haha: , talk about one dimensional, just hit the ball as hard as you can and get the point over with, is that real tennis and not what Nadal plays?

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 01:56 AM
ok your right Nadal sucks, hes over the hill and washed up:silly: , i know all great players at 20 won everything they play. And Agassi did say Dubai was so fast it was like playing with golfballs.
He's,Nadal, a moonballer, he puts topspin on his forehand, is that supposed to be a negative? I guess real tennis is what Max Miryni plays,:haha: , talk about one dimensional, just hit the ball as hard as you can and get the point over with, is that real tennis and not what Nadal plays?

Not dealing with the Nadal issue here, but have you ever seen Max play? Hit the ball as hard as you can? He's a volleyer and slices quite a bit... :wavey:

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 01:57 AM
ok your right Nadal sucks, hes over the hill and washed up:silly: , i know all great players at 20 won everything they play. And Agassi did say Dubai was so fast it was like playing with golfballs.
He's,Nadal, a moonballer, he puts topspin on his forehand, is that supposed to be a negative? I guess real tennis is what Max Miryni plays,:haha: , talk about one dimensional, just hit the ball as hard as you can and get the point over with, is that real tennis and not what Nadal plays?

As KaxMisha proved, you know nothing about tennis. Stop embarassing yourself.

Shhh!

:haha:

RogersGirl
10-31-2006, 01:58 AM
and what is his head to head with Federer on hardcourts? they did play this year on one, and a fast one at that? who won?

Moonballer? b/c he puts topspin on his shots, no Chang was a Moonballer, Nadal can hit winners off either side, defense is part of the game.
No matter if you dislike him or not, if hes not there Fed will run away with Shanghai, if Nadal is there, and Healthy, Fed might still win but atleast there is one player that is not afraid of him and can step up and give him a match.

:worship: i absolutely agree guga:wavey:

Johnny Groove
10-31-2006, 01:59 AM
Nadal beat Mirnyi in Dubai in 2004 in straight sets :p

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 02:01 AM
Nadal beat Mirnyi in Dubai in 2004 in straight sets :p

What's that supposed to mean?

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 02:01 AM
:worship: i absolutely agree guga:wavey:

You can't AGREE with Max Mirnyi hitting the ball as hard as he can every time, because that just isn't true. It's not a matter of opinion. I mean, come on! Do Mirnyi and Gonzalez look THAT similar to you?

Johnny Groove
10-31-2006, 02:02 AM
What's that supposed to mean?

the discussion was about Nadal, Mirnyi, and Dubai, so I just made a common reference :p :p

guga2120
10-31-2006, 02:04 AM
As KaxMisha proved, you know nothing about tennis. Stop embarassing yourself.

Shhh!

:haha:

i know nothing about tennis, your the one who goes into every thread trying to take down Nadal? and i said that about Miryni b/c compared to Nadal he does suck, on any court in the world Nadal would kick his a$$.
Your the one that clearly knows nothing about tennis, Federer who is maybe the greatest ever did not do half of what Nadal has done at his age. What 20 year old outside of Borg has done what he has nobody?

I guess you care about Nadal so much b/c he has beaten Federer so many times. And come on don't say Nadal who has won 2 slams is not good and act like Max Miryni is.

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 02:04 AM
Waske defeated Nadal in Halle. That proves what for you, mate?

Johnny Groove
10-31-2006, 02:07 AM
Waske defeated Nadal in Halle. That proves what for you, mate?

In 05, right after Nadal won RG and was playing in his 2nd ever pro grass court tourney. Give me a break :rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 02:08 AM
i know nothing about tennis, your the one who goes into every thread trying to take down Nadal? and i said that about Miryni b/c compared to Nadal he does suck, on any court in the world Nadal would kick his a$$.
Your the one that clearly knows nothing about tennis, Federer who is maybe the greatest ever did not do half of what Nadal has done at his age. What 20 year old outside of Borg has done what he has nobody?

I guess you care about Nadal so much b/c he has beaten Federer so many times. And come on don't say Nadal who has won 2 slams is not good and act like Max Miryni is.

Now you made it.

Nadal would never beat Mirnyi on a fast surface. Right that down. He can't beat CLEMENT! :haha:

Go cheer for your always injured moonballer, go.

Gonzalez = hard-hitter = Mirnyi = Roddick = Soderling = YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT TENNIS.

When Nadal gets to a DC SF playing almost alone and defeating Safin on carpet we'll talk ok?

Bremen
10-31-2006, 02:08 AM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And what if Rafa actually MEANS what he says?
I get that impression. If he were the hypocrite a lot of people seem to think he is, do you really think he'd be there watching a Real Madrid-Barcelona football match - sitting next to Roger???

The guy's okay. Roger thinks so. I do as well. Give the guy a break, people. :wavey:

Sorry but practically ever interview with nadal I've read there's a comment where he has to call roger the best ever. On the surface it looks nice but it's become annoying and a ploy to take the pressure off himself and put it on Roger. Uncle toni was saying shit like he hoped fed won the french!!! Nadal has said several times..."he's number one! He's the favourite no??" On clay? I don't think so.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 02:08 AM
i know nothing about tennis, your the one who goes into every thread trying to take down Nadal? and i said that about Miryni b/c compared to Nadal he does suck, on any court in the world Nadal would kick his a$$.

True, but utterly irrelevant. Your description of his style of play still was nothing like the truth. Whether or Nadal is better than Mirnyi or not (which he, of course, is), has nothing to do with it. :wavey:

RogersGirl
10-31-2006, 02:09 AM
You can't AGREE with Max Mirnyi hitting the ball as hard as he can every time, because that just isn't true. It's not a matter of opinion. I mean, come on! Do Mirnyi and Gonzalez look THAT similar to you?

i meant the part about nadal's h2h w/federer and his significance in shanghai... sorry didn't mean to offend you :awww:

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 02:09 AM
In 05, right after Nadal won RG and was playing in his 2nd ever pro grass court tourney. Give me a break :rolleyes:

Nobody banned Nadal from grass tournaments. He didn't play because he didn't want to.

Mimi
10-31-2006, 02:13 AM
sometimes i believe that Glenn is in fact a nadal fans, coz whenever there is a thread about nadal, we gonna see him there ;)

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 02:14 AM
i meant the part about nadal's h2h w/federer and his significance in shanghai... sorry didn't mean to offend you :awww:

You didn't offend me. I couldn't care less about Mirnyi's game. Just pointing out that his description of it wasn't accurate in any way. :wavey:

Johnny Groove
10-31-2006, 02:14 AM
Nobody banned Nadal from grass tournaments. He didn't play because he didn't want to.

once again, you miss the point. Rafa was in no position to win a match on grass considering his fatigue and lack of experience on the surface. But, he wanted to get some practice on the surface, and he was humbled.

guga2120
10-31-2006, 02:14 AM
Now you made it.

Nadal would never beat Mirnyi on a fast surface. Right that down. He can't beat CLEMENT! :haha:

Go cheer for your always injured moonballer, go.

Gonzalez = hard-hitter = Mirnyi = Roddick = Soderling = YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT TENNIS.

When Nadal gets to a DC SF playing almost alone and defeating Safin on carpet we'll talk ok?
:haha:
Your hilarious with all this, maybe they will play one day, i know Mirny is Nadal's big worry, maybe they will play in Shanghai, oh know thats right Mirnyi is like 100 in the world:wavey: ,
I would love to see Nadal play all those people you just said in Australia and see what happens, and Clement? that was his first tournament in like 5 months.
Do you honestly except a 20 year just coming into his game to win every tournament, and i don't care if they were playing on glass, Nadal, healthy, would kick Miryni' ass./

Sunset of Age
10-31-2006, 02:15 AM
Sorry but practically ever interview with nadal I've read there's a comment where he has to call roger the best ever. On the surface it looks nice but it's become annoying and a ploy to take the pressure off himself and put it on Roger. Uncle toni was saying shit like he hoped fed won the french!!! Nadal has said several times..."he's number one! He's the favourite no??" On clay? I don't think so.

Doesn't just *that* prove Rafa's a nice guy? :rolleyes:

Well, whatever Ye Tards - of BOTH kinds -say -
I honestly think both Rogi and Rafa are nice guys, and I just can't wait to see both of them lovely guys on the same side of the net. Guess it's just me. :angel:

Give the both of these fine gentelmen a break.... please! :angel:

Metis
10-31-2006, 02:18 AM
sometimes i believe that Glenn is in fact a nadal fans, coz whenever there is a thread about nadal, we gonna see him there ;)
I bet he has 'Rafa fist-pumping' posters on the inside door of his closet... :devil:

Mimi
10-31-2006, 02:19 AM
yeah :devil:
I bet he has 'Rafa fist-pumping' posters on the inside door of his closet... :devil:

guga2120
10-31-2006, 02:19 AM
I bet he has 'Rafa fist-pumping' posters on the inside door of his closet... :devil:

Thats what im thinking, if he thought so low of him he would not waste time posting about him. He must love him.

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 02:19 AM
:haha:
Your hilarious with all this, maybe they will play one day, i know Mirny is Nadal's big worry, maybe they will play in Shanghai, oh know thats right Mirnyi is like 100 in the world:wavey: ,
I would love to see Nadal play all those people you just said in Australia and see what happens, and Clement? that was his first tournament in like 5 months.
Do you honestly except a 20 year just coming into his game to win every tournament, and i don't care if they were playing on glass, Nadal, healthy, would kick Miryni' ass./

Of course, Federer hasn't lost to Mirnyi in 2003. Noooooo... he's just a joke.




The great Nadal lost to Waske on grass, the guy that plays since 2000 as a pro and has an ATP record of 4-11 on grass with a loss to SANGUINETTI.
Ok, too much.

