Bodo just loves Rafa

[El Dude]

Rafatigue.

I can't say I entirely disagree with him. Rafa's clay-court dominance makes for boring tennis. I suppose there's some sense of a question this year, but not really. I mean, MAYBE Novak beats him at Roland Garros but it seems unlikely. Who are we kidding? Let's get past clay court season and onto the good stuff - Wimbledon is going to be great this year.

 

[calitennis127]

In the event that Djokovic and Nadal square off at Roland Garros, I consider Djokovic the favorite, based on the match-up as it has evolved since the start of 2011 and what the Monte Carlo final showed.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This was an awful article. Never mind the fact that it ignores that Djokovic soundly beat Nadal a few weeks ago. The entire tone is just horrible, and in the end I couldn't tell what Bodo was really asking. Someone to step up and challenge Nadal? Nadal to tank matches on purpose? That they stop televising Nadal's clay matches? I don't get it...

Oh, and the below paragraph is what I'd expect to read on a tennis forum, not someone who writes about the sport "professionally":

"the signature trophy biting has become a little tedious. So has the sprint to the baseline following the coin toss. And also the uppercut and Radio City Music Hall leg-kick that goes with it."

 

[huntingyou]

I hate this MF........always writes crap, especially when it's Rafa.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I hate this MF........always writes crap, especially when it's Rafa.

LoL

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, I saw this earlier. It's a very evasive, dull article with a passive amount of nasty spite on board too. "I come to bury Ralph, not praise him." Imagine, a tennis fan become tired of excellence. He sounds like the dolts who used to call Pete Sampras 'boring...'

 

[ftan]

I just came back after reading the article.. Seems like Bodo has too much time on hand .. lolz

 

[lindseywagners]

Bodo isn't hating on Rafa for winning. He's hating on Rafa for the way in which he wins.

As he says in the article:

"And let’s face it, movies and books have plots, while the vast majority of Rafa’s matches on clay have nothing even resembling a plot; they’re mere demonstrations of his superiority."

Now whether you hate on Pete is obviously your own prerogative, but just realize what his message is.

---

The entire tone is just horrible, and in the end I couldn't tell what Bodo was really asking. Someone to step up and challenge Nadal? Nadal to tank matches on purpose? That they stop televising Nadal's clay matches? I don't get it...

He would prefer if Nadal won/dominated in a different manner. It's boring to him to view the inevitable occur.

Think about it this way: When Federer and Nadal are retired someday, and the television companies make their documentaries/packages, whose will be more intriguing and make for better drama, Federer at Wimbledon or Nadal at Roland Garros?

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

He would prefer if Nadal won/dominated in a different manner. It's boring to him to view the inevitable occur.

got a bit of contradiction going on there - Bodo's issue is, as you say, that the outcome is inevitable, because Rafa isn't just winning, but dominating. he couldn't dominate 'in a different manner' that would suit Bodo, as it is the domination per se that annoys him.

as been said, of course, this is thoroughly denying the whole dynamic with Novak.

not really though. it's just that Bodo hates Rafa, even more than he hates the rest of the gang. let's face it, the only way Bodo would be happy if 05-07 Roger would be US-American (or even better, if Pete stayed 25 forever). while i've read and partly enjoyed his pieces in the past, i've really given up on it by now.

 

[Kieran]

Maybe if Rafa dominated in a less dominating way, would this help?

 

[Mastoor]

Maybe if Rafa dominated in a less dominating way, would this help?

I think that Bodo smells that Ralph will stop dominating altogether.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Bodo isn't hating on Rafa for winning. He's hating on Rafa for the way in which he wins.

As he says in the article:

"And let’s face it, movies and books have plots, while the vast majority of Rafa’s matches on clay have nothing even resembling a plot; they’re mere demonstrations of his superiority."

Now whether you hate on Pete is obviously your own prerogative, but just realize what his message is.

---

The entire tone is just horrible, and in the end I couldn't tell what Bodo was really asking. Someone to step up and challenge Nadal? Nadal to tank matches on purpose? That they stop televising Nadal's clay matches? I don't get it...

He would prefer if Nadal won/dominated in a different manner. It's boring to him to view the inevitable occur.

Think about it this way: When Federer and Nadal are retired someday, and the television companies make their documentaries/packages, whose will be more intriguing and make for better drama, Federer at Wimbledon or Nadal at Roland Garros?

---

Except this is sports, not a movie. The more dominantly you can win, the better. Think about it this way, would ANY player not wish they could win anywhere as easily as Nadal does on clay?

My problem with Bodo is that he almost seems like he's blaming Nadal for being so dominant on the surface (as opposed to just stating that he doesn't enjoy how dominant he is). If it were some aspects of Nadal's game that are boring him, and he touched on them, then fine. But the article is just so awfully written and poorly constructed.

Let's keep in mind that Nadal has given more than his fair share of dramatic matches outside of clay. Maybe we can excuse him for being dominant.

Ultimately, the reason the article is so horrible is that it's essentially complaining about someone being...really, really good?

---

Maybe if Rafa dominated in a less dominating way, would this help?

I think that Bodo smells that Ralph will stop dominating altogether.

Really? THIS is what you got from his article?

 

[Mastoor]

Yes BS, I actually read Bodo's walls of nonsense. Not.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yes BS, I actually read Bodo's walls of nonsense. Not.

