That is surely true (one of his greatest strenghts, btw)... but we have a saying in Brazil that a stubborn Spanish is a pleonasm (I guess not only here). Anyway, ok, if apart from looking stronger than the others and hitting balls you need amazing strength to even think about it we need another evidence, like some certificate from the ATP tatoed on his back, fine.
You might say, as Brazilians, that Spaniards are stubborn by birthright, but ask Darth...Greeks are considered so, too. And Sicilians. These are cultural cliches that we embrace, even those of us who are of whatever heritage. But it doesn't really explain a player with incredible focus and and commitment to each point. That's why Rafa is The Bull, and also, yes, because he's built like one, for a tennis player, and because it is a symbol of Spain. Obviously, Nadal is very strong. As Carol says, he comes by his physique a lot via his genes. It doesn't need reminding that his uncle was a top footballer. But all of the elite players are strong, and strong in different ways. Yes, some of Rafa's shots rely on his incredible strength. That's undeniable. But he also has incredible speed and footwork. Roger relies more on fleetness of foot and variety of shots. To those who are trying to decide which, however has the greater "talent," (and I know we have a thread for this,) I don't think it's as clear-cut as some Federer fans would have it. I know you,
@mrzz, and
@Federberg, as two examples, are willing to credit Nadal's talent. If it comes down to hardware, weeks at #1 and whatever, I get why Federer is at the top of the pile, but it chaps me no end the people that try to say that Nadal is less talented. It's a subjective call, and one that I think is not necessary. Federer holds more records. But do folks really think, at these heights, that Nadal isn't as talent, even if just differently?