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 02:22 AM
Thats what im thinking, if he thought so low of him he would not waste time posting about him. He must love him.

yeah :devil:

I bet he has 'Rafa fist-pumping' posters on the inside door of his closet... :devil:

Wake me up when he stops gettin' spanked. :wavey:

guga2120
10-31-2006, 02:25 AM
Wake me up when he stops gettin' spanked. :wavey:

:haha: spanked, he should proably retire, he keeps losing to qualifiers in the 1st round.

I wouldn't watch the Australian Open next year, i doubt you will like it. And then the French Open, well you never know he might get lucky.

Mimi
10-31-2006, 02:25 AM
aren't you already wake up? otherwise how come you can make so many posts :confused: :devil:
Wake me up when he stops gettin' spanked. :wavey:

Bremen
10-31-2006, 02:28 AM
Doesn't just *that* prove Rafa's a nice guy? :rolleyes:

Well, whatever Ye Tards - of BOTH kinds -say -
I honestly think both Rogi and Rafa are nice guys, and I just can't wait to see both of them lovely guys on the same side of the net. Guess it's just me. :angel:

Give the both of these fine gentelmen a break.... please! :angel:

You think that proves he's a nice guy? Well none of us can say for sure but I find it suspect when he's calling roger the favourite at the french. Why does he have to keep mentioning it anyway? It bugs me to no end.

Metis
10-31-2006, 02:29 AM
Of course, Federer hasn't lost to Mirnyi in 2003. Noooooo... he's just a joke.
Come on! Mirnyi is a great doubles player and I really admire him for that. But don't try to sell him as a great singles player because he is not. If he was he wouldn't concentrate on a doubles career. There is no point in comparing him with the likes of Nadal:

Mirnyi
Age 30
Singles titles 1
Doubles titles 31

Nadal
Age 20
Singles titles 17
Doubles titles 3

I rest my case...

Sunset of Age
10-31-2006, 02:44 AM
You think that proves he's a nice guy? Well none of us can say for sure but I find it suspect when he's calling roger the favourite at the french. Why does he have to keep mentioning it anyway? It bugs me to no end.

I guess Rafa admits Rogi is his superior, and I can only bow to that. :worship:
Why does that bug you so much? Doesn't it show that Rafa is a honest guy?

NB: I'm NO Rafa tard...

Bremen
10-31-2006, 02:47 AM
I guess Rafa admits Rogi is his superior, and I can only bow to that. :worship:
Why does that bug you so much? Doesn't it show that Rafa is a honest guy?

NB: I'm NO Rafa tard...

Is it honesty for him to say that roger is the favourite always?? No...I didn't think so.

DDrago2
10-31-2006, 02:49 AM
Nadal sinned throughout the seasons of 2006 and 2005 In the future he will have to repay

Sunset of Age
10-31-2006, 02:52 AM
Is it honesty for him to say that roger is the favourite always?? No...I didn't think so.

Your words, I think, and I respect your opinion.
As for me, I believe that Rafa acknowledges Rogi's superiosity.
And all I can do to that is bow.... :worship:

Sunset of Age
10-31-2006, 02:56 AM
Nadal sinned throughout the seasons of 2006 and 2005 In the future he will have to repay

Why? Rafa did a wonderful job, and I sincerely hope he'll recover,
He's a fine guy, a wonderful player, Roger likes him, what's the problem?:D

Bremen
10-31-2006, 03:00 AM
Your words, I think, and I respect your opinion.
As for me, I believe that Rafa acknowledges Rogi's superiosity.
And all I can do to that is bow.... :worship:

He does this so that it benefits him. It makes him seem humble and also gives him a cushion if he loses. "What can I say? I lost to the best!" And if he wins "Well I can beat maybe the best of all time! What does that say about me?"

Anyway I don't think I can convince you no matter what I say so this seems pretty silly now.

DDrago2
10-31-2006, 03:05 AM
Why? Rafa did a wonderful job, and I sincerely hope he'll recover,
He's a fine guy, a wonderful player, Roger likes him, what's the problem?:D

Discused so many times:
- Abused rules
- Intentionaly irritated oponents
- Promoted silly behaviour
- Promoted unclassy moonballing tennis
- Made advantage of the easy draws
and so on and so on...

Clara Bow
10-31-2006, 03:08 AM
Oh another thread that has turned into Nadal bashing....wouldn't expect anything less from MTF.

Hope that he is able to play Shanghai. The news sounds better now than it did a day ago.

guga2120
10-31-2006, 03:10 AM
Discused so many times:
- Abused rules
- Intentionaly irritated oponents
- Promoted silly behaviour
- Promoted unclassy moonballing tennis
- Made advantage of the easy draws
and so on and so on...


your like G.Miryni, thats just your opinion and, i have seen Nadal play alot and do not get the moonballing thing is that b/c of topspin? Off the ground he kills the ball, and made advantage of easy draws, so you think those 2 Master Series on clay and The French were b/c of the draw:silly: , you or anybody else could make the draw for Nadal on clay and he would still win the tournament.

Sunset of Age
10-31-2006, 03:11 AM
Dear people, as I said before - I don't chose a side.
I respect all players, and that includes Rafa. I think the tennis circuit benefits from Rafa's presence, whatever...

Please don't bash me. That's all I say for now.

Metis
10-31-2006, 03:31 AM
Dear people, as I said before - I don't chose a side.
I respect all players, and that includes Rafa. I think the tennis circuit benefits from Rafa's presence, whatever...

Please don't bash me. That's all I say for now.
Since you don't choose a side, you will be bashed by both Fedtards and Rafatards. :p

soraya
10-31-2006, 03:46 AM
Oh, come on. The guy isn't the Angel some of his fans think he is :rolleyes: - but this goes too far. He's a nice guy, and I truly hope that he'll regain his form soon.

Wish him a speedy recovery, but as someone already stated I don't know why he has to mention Roger in his interviews all the time, even when he is not asked about him. With all the H2H and what not, I think Nadal is the one who is obsessed with Roger and not the other way around.

Sunset of Age
10-31-2006, 03:51 AM
Since you don't choose a side, you will be bashed by both Fedtards and Rafatards. :p

Tell me! :devil:

Sunset of Age
10-31-2006, 03:57 AM
Since you don't choose a side, you will be bashed by both Fedtards and Rafatards. :p

I'm a MASOCHIST! :D :D :D

Bremen
10-31-2006, 05:37 AM
Wish him a speedy recovery, but as someone already stated I don't know why he has to mention Roger in his interviews all the time, even when he is not asked about him. With all the H2H and what not, I think Nadal is the one who is obsessed with Roger and not the other way around.

Yeah I agree with you. In one of his latest interviews he said he doesn't expect to be number 1 next year because Roger is just too good. Again that's giving himself a cushion for disapointing results...or he'll be able to say "wow I never expected to be #1 in the era of the greatest of all time! I'm so amazing!!"

he should concentrate on just playing his best instead of thinking of fed.

mandoura
10-31-2006, 05:58 AM
Wish him a speedy recovery, but as someone already stated I don't know why he has to mention Roger in his interviews all the time, even when he is not asked about him. With all the H2H and what not, I think Nadal is the one who is obsessed with Roger and not the other way around.

You've noticed too? I was thinking the same. :)

atheneglaukopis
10-31-2006, 05:58 AM
I'm a MASOCHIST! :D :D :DAwww. :hug: I'm with you.

I hope Rafa can safely play this time. The poor guy last year, and then he did a good job of cutting back on his schedule this year...:awww:

mandoura
10-31-2006, 06:04 AM
He does this so that it benefits him. It makes him seem humble and also gives him a cushion if he loses. "What can I say? I lost to the best!" And if he wins "Well I can beat maybe the best of all time! What does that say about me?"

Anyway I don't think I can convince you no matter what I say so this seems pretty silly now.

As much as I like Rafa, I totally agree with you.

Bremen
10-31-2006, 06:30 AM
Finally someone has seen the light!!:worship:

Castafiore
10-31-2006, 07:40 AM
But, Rafa gets asked a LOT about Roger so he talks about him often. Almost in every single interview he does, he gets asked about him and funnily enough, his opinion on Roger doesn't seem to change from interview to interview so it's usually about the same answer.
What do you expect him to do? Invent a new answer with every Roger question asked? Let the press know that they should stop asking him about Roger all the damn time?

Mimi
10-31-2006, 07:43 AM
so truth :wavey:
But, Rafa gets asked a LOT about Roger so he talks about him often. Almost in every single interview he does, he gets asked about him and funnily enough, his opinion on Roger doesn't seem to change from interview to interview so it's usually about the same answer.
What do you expect him to do? Invent a new answer with every Roger question asked? Let the press know that they should stop asking him about Roger all the damn time?

Nadie
10-31-2006, 07:54 AM
This year Shanghai Masters seems to be :help: again....






btw I wonder how did this thread turn out to discussion about Max? :eek: :rolls:

Nadal would never beat Mirnyi on a fast surface.

:haha: Gu you were kidding no?

Rogiman
10-31-2006, 07:58 AM
Waske defeated Nadal in Halle. That proves what for you, mate?Yes, Nadal has no business playing finals at Wimbledon.

The pride of those holy lawns will never be restored after Piggy has contaminated them :sad:

mandoura
10-31-2006, 08:27 AM
But, Rafa gets asked a LOT about Roger so he talks about him often. Almost in every single interview he does, he gets asked about him and funnily enough, his opinion on Roger doesn't seem to change from interview to interview so it's usually about the same answer.
What do you expect him to do? Invent a new answer with every Roger question asked? Let the press know that they should stop asking him about Roger all the damn time?

Of course if he is asked about Roger, he will mention him. But i get the feeling, even if he is not asked about him, he still mentions Roger.

Tell me, and I am really asking not being sarcastic or anything, when Rafa got the idea of asking Roger to play doubles with him in Madrid, was it his original idea or was it suggested by a reporter?