LOL. You were actually wiser than the rest of us.

 

[lindseywagners]

He would prefer if Nadal won/dominated in a different manner. It's boring to him to view the inevitable occur.

got a bit of contradiction going on there - Bodo's issue is, as you say, that the outcome is inevitable, because Rafa isn't just winning, but dominating. he couldn't dominate 'in a different manner' that would suit Bodo, as it is the domination per se that annoys him.

as been said, of course, this is thoroughly denying the whole dynamic with Novak.

not really though. it's just that Bodo hates Rafa, even more than he hates the rest of the gang. let's face it, the only way Bodo would be happy if 05-07 Roger would be US-American (or even better, if Pete stayed 25 forever). while i've read and partly enjoyed his pieces in the past, i've really given up on it by now.

I should have said "It's boring to him to view the inevitable occur without adequate drama during the process."

Ironic that Rafa's in a dogfight right against Gulbis the day after the article was posted.

---

Except this is sports, not a movie. The more dominantly you can win, the better. Think about it this way, would ANY player not wish they could win anywhere as easily as Nadal does on clay?

My problem with Bodo is that he almost seems like he's blaming Nadal for being so dominant on the surface (as opposed to just stating that he doesn't enjoy how dominant he is). If it were some aspects of Nadal's game that are boring him, and he touched on them, then fine. But the article is just so awfully written and poorly constructed.

Let's keep in mind that Nadal has given more than his fair share of dramatic matches outside of clay. Maybe we can excuse him for being dominant.

Ultimately, the reason the article is so horrible is that it's essentially complaining about someone being...really, really good?

The thing that makes sports so intriguing is that it is unscripted drama. It's a lot of times better than the movie. Though Nadal's clay dominance has, except against Djokovic and a few other occasions, been very undramatic. It's no fault of Rafa's, but as you say, Bodo does almost place blame on him (he does relent in the closing paragraph).

Again, I really don't think he's complaining about him being really, really good. Federer has been really, really good at Wimbledon but it's a different type of good, of dominance.

All in all I like the premise of the article as it's something that has been discussed across sport, but I think it's a piece that needs more toiling over. More than the hour or two that Bodo probably set aside to write the thing.

Here's an article about the 2007 New England Patriots. It addresses one of the most dominant teams in NFL history and it focuses on why the winning is not necessarily equatable to memorable. Great article and something that has some similarities to the discussion here about Nadal's dominance.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

well, the "different type of good, of dominance" is just a lesser kind, no? Fed simply was never as dominant at SW19 as Rafa is at RG. (another difference, though, is that there's no grass 'season' to dominate, so while we always had more than two months of Rafa sweeping the floor with everyone else, there's nothing like this for any other player over so many years (Fed and Novak respectively more or less did that on hards, but for a shorter period).

you're right of course, of the quality of narratives and drama. and you do point out that you don't blame Rafa for it. but still, i don't think it's right to talk about different types or manners of winning - it's not about the specific way in which he dominates, it's about the overwhelming extent to which he has done so. but again, this is ignoring a number of close matches, the whole injury thing and the Novak narrative.

btw, to an extent, this whole thing is Fed's fault. with the exception of Rome back in the day, Rafa hardly played any nail-biter tight great clay finals because so many times, the guy on the other side of the net was Fed, who was head and shoulders above the rest on the surface, but personally incapable on challenging Rafa.

 

[tented]

Bodo isn't hating on Rafa for winning. He's hating on Rafa for the way in which he wins.

As he says in the article:

"And let’s face it, movies and books have plots, while the vast majority of Rafa’s matches on clay have nothing even resembling a plot; they’re mere demonstrations of his superiority."

Agatha Christie's works and Harlequin romances are novels, but we know the outcomes before opening their front covers. The same can be said for film series like "Halloween," "Friday the 13th," and "Final Destination."

His metaphor is a straw-man argument, worthy of Bodo the Clown.

 

[calitennis127]

Bodo's article is a waste of space, but so are all the complaints about it. Everyone blindly worships the winners in everything, without looking at substance. Anyone who thinks the tendency of whorishness is a mainly female trait needs to take a look at the comments of men defending the athlete or team who won first place in an athletic competition. It is the most primitive ape-like attitude you could imagine, and the best case for evolution anyone could come up with. "Me admire man with most chicken legs. Me like lots of prize. Urrrrr"

That just about sums up all the comments on this thread as well as tennis.com.

As for Bodo, I really don't find Nadal winning event after event boring. I actually find it very interesting and very telling. If I was in Bodo's position, I would be more inclined to write a piece discussing why I think Djokovic and especially Federer have severely underperformed against Nadal on clay over the years, warping his results to an extreme degree that is not warranted by his talent vis-a-vis the other top players.

This would be no less controversial, but far more relevant. Federer should have beaten Nadal in many of those clay losses, and if he had, this conversation about total dominance of the era would not need to be had at all.

 

[SF Nadalite]

Federer should have beaten Nadal in many of those clay losses, and if he had, this conversation about total dominance of the era would not need to be had at all.

SHOULD??

I'm not a fan of Bodo, but SHOULD is not a word used in anything reflecting history.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Federer should have beaten Nadal in many of those clay losses

Rome 2006, Hamburg 2008, and...?