And for the record, I am a fan of Rafa too.

Castafiore
10-31-2006, 09:11 AM
But i get the feeling, even if he is not asked about him, he still mentions Roger.
Rafa doesn't get asked from time to time about Roger. No, he gets asked about him in nearly every single interview he does as far as I can tell. His latest interview on France 2 (Stade 2) was another fine example of that.

I do get the feeling that in his interviews, he likes to push away some of the pressure by putting himself into an underdog position. On many surfaces, that's not such a strange notion to me but...well, yes, on clay..it does tend to get a bit much perhaps.
Personally, I never see Roger as being the underdog in any match and not even against Rafa on clay since I feel that Roger is capable of beating Rafa on clay as well.

I'm not really going to go on about this topic because...well, Rafa is damned if he does say something and damned if he doesn't on MTF these days and people will think what they want to think.

Kalliopeia
10-31-2006, 11:20 AM
Of course if he is asked about Roger, he will mention him. But i get the feeling, even if he is not asked about him, he still mentions Roger.

I've never noticed him bringing up Roger when he wasn't either directly asked about him or asked something that would naturally lead to a mention of Roger. It's not like he sits down with an interviewer and says "Oh, before we start, Roger is the best!" The thing is, he is always asked about Roger.

Tell me, and I am really asking not being sarcastic or anything, when Rafa got the idea of asking Roger to play doubles with him in Madrid, was it his original idea or was it suggested by a reporter?

Hmm, I don't think it was suggested by a reporter, but I don't remember exactly and don't have time before I leave for work to find the article.

mandoura
10-31-2006, 11:37 AM
Rafa doesn't get asked from time to time about Roger. No, he gets asked about him in nearly every single interview he does as far as I can tell. His latest interview on France 2 (Stade 2) was another fine example of that.

I do get the feeling that in his interviews, he likes to push away some of the pressure by putting himself into an underdog position. On many surfaces, that's not such a strange notion to me but...well, yes, on clay..it does tend to get a bit much perhaps.
Personally, I never see Roger as being the underdog in any match and not even against Rafa on clay since I feel that Roger is capable of beating Rafa on clay as well.

I'm not really going to go on about this topic because...well, Rafa is damned if he does say something and damned if he doesn't on MTF these days and people will think what they want to think.

That's what I meant. But mind you, it doesn't bother me at all. He is the way he is and I like him for it.

And you're right, people will believe what they want to believe. It's annoying sometime. Just ignore it. You know how you feel about him and that's what matters. :)


I've never noticed him bringing up Roger when he wasn't either directly asked about him or asked something that would naturally lead to a mention of Roger. It's not like he sits down with an interviewer and says "Oh, before we start, Roger is the best!" The thing is, he is always asked about Roger.

Hmm, I don't think it was suggested by a reporter, but I don't remember exactly and don't have time before I leave for work to find the article.

Ok, thanks. I don't read every player's interview, sometimes simply because I cannot find them. :o :)

As I said earlier, he is the way he is. For me, whether I approve or disapprove of what he says or does is irrelevant. I like him anyway. :)

cmurray
10-31-2006, 12:31 PM
Raf talks about Roger because he's always ALWAYS asked about him. Face it, people - we are NOT going to escape the Rofa anytime soon.

And if it makes you feel better to say that Raf is a terrible player, go ahead and think so - I doubt very highly if it bothers Rafa that GlennMirnyi doesn't like him. You ask me, the Rafa hatred simply stems from the fact that he creams Federer most of the time. That's okay. I didn't like Pete because he beat Andre - it's the nature of fandom. But don't go around making other excuses for not liking the guy. As others have pointed out, even Federer the Messiah likes him a lot (and vice versa), so he can't be the horrible person you all make him out to be.

On Rafa calling Roger the favorite....couldn't it possibly be that Rafi is just one of those guys who was taught not to go around saying "Hey! I'm the best there is on clay. YEAH, baby!" Knowing what we know about his family and the way he was brought up, that seems a far more likely possibility than that he's trying to brag in a very round-about way. But then again, since Rafa is Satan, we should always assume the worst about him.

megadeth
10-31-2006, 12:40 PM
might withdraw again? there's no point for the masters cup race anymore since even berdych might qualify :rolleyes:

poor nadal, if he keeps withdrawing like this in tmc, time will come that even if he's healthy by year's end, he might not even qualify since he can't maintain that level of tennis anymore hehehehe :p

(quickly ducks at the stuff that the rafatards threw)

cmurray
10-31-2006, 12:45 PM
might withdraw again? there's no point for the masters cup race anymore since even berdych might qualify :rolleyes:

poor nadal, if he keeps withdrawing like this in tmc, time will come that even if he's healthy by year's end, he might not even qualify since he can't maintain that level of tennis anymore hehehehe :p

(quickly ducks at the stuff that the rafatards threw)

You DO realize that you can like Rafa and not be a Rafatard, right??? :rolleyes:

Ernham
10-31-2006, 12:47 PM
You DO realize that you can like Rafa and not be a Rafatard, right??? :rolleyes:

That means you'd have to actually like him for the tennis he plays.

Rogiman
10-31-2006, 12:49 PM
That means you'd have to actually like him for the tennis he plays.And who would...? :haha:

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 12:56 PM
That means you'd have to actually like him for the tennis he plays.

That is unfathomable. I think they like him for non-tennis related stuff, like "on-court presence", "charisma", "intensity" and the likes.

cmurray
10-31-2006, 01:05 PM
That is unfathomable. I think they like him for non-tennis related stuff, like "on-court presence", "charisma", "intensity" and the likes.

I DO like him for those things. I also like his tennis. He is an extremely talented player who is capable of turning defense to offense at the flick of the wrist. Nearly every match, he hits a shot that doesn't even seem possible thanks to his amazing footspeed.

Are you all really so childish that you can't fathom why somebody would like Raf's tennis? Come on now.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 01:09 PM
I DO like him for those things. I also like his tennis. He is an extremely talented player who is capable of turning defense to offense at the flick of the wrist. Nearly every match, he hits a shot that doesn't even seem possible thanks to his amazing footspeed.

Are you all really so childish that you can't fathom why somebody would like Raf's tennis? Come on now.

What does "childish" have to do with it? Nothing. Yes, it is unfathomable to me and I'll be more than happy to explain why. I won't say stupid things like "he can't do anything but moonball" or the like, because that's not true and essentially just anti-Nadal fanboyism (I hope it's very clear by now that I recent all forms of fanboyism). No, it's not the ONLY thing he can do, but it is what he does best and what he bases his game on. That is irrefutable and that is why I dislike his tennis. Come on, can you seriously tell me that you enjoy Nadal's tennis more than Federer's tennis, disregarding all their other differences?

cmurray
10-31-2006, 02:01 PM
What does "childish" have to do with it? Nothing. Yes, it is unfathomable to me and I'll be more than happy to explain why. I won't say stupid things like "he can't do anything but moonball" or the like, because that's not true and essentially just anti-Nadal fanboyism (I hope it's very clear by now that I recent all forms of fanboyism). No, it's not the ONLY thing he can do, but it is what he does best and what he bases his game on. That is irrefutable and that is why I dislike his tennis. Come on, can you seriously tell me that you enjoy Nadal's tennis more than Federer's tennis, disregarding all their other differences?

First, let me say that I am not trying to be disrespectful of you with anything I say in this post (I too hate fanboyism) - I am trying to explain where I am coming from.

"Childish" has EVERYTHING to do with it. Children are incapable of perceiving things from somebody else's perspective. You say his moonballing (can I assume by this term what you mean is defensive tennis?) is why YOU dislike his tennis. Is it rational to assume that EVERYONE shares your belief of defensive tennis?

I happen to like the way Rafa plays tennis. I can say this truthfully, because tennis is about more than just the way you hold you raquet or the way you hit your forehand. It is also about atheletcism. It's about knowing when to make your move from defense to offense. Sometimes it is about wearing your opponent down until they make a mistake. It's about believing that somehow you can win even when you're playing badly.

Andrea Bocelli is a better singer than Bono. He is classically trained, his range is amazing. You'd be hardpressed to find someone who would say "yes, Bono is by FAR the superior vocal talent". Does that mean that every person in the world ought to like Bocelli better than U2? Following your logic, that's EXACTLY what it would mean.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 02:15 PM
First, let me say that I am not trying to be disrespectful of you with anything I say in this post (I too hate fanboyism) - I am trying to explain where I am coming from.

"Childish" has EVERYTHING to do with it. Children are incapable of perceiving things from somebody else's perspective. You say his moonballing (can I assume by this term what you mean is defensive tennis?) is why YOU dislike his tennis. Is it rational to assume that EVERYONE shares your belief of defensive tennis?

I happen to like the way Rafa plays tennis. I can say this truthfully, because tennis is about more than just the way you hold you raquet or the way you hit your forehand. It is also about atheletcism. It's about knowing when to make your move from defense to offense. Sometimes it is about wearing your opponent down until they make a mistake. It's about believing that somehow you can win even when you're playing badly.

Andrea Bocelli is a better singer than Bono. He is classically trained, his range is amazing. You'd be hardpressed to find someone who would say "yes, Bono is by FAR the superior vocal talent". Does that mean that every person in the world ought to like Bocelli better than U2? Following your logic, that's EXACTLY what it would mean.

No, childish has nothing to do with it. It's unfathomable TO ME how someone can find his tennis entertaining because TO ME, it's more boring than... I don't know. Than watching Spice World (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120185/). It's also unfathomable TO ME how anyone can listen to U2 without crushing his head against the wall in disgust. Then again, that's just me. Please answer my question: if you look at their tennis only and put the other differences aside, can you honestly say you prefer Nadal's tennis to Federer's? TO ME, that is unfathomable beyond belief.

P.S. Following your reasoning, I can't say that the idea of being a pedophile is unfathomable to me because there are people who are pedophiles...

cmurray
10-31-2006, 02:20 PM
No, childish has nothing to do with it. It's unfathomable TO ME how someone can find his tennis entertaining because TO ME, it's more boring than... I don't know. Than watching Spice World (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120185/). It's also unfathomable TO ME how anyone can listen to U2 without crushing his head against the wall in disgust. Then again, that's just me. Please answer my question: if you look at their tennis only and put the other differences aside, can you honestly say you prefer Nadal's tennis to Federer's? TO ME, that is unfathomable beyond belief.

P.S. Following your reasoning, I can't say that the idea of being a pedophile is unfathomable to me because there are people who are pedophiles...


Right. As I said, childish is not understanding how anyone can have a different opinion than yours. TO ME.

And comparing tennis style preferences to pedophilia is.....well, there are hardly words.

Clara Bow
10-31-2006, 02:25 PM
Well said cmurray.

I enjoy a variety of styles. From the pretty of the Federer and Gasquet to the quirky of the Santoro to the serve and volley of Henman to the power game styles of folks like Tursunov to the scrappy defense that can turn to offense of Nadal. When Nadal is on his game, I love his ability to make incredible gets and sometimes shot amazing winners (such as his round the post winner against Ferrer in RG 2005 and the amazing winner he shot during Madrid where his knees were a centimeter from the ground.) I enjoy seeing raw talent refined, but then I also enjoy seeing players who play with real heart and scrap. (I am a big Hewitt fan too and miss the days when he was in his prime.)

I have always liked a variety in sports. Thats one reason whey I liked say, for example the offensive minded San Francisco 49-ers in the 1980s but also loved the tough defensive Chicago Bears. (Though this year- offense is at home in Chi-town.)

I understand that not everyone will not like the same styles or players that I do. But- I don't like the assumption sometimes that if you like certain players- you can't be a "real" tennis fan - or even worse, unintelligent (gotta say I do not like insulting of player's fans collective IQs just because they like someone another person may not.) Just because people may have different preferences does not mean that their respective preferences are invalid. I happen to like all things that go into tennis, the stokes, the heart, the hustle. Some players may have more than the other. And that too me is what makes the game exciting. To see how all of these different puzzle pieces fit together.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 02:31 PM
Right. As I said, childish is not understanding how anyone can have a different opinion than yours. TO ME.

And comparing tennis style preferences to pedophilia is.....well, there are hardly words.

No, that's not what childish is. Childish is not acknowledging that anyone can have another opinion. I never did that. I said that how anyone can like Nadal's tennis is unfathomable TO ME. I didn't say that no one does. See the difference? And I didn't compare tennis style preferences to pedophilia. That's not what I said. What I said was that following your reasoning, I cannot say that anything that someone stands for is unfathomable to me. As there are pedophiles, I cannot say that the concept of pedophilia is unfathomable to me. I'm not comparing pedophilie to tennis style preferences, I'm showing you the implications of your reasoning. If you cannot see this, you need to take a course in logics (I don't mean this in an offensive way - just stating a fact).

P.S. Why are you dodging my question? Ignoring all their differences but their playing style, who do you prefer, Federer or Nadal? Looking at their tennis only - whose tennis is more attractive to you?

Metis
10-31-2006, 02:32 PM
No, childish has nothing to do with it. It's unfathomable TO ME how someone can find his tennis entertaining because TO ME, it's more boring than... I don't know. Than watching Spice World (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120185/). It's also unfathomable TO ME how anyone can listen to U2 without crushing his head against the wall in disgust. Then again, that's just me. Please answer my question: if you look at their tennis only and put the other differences aside, can you honestly say you prefer Nadal's tennis to Federer's? TO ME, that is unfathomable beyond belief.

P.S. Following your reasoning, I can't say that the idea of being a pedophile is unfathomable to me because there are people who are pedophiles...
I think what cmurray means and I agree with that is that there are different styles/approaches to everything in life, tennis, music, etc... Some people like only one style and are categorically opposed to the other. And then there are some people who can enjoy both. Those are the true winners IMO, because they can find the beauty and value of the different ways of looking at life. :)

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 02:34 PM
I think what cmurray means and I agree with that is that there are different styles/approaches to everything in life, tennis, music, etc... Some people like only one style and are categorically opposed to the other. And then there are some people who can enjoy both. Those are the true winners IMO, because they can find the beauty and value of the different ways of looking at life. :)

I never disagreed with any of that. Please re-read my posts.

Metis
10-31-2006, 02:43 PM
I never disagreed with any of that. Please re-read my posts.
I think YOU should re-read your posts. You say that you don't disagree with what I said, yet this whole discussion started after you said that you cannot fathom how people can like Nadal for his tennis. Your statements are contradictory.

tennisgal_001
10-31-2006, 02:45 PM
I'm not reading 11 pages of this, but I don't see the point of saying he's "doubtful for Shanghai" when he KNOWS 8 days is good enough time to recuperate :confused:
Regardless, I REALLY would like the top-8 players to be there, and not to apologize to the crowd.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 02:46 PM
I think YOU should re-read your posts. You say that you don't disagree with what I said, yet this whole discussion started after you said that you cannot fathom how people can like Nadal for his tennis. Your statements are contradictory.

No they are not. COME ON! Don't you understand the difference between me being unable to understands why some things happen and denying that they happen? I can't understand how anyone can like Nadal's tennis. I know some people do. I don't understand how some people can get turned on by having sex with dead people. I know some people do. So what? I never denied that part. All I said is that I cannot fathom how. Please, tell me you finally see the difference!

Clara Bow
10-31-2006, 02:55 PM
I can't understand how anyone can like Nadal's tennis. I know some people do. I don't understand how some people can get turned on by having sex with dead people.

So now liking Nadal's tennis is akin to something that goes as far against social mores as necrophilia? ;)

I stated it earlier and I will state it now. I like Nadal's tennis because I like his hustle, his fight to never give up when he is in the zone, and the ability to sometimes make really incredible winners.

Just the same way that I can enjoy and be a big fan of a basketball player like Joakim Noah. His techique may be bad (the arc on his jumpball does not exist), he looks like a drunken baby giraffe when he runs- but gosh darn if I don't love watching his ability to be everywhere and make incredible blocks when he plays.

For me- sport is not all about beauty. I can also enjoy real good hustle, etc. That does not make me akin to someone who digs up dead bodies to get my sexual ya-yas out.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 02:59 PM
So now liking Nadal's tennis is akin to something that goes as far against social mores as necrophilia? ;)

OH PLEASE! Are you unable to read what I'm writing? Okay, I'll try to make it as simple as possible and write it in bold capitals this time so please, do pay attention:

I AM NOT COMPARING THE TWO. I'M JUST SHOWING THE IMPLICATIONS OF CMURRAY'S REASONING ON A MORE BIZZARE EXAMPLE TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR THAT IT IS LOGICALLY UNSOUND. I AM EXPLAINING THAT ME SAYING SOMETHING IS UNFATHOMABLE ISN'T THE SAME THING AS ME SAYING IT DOESN'T EXIST!

Happy now? :wavey:

Metis
10-31-2006, 03:00 PM
OK KaxMisha. this is your initial statement:

That is unfathomable. I think they like him for non-tennis related stuff, like "on-court presence", "charisma", "intensity" and the likes.

It doesn't look like you really believe people like him for his tennis (more like denying it) contrary to what you claim in this last statement: :nerner:

No they are not. COME ON! Don't you understand the difference between me being unable to understands why some things happen and denying that they happen? I can't understand how anyone can like Nadal's tennis. I know some people do. I don't understand how some people can get turned on by having sex with dead people. I know some people do. So what? I never denied that part. All I said is that I cannot fathom how. Please, tell me you finally see the difference!

PamV
10-31-2006, 03:09 PM
I can say this truthfully, because tennis is about more than just the way you hold you raquet or the way you hit your forehand. It is also about atheletcism. It's about knowing when to make your move from defense to offense. Sometimes it is about wearing your opponent down until they make a mistake. It's about believing that somehow you can win even when you're playing badly.

Andrea Bocelli is a better singer than Bono. He is classically trained, his range is amazing. You'd be hardpressed to find someone who would say "yes, Bono is by FAR the superior vocal talent". Does that mean that every person in the world ought to like Bocelli better than U2? Following your logic, that's EXACTLY what it would mean.

What you say is true....however little details like how one holds the raquet and other form issues can some times be a key difference to playing more effectively with less effort and wear and tear. If one has good form there is less strain needed.

I like Bocelli and have never heard Bono sing.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 03:09 PM
OK KaxMisha. this is your initial statement:



It doesn't look like you really believe people like him for his tennis (more like denying it) contrary to what you claim in this last statement: :nerner:

I never said NO ONE likes his tennis. However, if you ask me whether I believe that most Nadal fans like him more for stuff other than his tennis, I will say yes. Without any doubt. Heck, even CMurray is refusing to answer whose tennis she (CMurray is a she if I recall correctly, right?) likes better, putting all other things aside, Federer's or Nadal's. That should tell you something (I'm betting she'll respond "Nadal's" in a split second now that I write this).

To recap: I never said no one could like Nadal's tennis. I said that I cannot understand how someone can and that I believe that most of his fans like him for stuff other than his tennis. My stance on that has not changed. Please, tell me we are clear now. :wavey:

PamV
10-31-2006, 03:12 PM
I smell Fedtardism. :p He was healthy enough to reach the final.
That's because he's superhuman. If he hadn't been injured he would have won the final. As it was he and Nalbandian both had one match loss in the TMC.....didn't Fed have more sets won over all in that tournament than Nalbandian?

atheneglaukopis
10-31-2006, 03:22 PM
Federer was out of form because of all the time he spent on crutches. He was fit enough to play best of three, but not best of five. Observe that he won all his best of three matches, and that if the final had been best of three, he would have won in straights. Then he got tired, couldn't run--Nalby caught on early and dropshotted him to death, all credit to him--and got his legs treated in the fourth set because he had no strength left in them.

Metis
10-31-2006, 03:32 PM
I never said NO ONE likes his tennis. However, if you ask me whether I believe that most Nadal fans like him more for stuff other than his tennis, I will say yes. Without any doubt. Heck, even CMurray is refusing to answer whose tennis she (CMurray is a she if I recall correctly, right?) likes better, putting all other things aside, Federer's or Nadal's. That should tell you something (I'm betting she'll respond "Nadal's" in a split second now that I write this).

To recap: I never said no one could like Nadal's tennis. I said that I cannot understand how someone can and that I believe that most of his fans like him for stuff other than his tennis. Me stance on that has not changed. Please, tell me we are clear now. :wavey:
Well you made your views clearer, but that still doesn't mean your previous statements didn't contradict each other. ;)

Another thing: you say that most of Nadal's fans like him for stuff other than his tennis. This goes both ways you know. I could easily say that most of Nadal's haters dislike him for stuff other than his tennis. :wavey:

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 03:36 PM
Well you made your views clearer, but that still doesn't mean your previous statements didn't contradict each other. ;)

They weren't contradictory. The fact that you misunderstood them doesn't mean they were, you know. ;)

Another thing: you say that most of Nadal's fans like him for stuff other than his tennis. This goes both ways you know. I could easily say that most of Nadal's haters dislike him for stuff other than his tennis. :wavey:

I never disagreed with that. That's true too. What's your point? I'm not a Nadal hater. I'm beyond fanboyism. As I have stated on numerous occasion, I don't give a **** about Nadal or Federer. I dislike Nadal's TENNIS. Why is this concept so hard to grasp?

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-31-2006, 03:43 PM
I dislike Nadal's TENNIS

KaxMisha I consider athleticism, heart and desire a part of tennis and every sport.

I love Nadal's tennis because he fights for every point and leaves his heart on the court. He is willing to take the punishment to his body.

Put it this way I respect someone who kills themselves to be the best more than someone who had it given to them. (I respect a hard working student with a 4 GPA than a gifted stundent with a 4 GPA)

Hope this helps you understand why I like Nadal. :wavey:

Clara Bow
10-31-2006, 03:52 PM
OH PLEASE! Are you unable to read what I'm writing? Okay, I'll try to make it as simple as possible and write it in bold capitals this time so please, do pay attention:

I AM NOT COMPARING THE TWO. I'M JUST SHOWING THE IMPLICATIONS OF CMURRAY'S REASONING ON A MORE BIZZARE EXAMPLE TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR THAT IT IS LOGICALLY UNSOUND. I AM EXPLAINING THAT ME SAYING SOMETHING IS UNFATHOMABLE ISN'T THE SAME THING AS ME SAYING IT DOESN'T EXIST!

Happy now? :wavey:

I am quite a happy person- thanks for asking. :)

I was kidding with you- hence the wink. But I do have to say that I don't agree with your conclusion that cmurray's reasoning necessarily goes down the same road that you implied. Yes- you did say that you were using a bizarre example. But necrophilia and pedophilia- the two examples that you used- are considered to be morally wrong in a huge number of cultures. That is different than having a sports preference that doesn’t really tie to morals -although it seems like here on MTF some people do act like it…;) But you may see it differently. And if you do- your view is not unfathonable to me. Not only do I understand that you have a different viewpoint than I do, but I can also understand a little as to how you would reach it. But I just don’t share you ultimate view in the end.


Sorry to contribute to the derailing of this thread.

Metis
10-31-2006, 03:53 PM
They weren't contradictory. The fact that you misunderstood them doesn't mean they were, you know. ;)
:lol: They were, no matter how you tried to spin them afterwards. Nevertheless, there is no point in wasting time. Let's agree to disagree...

I never disagreed with that. That's true too. What's your point? I'm not a Nadal hater. I'm beyond fanboyism. As I have stated on numerous occasion, I don't give a **** about Nadal or Federer. I dislike Nadal's TENNIS. Why is this concept so hard to grasp?

:lol: Don't worry. I think everybody and their dog have understood you don't like Nadal's tennis.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 04:01 PM
KaxMisha I consider athleticism, heart and desire a part of tennis and every sport.

I love Nadal's tennis because he fights for every point and leaves his heart on the court. He is willing to take the punishment to his body.

Put it this way I respect someone who kills themselves to be the best more than someone who had it given to them. (I respect a hard working student with a 4 GPA than a gifted stundent with a 4 GPA)

Hope this helps you understand why I like Nadal. :wavey:

Yeah, but then you don't like him for his tennis alone. If you saw a faceless robot playing like that on a robot tour, that wouldn't be your favorite robot. That's my point.

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-31-2006, 04:03 PM
If you saw a faceless robot playing like that on a robot tour, that wouldn't be your favorite robot. That's my point.

I wouldn't like a robot player no matter how he played. So that statement is irrelevant.

Naranoc
10-31-2006, 04:03 PM
Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but what does this have to do with Nadal possibly withdrawing from Shanghai? :scratch:

Clara Bow
10-31-2006, 04:05 PM
If you saw a faceless robot playing like that on a robot tour, that wouldn't be your favorite robot. That's my point

But some folks can't just watch sports in terms of talent A + stroke B. I have to take in the hunger and hustle in sports- and that is not just limited to tennis. The heart that George Mason University showed during the NCAA torunament was amazing- and made some very enjoyable game watching. That is what allowed them to beat the way better in terms of talent University of Connecticut. And if you take out the heart in terms of sport- you take out the human element. And I like to watch sports because of the human element. If soccer, tennis, baseball, American football, basketball were just played by robots- I would not watch. (That could very well be one of the oddest things I have typed at MTF).

Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but what does this have to do with Nadal possibly withdrawing from Shanghai?
Err...not much at this point?

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 04:10 PM
I am quite a happy person- thanks for asking. :)

I was kidding with you- hence the wink. But I do have to say that I don't agree with your conclusion that cmurray's reasoning necessarily goes down the same road that you implied. Yes- you did say that you were using a bizarre example. But necrophilia and pedophilia- the two examples that you used- are considered to be morally wrong in a huge number of cultures. That is different than having a sports preference that doesn’t really tie to morals -although it seems like here on MTF some people do act like it…;) But you may see it differently. And if you do- your view is not unfathonable to me. Not only do I understand that you have a different viewpoint than I do, but I can also understand a little as to how you would reach it. But I just don’t share you ultimate view in the end.


Sorry to contribute to the derailing of this thread.

The moral aspects are irrelevant in this context. CMurray said that saying that it's unfathomable to me how someone can like Nadal's tennis is the same thing as saying I don't think anyone does (because she said it meant I believed no one could have an opinion different from my own). According to that reasoning, I cannot claim that something is unfathomable if I know that there is someone to whom it isn't. Therefore, according to CMurray's line of reasoning, I cannot say that necrophilia is unfathomable to me. This is just a logical implication of what she said. As I said - morals are irrelevant in this context.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 04:12 PM
:lol: They were, no matter how you tried to spin them afterwards. Nevertheless, there is no point in wasting time. Let's agree to disagree...

Ummm... Yeah. I went to great lenghts explaining why they weren't. You just said they were without an argument. You win. No doubt about that.


:lol: Don't worry. I think everybody and their dog have understood you don't like Nadal's tennis.

Yeah, but what they don't seem to understand is that I neither like nor dislike Nadal himself.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 04:12 PM
I wouldn't like a robot player no matter how he played. So that statement is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. Heck, that means that you don't like tennis.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 04:15 PM
But some folks can't just watch sports in terms of talent A + stroke B. I have to take in the hunger and hustle in sports- and that is not just limited to tennis. The heart that George Mason University showed during the NCAA torunament was amazing- and made some very enjoyable game watching. That is what allowed them to beat the way better in terms of talent University of Connecticut. And if you take out the heart in terms of sport- you take out the human element. And I like to watch sports because of the human element. If soccer, tennis, baseball, American football, basketball were just played by robots- I would not watch. (That could very well be one of the oddest things I have typed at MTF).

That means that the sport itself isn't what appeals to you. It's fine by me, but I'm the exact opposite. I only care about the game played. If Federer were a rapist or a mass murderer, he'd still be my favorite player, because that has nothing to do with his tennis. I'd actually prefer having a robot tour, as that would eliminate choking. The sheer quality of the tennis would be better.

merce
10-31-2006, 04:15 PM
Rafa :awww:

Get better :hug:,

he missed last's years master because of an injury too :shrug:

PamV
10-31-2006, 04:16 PM
Put it this way I respect someone who kills themselves to be the best more than someone who had it given to them. (I respect a hard working student with a 4 GPA than a gifted stundent with a 4 GPA)

Hope this helps you understand why I like Nadal. :wavey:

I assume you are saying that Federer had it given to him? Have you ever seen his work outs? His work outs are amazing like nothing I've seen any other player do. He works very hard to be as good as he is. Athleticism also involves hand eye coordination, ablity to move lightly and ability to use variety.

Again....if Federer wasn't athletic he wouldn't have the stamina to play this many back to back finals in one year.

Lee
10-31-2006, 04:17 PM
Sorry to interrupt the discussion, but what does this have to do with Nadal possibly withdrawing from Shanghai? :scratch:

Doesn't matter what the thread title is! The rule of MTF is when given enough time, all threads will degenerate into Federer or Nadal bashing.

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-31-2006, 04:17 PM
It's not irrelevant. Heck, that means that you don't like tennis.

Instead of watching robots play tennis I could just play a computer tennis game. The human element is what makes sports great.

If robots played, the best robot would always win which is predictable and boring.

I like playing tennis and watching it for the shots, excitement, and passion.

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-31-2006, 04:19 PM
I assume you are saying that Federer had it given to him? Have you ever seen his work outs? His work outs are amazing like nothing I've seen any other player do. He works very hard to be as good as he is. Athleticism also involves hand eye coordination, ablity to move lightly and ability to use variety.

Again....if Federer wasn't athletic he wouldn't have the stamina to play this many back to back finals in one year.

Of course Fed works hard. Someone like Safin would fit my hypothetical situation, he has god given talent and got 2 GS without working as hard as others.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 04:20 PM
Instead of watching robots play tennis I could just play a computer tennis game. The human element is what makes sports great.

If robots played, the best robot would always win which is predictable and boring.

I like playing tennis and watching it for the shots, excitement, and passion.

But there's no arguing the sheer quality of the tennis would be higher. That's what I care about.

PamV
10-31-2006, 04:23 PM
But some folks can't just watch sports in terms of talent A + stroke B. I have to take in the hunger and hustle in sports- and that is not just limited to tennis.

If anyone thinks Nadal is hungry to win and Federe is not....then they aren't paying attention. Note how many times Federer breaks down in tears after a win. If Federer wasn't hungry to win then he wouldn't have bothered to play Basel when he was dead tired. The look on his face during the final said it all. He was deadly seriously and all business. In his case he choses to concentrate rather than jump up and down. To each their own.

However.....in reality Nadal did not show that much emotion in many of his recent matches where he was losing. He might have done his jumping once per match. Most of the time he was subdued and nervous looking.

Castafiore
10-31-2006, 04:24 PM
It's not irrelevant. Heck, that means that you don't like tennis.
No. At most, it means that he does not share your view on tennis, on what makes tennis beautiful, great to watch, exciting,..for you.

I think that what you are talking about is pure technique since for you, the essence of tennis is just that, right? I've always admired the beautiful players as well but I've always supported the intense players more.
To me, tennis is about more than "beautiful technique". The point of tennis is to score points and win a match. Beauty is not at the core of that for me. Intensity and charisma isn't either. I like the sport as a battle of minds, willpower as well as strength and technique. Things like intensity, charimsa, personality are simply a very nice bonus.

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-31-2006, 04:25 PM
If anyone thinks Nadal is hungry to win and Federe is not....then they aren't paying attention. Note how many times Federer breaks down in tears after a win. If Federer wasn't hungry to win then he wouldn't have bothered to play Basel when he was dead tired. The look on his face during the final said it all. He was deadly seriously and all business. In his case he choses to concentrate rather than jump up and down. To each their own.

However.....in reality Nadal did not show that much emotion in many of his recent matches where he was losing. He might have done his jumping once per match. Most of the time he was subdued and nervous looking.

We are not arguing if Federer cares or not. I am arguing that watching literal robots play each other would be boring as KaxMisha wants.

tennisgal_001
10-31-2006, 04:27 PM
Maybe we all like the sport for DIFFERENT reasons. So maybe we don't HAVE TO agree. Just a thought... :shrug:

Lee
10-31-2006, 04:28 PM
But some folks can't just watch sports in terms of talent A + stroke B. I have to take in the hunger and hustle in sports- and that is not just limited to tennis.

If anyone thinks Nadal is hungry to win and Federe is not....then they aren't paying attention. Note how many times Federer breaks down in tears after a win. If Federer wasn't hungry to win then he wouldn't have bothered to play Basel when he was dead tired. The look on his face during the final said it all. He was deadly seriously and all business. In his case he choses to concentrate rather than jump up and down. To each their own.

However.....in reality Nadal did not show that much emotion in many of his recent matches where he was losing. He might have done his jumping once per match. Most of the time he was subdued and nervous looking.


Brilliant! :worship:

How you can draw the conclusion that Clara Bow's post has anything to do with Federer is way way beyond me!

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 04:30 PM
No. At most, it means that he does not share your view on tennis, on what makes tennis beautiful, great to watch, exciting,..for you.

I think that what you are talking about is pure technique since for you, the essence of tennis is just that, right? I've always admired the beautiful players as well but I've always supported the intense players more.
To me, tennis is about more than "beautiful technique". The point of tennis is to score points and win a match. Beauty is not at the core of that for me. Intensity and charisma isn't either. I like the sport as a battle of minds, willpower as well as strength and technique. Things like intensity, charimsa, personality are simply a very nice bonus.

Not only technique. Technique and tactics. All the other factors, I'd be more than happy to eliminate, yeah. That is what pure tennis - the game of tennis - is about.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 04:31 PM
We are not arguing if Federer cares or not. I am arguing that watching literal robots play each other would be boring as KaxMisha wants.

Literal? :confused:

tennisgal_001
10-31-2006, 04:34 PM
Literal? :confused:

"plain", "unembellished"

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 04:38 PM
"plain", "unembellished"

Oh, I know what it means. :) I just don't understand why he thinks the robots would be literal. I didn't take tactics out. Just the psychological factors and factors like charisma, intensity, etcetera... To put it differently - factors that are not directly game-related. Directly is the key word here. Obviously, factors like proneness to choke are game related, but indirectly so.

Clara Bow
10-31-2006, 04:45 PM
How you can draw the conclusion that Clara Bow's post has anything to do with Federer is way way beyond me!


Thank you Lee. :) My post was in no way, shape or form related to Federer.

ExpectedWinner
10-31-2006, 04:48 PM
He is willing to take the punishment to his body.

Put it this way I respect someone who kills themselves to be the best more than someone who had it given to them.

Only an idiot is going to kill himself for the sake of titles/fame/ even money. There's life after tennis.

Btw, I don't think he's "killing" himself. When he's done with tennis, I doubt that he'll end up in a wheelchair. Assuming he's not taking any unproven supplements/performance enhancers that can damage his health long term, he should be in the top 10-15% of the healthiest male population.

As for annoying aches/soreness, every player on tour experiences this. It's managable.

tennisgal_001
10-31-2006, 04:52 PM
Oh, I know what it means. :)

My bad.

I just don't understand why he thinks the robots would be literal. I didn't take tactics out. Just the psychological factors and factors like charisma, intensity, etcetera... To put it differently - factors that are not directly game-related. Directly is the key word here. Obviously, factors like proneness to choke are game related, but indirectly so.

You take out the human element, you take out the spirit of the game. While some people care mostly about the tennis itself, the tactics, strategies, technique, etc..., it is undeniable that the human element of the game is what makes it more intimate to us fans, and allows us to associate it with everyday life. Therefore, if robots, as you say, played by the book, the storyline of a tennis match would be soul-less, plain, literal. We will not be able to APPRECIATE the raw beauty of tennis since we would be unfamiliar with the effort and the sheer intensity it takes to be at the top. As you can see, the "psychological effect" IS in fact directly linked to tennis, because without it, we wouldn't understand tennis. The connection will be dead.
Hope this clears things up-at least from my point of view.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 04:59 PM
My bad.



You take out the human element, you take out the spirit of the game. While some people care mostly about the tennis itself, the tactics, strategies, technique, etc..., it is undeniable that the human element of the game is what makes it more intimate to us fans, and allows us to associate it with everyday life. Therefore, if robots, as you say, played by the book, the storyline of a tennis match would be soul-less, plain, literal. We will not be able to APPRECIATE the raw beauty of tennis since we would be unfamiliar with the effort and the sheer intensity it takes to be at the top. As you can see, the "psychological effect" IS in fact directly linked to tennis, because without it, we wouldn't understand tennis. The connection will be dead.
Hope this clears things up-at least from my point of view.

I disagree. I definitely still would understand tennis. I disregard everything but the tennis itself already. As I said, I would prefer a hypothetical robot tour. Yeah, virtually every final would be Federer versus Safin. So what? If I want unpredictability, I buy a lottery ticket. I watch tennis because I like to see good tennis. The better the tennis, the happier I am.

ExpectedWinner
10-31-2006, 05:12 PM
My bad.

We will not be able to APPRECIATE the raw beauty of tennis since we would be unfamiliar with the effort and the sheer intensity it takes to be at the top.

Buy a racket, take some lessons, play in a nearby park. In a couple of years enter into a local tournament. Then you should start to understand what it takes to be at the top.

tennisgal_001
10-31-2006, 05:27 PM
I disagree. I definitely still would understand tennis. I disregard everything but the tennis itself already. As I said, I would prefer a hypothetical robot tour. Yeah, virtually every final would be Federer versus Safin. So what?

How can you appreciate the supremacy of, anything, without understanding the mental/psychological sacrifice that goes with it? You say every final would be Fed vs. Safin. Why? Because they're two of the most explosive talents EVER, and assuming both were robotic-like (i.e. they both maximized their abilities by a 100% to a degree they'd almost never miss), then they'd both lose their identities. Their uniqueness. That fine margin that sets them apart. The secret ingredient that is the fulcrum between the winner and the loser. Without their passions, they are replicas of one another. Like hitting against a brick wall. Then, the whole concept of tennis is lost.

tennisgal_001
10-31-2006, 05:29 PM
Buy a racket, take some lessons, play in a nearby park. In a couple of years enter into a local tournament. Then you should start to understand what it takes to be at the top.

If robots had ruled the tennis world, I would've lacked the motive to do so. Fortunately, for now, that's not the case.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 05:33 PM
How can you appreciate the supremacy of, anything, without understanding the mental/psychological sacrifice that goes with it? You say every final would be Fed vs. Safin. Why? Because they're two of the most explosive talents EVER, and assuming both were robotic-like (i.e. they both maximized their abilities by a 100% to a degree they'd almost never miss), then they'd both lose their identities. Their uniqueness. That fine margin that sets them apart. The secret ingredient that is the fulcrum between the winner and the loser. Without their passions, they are replicas of one another. Like hitting against a brick wall. Then, the whole concept of tennis is lost.

That's not true. The game could still be analyzed. What you're saying makes no sense on a logical level. You seem to be arguing that we need an emotional connection to the athletes to appreciate the sport. I don't. I watch the game for the strokes and tactics alone.

ExpectedWinner
10-31-2006, 05:38 PM
If robots had ruled the tennis world, I would've lacked the motive to do so. Fortunately, for now, that's not the case.

Well, that's you. I'd be intersted to find out if I can do things that a robot does. I know that I can scream c'mon and break rackets, lol. But I can't hit a bh like "robot Safin", volley like "robot Edberg", etc.
When you try to learn tennis technique, you start to appreciate the skills that top athletes have, robots or not.

PamV
10-31-2006, 05:39 PM
We are not arguing if Federer cares or not. I am arguing that watching literal robots play each other would be boring as KaxMisha wants.


What does that have to do with anything since there aren't any robotic players in the ATP ???

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 05:45 PM
Well, that's you. I'd be intersted to find out if I can do things that a robot does. I know that I can scream c'mon and break rackets, lol. But I can't hit a bh like "robot Safin", volley like "robot Edberg", etc.
When you try to learn tennis technique, you start appreciate the skills that top athletes have, robots or not.

Word. Lishnyj raz pokazyvaet chto russkie samyj umnyj narod. ;)

tennisgal_001
10-31-2006, 05:51 PM
Well, that's you. I'd be intersted to find out if I can do things that a robot does. I know that I can scream c'mon and break rackets, lol. But I can't hit a bh like "robot Safin", volley like "robot Edberg", etc.
When you try to learn tennis technique, you start appreciate the skills that top athletes have, robots or not.

It's not just me. It's human nature. We would all love to have an Edberg volley, a Federer forehand, a Sampras second serve, etc... and the only reason that many of us hit the courts whenever we can is because, at some point in their lives, Edberg, Pete, Rog, were in our shoes. This is the only way humans get motivated, through having role models. Someone to RELATE to. You don't have to agree, but do you get the point I'm trying to make?

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 05:55 PM
It's not just me. It's human nature. We would all love to have an Edberg volley, a Federer forehand, a Sampras second serve, etc... and the only reason that many of us hit the courts whenever we can is because, at some point in their lives, Edberg, Pete, Rog, were in our shoes. This is the only way humans get motivated, through having role models. Someone to RELATE to. You don't have to agree, but do you get the point I'm trying to make?

No, I don't. I would aim for the perfect stroke. I wouldn't care if it was produced by a human or a robot with the same anatomy. Besides, the reason why I play tennis and why I watch tennis isn't the same. Even if I do buy part of what you're saying in that inspiration to play might decrease for some, I don't understand why you think watching it would be less exciting. To me, it definitely wouldn't.

tennisgal_001
10-31-2006, 06:00 PM
That's not true. The game could still be analyzed. What you're saying makes no sense on a logical level. You seem to be arguing that we need an emotional connection to the athletes to appreciate the sport. I don't. I watch the game for the strokes and tactics alone.

You need the drive (not the emotional connection) Do you know what relativity is? The only way you can tell if something is truly superior is if you compare it to another. Therefore, it doesn't make sense you would appreciate robotic tennis when you have no standard. That's why I said it'll be identical. Eventually, it'll lose its flair, since your appreciation would decrease due to the lack of strive toward perfection. The only way after reaching the top of a pyramid is downward.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 06:04 PM
You need the drive (not the emotional connection) Do you know what relativity is? The only way you can tell if something is truly superior is if you compare it to another. Therefore, it doesn't make sense you would appreciate robotic tennis when you have no standard. That's why I said it'll be identical. Eventually, it'll lose its flair, since your appreciation would decrease due to the lack of strive toward perfection. The only way after reaching the top of a pyramid is downward.

Yeah, I know what relativity is. Relativity wouldn't disappear just because psychological factors would, so you have no point. I didn't say the robots would be identical. I said that they would look identical and the only difference between them would be their respective games. That's more than enough relativity for me.

ExpectedWinner
10-31-2006, 06:10 PM
It's not just me. It's human nature. We would all love to have an Edberg volley, a Federer forehand, a Sampras second serve, etc... and the only reason that many of us hit the courts whenever we can is because, at some point in their lives, Edberg, Pete, Rog, were in our shoes. This is the only way humans get motivated, through having role models. Someone to RELATE to. You don't have to agree, but do you get the point I'm trying to make?



1. I've never searched for role models among strangers. I've never felt the need to relate to any celebrity.

2. I don't have any role modes and I don't think I need one.

3. My motivation for everything comes from within.

tennisgal_001
10-31-2006, 06:13 PM
Yeah, I know what relativity is. Relativity wouldn't disappear just because psychological factors would, so you have no point. I didn't say the robots would be identical. I said that they would look identical and the only difference between them would be their respective games. That's more than enough relativity for me.

It's not the psychological factor. It is the motive that comes through inspiration.

Motivation/Inspiration = drive = excellence/perfection = standard to relate to = appreciation and interest would increase/decrease depending on quality.

And I was the one who said they'd be identical, not LOOK identical. If they are both perfect then they both cancel each other out. There's no difference between them.

Castafiore
10-31-2006, 06:13 PM
Can't we just agree that different people look for different things?

We can discuss what tennis is really all about but in the end, it's all very relative. It doesn't matter as long as you enjoy a match, right?
The fun in having discussions like this is having a look at a different viewpoint but I don't really see the point in telling others that they don't like tennis simply because your idea of what tennis is all about doesn't match theirs.

mandoura
10-31-2006, 06:14 PM
And who would...? :haha:

I would. I like his game a lot. It might not be as aesthetically appealing as Roger's but still I like to watch him play those incredibly thrilling shots of his, wondering whether he'll make it or not. And more often than not he does make it from anywhere on the court.

tennisgal_001
10-31-2006, 06:14 PM
1. I've never searched for role models among strangers. I've never felt the need to relate to any celebrity.

2. I don't have any role modes and I don't think I need one.

3. My motivation for everything comes from within.

Good for you.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 06:15 PM
It's not the psychological factor. It is the motive that comes through inspiration.

Motivation/Inspiration = drive = excellence/perfection = standard to relate to = appreciation and interest would increase/decrease depending on quality.

And I was the one who said they'd be identical, not LOOK identical. If they are both perfect then they both cancel each other out. There's no difference between them.

Yeah there is. You think a Federer robot and a Roddick robot would be equally good? Hahahahahahaha.

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 06:19 PM
:haha: Gu you were kidding no?

No. I stand by every word I say in this subject.

tennisgal_001
10-31-2006, 06:20 PM
Yeah there is. You think a Federer robot and a Roddick robot would be equally good? Hahahahahahaha.

How will they be different?
(P.S. I've gotta run some errands now. PM me the reply and we'll continue our discussion later on if you're interested.)

:wavey:

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 06:20 PM
your like G.Miryni, thats just your opinion and, i have seen Nadal play alot and do not get the moonballing thing is that b/c of topspin? Off the ground he kills the ball, and made advantage of easy draws, so you think those 2 Master Series on clay and The French were b/c of the draw:silly: , you or anybody else could make the draw for Nadal on clay and he would still win the tournament.

You don't get it because you don't understand tennis.

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 06:24 PM
Come on! Mirnyi is a great doubles player and I really admire him for that. But don't try to sell him as a great singles player because he is not. If he was he wouldn't concentrate on a doubles career. There is no point in comparing him with the likes of Nadal:

Mirnyi
Age 30
Singles titles 1
Doubles titles 31

Nadal
Age 20
Singles titles 17
Doubles titles 3

I rest my case...

He plays a style of tennis that ATP killed in favour of the moonballers. If anyone doubt he'd be a top20 in the '90s, it's a person that has no braincells.

He (and other players you probably think are weak, as Llodra) will always be better to me than any moonballer with 1000 GS, because the technique and ability to put that game effectively on court is out of reach to your moonballing idols.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 06:26 PM
He plays a style of tennis that ATP killed in favour of the moonballers. If anyone doubt he'd be a top20 in the '90s, it's a person that has no braincells.

He (and other players you probably think are weak, as Llodra) will always be better to me than any moonballer with 1000 GS, because the technique and ability to put that game effectively on court is out of reach to your moonballing idols.

I think you're pushing it. You think Llodra is more talented than Rios, for example?

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 06:30 PM
I think you're pushing it. You think Llodra is more talented than Rios, for example?

If you think Rios is a moonballer, please don't tell me, or it will make me cry.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 06:34 PM
If you think Rios is a moonballer, please don't tell me, or it will make me cry.

Hahahaha. Don't worry - of course I don't think Rios is/was a moonballer. :D However, he wasn't exactly a serve and volley player either and seeing as he preferred slower surfaces, I wasn't sure how you'd label him. :)

cmurray
10-31-2006, 06:36 PM
Wow. Who knew I could de-rail a thread this badly? :o

Kaxmisha thinks that I was avoiding his(?) question. I wasn't - I had to take my son to the eye doctor. :) Do I like Federer's tennis better or Nadal's?

Nadal's hands down. For the reasons I already mentioned. Because there is more to tennis than the way you hold your raquet. Because Rafa plays exciting tennis. Because his mental toughness inspires me. Because his flat out athletic ability leaves me a little breathless.

Do I think Roger plays technically beautiful tennis? I sure do, and I can appreciate that too. I'd hardly be much of a fan of tennis if I couldn't admit that his technique is amazing. It's just that I value what Rafi brings to the game more.

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 06:39 PM
Hahahaha. Don't worry - of course I don't think Rios is/was a moonballer. :D However, he wasn't exactly a serve and volley player either and seeing as he preferred slower surfaces, I wasn't sure how you'd label him. :)

Rios preferred slow surfaces because he probably grew up on them.

The point most people don't get is the following: moonballer is different from claycourter.

guga2120
10-31-2006, 06:40 PM
You don't get it because you don't understand tennis.

Yeah i guess your just the expert, your right and everybody else is wrong, when you say stupid things like if Nadal had played ten years ago he wouldn't be in the top 10, i think it shows how much you know about tennis, did they not play on clay back then?
Theres nothing i can say, you are wrong, i guess your just going to have to wait, when he wins Australia,Wimbledon, or the US Open, which he can do, granted the last 2 will be very hard in the next 3 to 4 years with Federer, but he will, 1 day, hes not excatly over the hill.

sawan66278
10-31-2006, 06:42 PM
So, Mirnyi, I guess Mats Wilander, winner of seven slams and three of the four in one year, was a moonballer too...:mad:

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 06:48 PM
Yeah i guess your just the expert, your right and everybody else is wrong, when you say stupid things like if Nadal had played ten years ago he wouldn't be in the top 10, i think it shows how much you know about tennis, did they not play on clay back then?
Theres nothing i can say, you are wrong, i guess your just going to have to wait, when he wins Australia,Wimbledon, or the US Open, which he can do, granted the last 2 will be very hard in the next 3 to 4 years with Federer, but he will, 1 day, hes not excatly over the hill.

Don't make me laugh, cheerleader. I give him 2 or 3 more years of top 5.

Yeah, but in the 90's there were much better claycourters. And in those times, fast surfaces were FAST, not this joke they play most of the time today. I'd give him at most a 3rd in the US those days.

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 06:49 PM
So, Mirnyi, I guess Mats Wilander, winner of seven slams and three of the four in one year, was a moonballer too...:mad:

How do you wanna compare 80's tennis with today?

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 06:51 PM
Rios preferred slow surfaces because he probably grew up on them.

The point most people don't get is the following: moonballer is different from claycourter.

I know, but you seem so dogmatic on this subject that I didn't think you distinguished between the two. I take it you're more than okay with Gaudio too, then? :)

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 06:52 PM
I know, but you seem so dogmatic on this subject that I didn't think you distinguished between the two. I take it you're more than okay with Gaudio too, then? :)

Of course. Gaudio's extremely talented.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 06:53 PM
Of course. Gaudio's extremely talented.

Couldn't agree more. :worship: His mental game is a complete joke, though.

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 06:54 PM
Couldn't agree more. :worship: His mental game is a complete joke, though.

This is the plague of most technically accomplished players.

DrJules
10-31-2006, 06:56 PM
Of course. Gaudio's extremely talented.

A thread mentioning Gaudio, talent and Shanghai do of course bring his 6-0, 6-0 defeat in Shanghai last year to mind.

cmurray
10-31-2006, 06:58 PM
A thread mentioning Gaudio, talent and Shanghai do of course bring his 6-0, 6-0 defeat in Shanghai last year to mind.

:haha:

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 06:59 PM
A thread mentioning Gaudio, talent and Shanghai do of course bring his 6-0, 6-0 defeat in Shanghai last year to mind.

His head is as strong as Volandri's serve, what can you do?

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 06:59 PM
A thread mentioning Gaudio, talent and Shanghai do of course bring his 6-0, 6-0 defeat in Shanghai last year to mind.

Hahahaha. Good one. ;)

guga2120
10-31-2006, 07:00 PM
Don't make me laugh, cheerleader. I give him 2 or 3 more years of top 5.

Yeah, but in the 90's there were much better claycourters. And in those times, fast surfaces were FAST, not this joke they play most of the time today. I'd give him at most a 3rd in the US those days.

i can not argue with you, that whole post is just completly insane, do not make posts telling people they don't know anything about tennis, if you think this.

You don't think Nadal could not win the French in the 90's:haha: ,
Kuerten is like my favorite ever to watch play, and Nadal on clay would beat him. I guess Muster and Sergei would be to much for him. Are you like 12 years old? or just clueless about tennis?

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 07:05 PM
i can not argue with you, that whole post is just completly insane, do not make posts telling people they don't know anything about tennis, if you think this.

You don't think Nadal could not win the French in the 90's:haha: ,
Kuerten is like my favorite ever to watch play, and Nadal on clay would beat him. I guess Muster and Sergei would be to much for him. Are you like 12 years old? or just clueless about tennis?

I'm not so sure Nadal would beat Kuerten. It's a horrible match-up for him. Nadal's forehand topspins wouldn't cause Kuerten's backhand too many problems. What makes you so sure he would win?

guga2120
10-31-2006, 07:08 PM
I'm not so sure Nadal would beat Kuerten. It's a horrible match-up for him. Nadal's forehand topspins wouldn't cause Kuerten's backhand too many problems. What makes you so sure he would win?

Kuerten i think in his prime is the one player on clay that might be able to beat him, Nadal mainly b/c of his movement on the surface, and his forehand i think more times than not, would win, in 5 sets, any other French Open Champion Nadal would beat.

propi
10-31-2006, 07:08 PM
He doesn't need Shanghai to end as world number 2, so he better gets sure he's fully recovered for new season :worship:

musefanatic
10-31-2006, 07:15 PM
I hpe Nadal can play there, it would be a huge shame if he couldn't and just wouldn't be the same without him, i'm sure Roger hopes he recovers soon so he can play him :)

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 07:41 PM
i can not argue with you, that whole post is just completly insane, do not make posts telling people they don't know anything about tennis, if you think this.

You don't think Nadal could not win the French in the 90's:haha: ,
Kuerten is like my favorite ever to watch play, and Nadal on clay would beat him. I guess Muster and Sergei would be to much for him. Are you like 12 years old? or just clueless about tennis?


Nadal's opposition is composed of players like Puerta, Ljubicic, Mathieu... All the Spanish Armada of the 90's was much better than these guys.

:haha: Nadal would beat Guga? Yes yes... even Nadal fans know he would lose to Guga.

You probably never watched Corretja play, or Muster, or Guga. You're a cheerleader that started watching tennis yesterday and say mostly uninformed, ignorant things. Cheerleader.

GlennMirnyi
10-31-2006, 07:45 PM
Kuerten i think in his prime is the one player on clay that might be able to beat him, Nadal mainly b/c of his movement on the surface, and his forehand i think more times than not, would win, in 5 sets, any other French Open Champion Nadal would beat.

You're a joke. Nadal would beat Lendl, Borg?

Please stop, you're showing no knowledge of tennis. First because you're comparing tennis players from the 70's and 80's to a player of the 2000's, then because you're talking rubbish.

lunahielo
10-31-2006, 07:59 PM
I hope no one has to withdraw from Shanghai.

When all of the top 8 are there and in good health it makes it special~~~as it is supposed to be.
luna

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-31-2006, 08:01 PM
GlennMirnyi is the definition of illogical.

Johnny Groove
10-31-2006, 08:13 PM
Lets all bash Rafa because its the "cool" thing to do :rolleyes:

guga2120
10-31-2006, 08:47 PM
Nadal's opposition is composed of players like Puerta, Ljubicic, Mathieu... All the Spanish Armada of the 90's was much better than these guys.

:haha: Nadal would beat Guga? Yes yes... even Nadal fans know he would lose to Guga.

You probably never watched Corretja play, or Muster, or Guga. You're a cheerleader that started watching tennis yesterday and say mostly uninformed, ignorant things. Cheerleader.

So you think Corretja and Muster would beat Nadal? thats a joke, and i am a huge Kuerten fan and think Nadal would beat him, i think Kuerten would win on a hard court. And this year at the French open John Mcenroe said Nadal was about the best clay courter he had ever seen, but i guess JMac does not know anything about tennis either, you the 12 year old know more, your posts are so idiotic.
And why do you keep making posts about Nadal so much? if you think he is so bad? And if he sucks so bad expert on tennis, and on clay hes not that great either:haha:, how has he won every match for 2 years on it, oh yeah theres not competition, and Federer sucks too, hes only played him 4 times on it.

cmurray
10-31-2006, 08:51 PM
My goodness. Are we still arguing? Well, at least we aren't talking about pedophiles and necrophilia. See??? There's a positive side to every thread!

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 08:58 PM
My goodness. Are we still arguing? Well, at least we aren't talking about pedophiles and necrophilia. See??? There's a positive side to every thread!

We never were talking about any of those.

marti_228
10-31-2006, 09:23 PM
You're a joke. Nadal would beat Lendl, Borg?

Please stop, you're showing no knowledge of tennis. First because you're comparing tennis players from the 70's and 80's to a player of the 2000's, then because you're talking rubbish.

You once said that tennis in the 70s and 80s was hardly tennis. Now, you say Borg would beat Nadal and that you can't compare players form different times:confused: According to your theory tennis evolves, which is true.
And then, in another post, you compare a tennis player from the 90s to Nadal.
I really don't understand you.

cmurray
10-31-2006, 09:50 PM
We never were talking about any of those.

oh, lighten up. i was just teasing.

KaxMisha
10-31-2006, 09:59 PM
oh, lighten up. i was just teasing.

;)

sawan66278
10-31-2006, 10:26 PM
Mirnyi, its funny...you mention Nadal not being able to defeat Borg or Lendl...but when I ask you if Mats Wilander were or were not a moonballer, you accuse me of just bringing up 80's players...You are truly a master of debate and discourse...

Actually, you are most likely, simply, a Sophist...

Sunset of Age
10-31-2006, 11:17 PM
Back on topic?

According to the article posted at http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=89456&page=2, Rafa will most probably be healthy in time for Shanghai. :D

Let's hope so.

oschemi
10-31-2006, 11:40 PM
GlennMirnyi is the definition of illogical.

I think he is obsessed with Nadal, he looks for every opportunity to mention Nadal. God knows the kinds of Nadal fantasies he harbors, pathetic really:rolleyes: