Nadal: The Leonardo da Vinci of tennis

[Moxie]

The Atlantic published this article, which makes the case for Nadal's brains as a great feature of his tennis success, and I think it's worth reading. He's too often relegated to the "brawn" category...unfairly, I would say. Give it a read.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The Atlantic published this article, which makes the case for Nadal's brains as a great feature of his tennis success, and I think it's worth reading. He's too often relegated to the "brawn" category...unfairly, I would say. Give it a read.

I agree that Nadal is not just a beast, bull or a mere physical player. He does
possess intelligence and problem-solving. I would be more than willing to credit him for
both aspects.

Having said that, comparison to Leonardo Da Vinci is just not appropriate.
One usually compares to "Leondardo Da Vinci" in situations where there is
exteme beauty, elegance or grace. That is simply not part of Nadal's package.

 

[Moxie]

The Atlantic published this article, which makes the case for Nadal's brains as a great feature of his tennis success, and I think it's worth reading. He's too often relegated to the "brawn" category...unfairly, I would say. Give it a read.

I agree that Nadal is not just a beast, bull or a mere physical player. He does
possess intelligence and problem-solving. I would be more than willing to credit him for
both aspects.

Having said that, comparison to Leonardo Da Vinci is just not appropriate.
One usually compares to "Leondardo Da Vinci" in situations where there is
exteme beauty, elegance or grace. That is simply not part of Nadal's package.

I assume you read the article. Da Vinci was also an inventor, an engineer and a man before his time. These comparisons are not spurious. And you may not find beauty, elegance or grace in Nadal, but it's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Kieran]

I find absolute beauty - physical aesthetics! - in Rafa's game. He's like a furious automaton, sometimes, whirling backwards across his backhand and hurling a lethal spinning bomb back in the opposite direction.

I find the comparisons to be a little stretched, though. Federer - like Mozart? What does that mean? It gets a little far-fetched. Leonardo was a guy who has a reputation of not finishing things, so maybe there's a reference to Rafa's knees? It gets jumbled and confused. Tennis players don't need comparisons to other activities to explain their greatness. It's better if they don't drag Einstein into it. Rafa is the best problem solver in the game, the best I've seen. He constructs points so intelligently that you don't even see the design - you only see the outcome: his battered opponent buried in the corner like a hapless chap using a small spoon to bail out water from a badly leaking boat...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I am not sure about analogies like that. Most of the time they do not make sense. Even when you compare an athlete to another athlete in a different sport it is problematic, let alone a totally different discipline. I don't remember who it was that said " Writing about music is like dancing about architecture...it is pointless" and I agree. I understand the desire to equate beauty in something to something else that is universally accepted to be beautiful but in most cases they don't make sense...

However, I agree whole heartedly with the point of the article. Nadal is physical AND cerebral on the court.

 

[Moxie]

However, I agree whole heartedly with the point of the article. Nadal is physical AND cerebral on the court.

Yes, and that is why I posted it. We can get off of Da Vinci now, I suppose. Though, I will never understand people that think his game is "ugly." I know it's a matter of taste, but I can't see that.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The Atlantic published this article, which makes the case for Nadal's brains as a great feature of his tennis success, and I think it's worth reading. He's too often relegated to the "brawn" category...unfairly, I would say. Give it a read.

I agree that Nadal is not just a beast, bull or a mere physical player. He does
possess intelligence and problem-solving. I would be more than willing to credit him for
both aspects.

Having said that, comparison to Leonardo Da Vinci is just not appropriate.
One usually compares to "Leondardo Da Vinci" in situations where there is
exteme beauty, elegance or grace. That is simply not part of Nadal's package.

I assume you read the article. Da Vinci was also an inventor, an engineer and a man before his time. These comparisons are not spurious. And you may not find beauty, elegance or grace in Nadal, but it's in the eye of the beholder.

I have of course read the article before I posted my response. I am well aware that Da Vinci
is a man of many talents. To quote from his Wiki page "Leonardo Da Vinci was an Italian Renaissance polymath: painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer. He is widely considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time and perhaps the most diversely talented person ever to have lived."

However, most people know of him only as a famous painter. This can also be found
in the wiki page which states clearly that Leonardo was, and is, renowned primarily as a painter
and goes on to say "Despite the recent awareness and admiration of Leonardo as a scientist and inventor, for the better part of four hundred years his fame rested on his achievements as a painter and on a handful of works, either authenticated or attributed to him that have been regarded as among the masterpieces."

When someone uses the phrase " is like Da Vinci of ........", they are not referring to
multifaceted talent of Da Vince, but are referring to the particular style he used in his painting.
The general usage of phrases such as "is like Da Vinci of ...." or " is like Mozart of ..........."
are to indicate the "supreme elegance, grace, beauty and naturalness of the talent of
the person they are comparing to".

You may say beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and it may be technically true.
However, while "beauty" and "elegance" may not be defined, most can recognize it
when they see it and quite often most people agree on it, even if it is not unanimous.

Finally, you should realize that this comparison is being made by Johnny Mac. I really
doubt that he knows about other facets of Da Vinci.

Also, we all know that Johnny Mac makes comments off the cuff. As we saw sometime
during the year, he sees one player makes one good volley and immediately says that
player has the best volley among the current crop of players. He sees another player
play a good volley in the next match, he changes his mind instantly. To put it in a
nutshell, he is fickle minded and his comments do not come after a detailed study
or analysis. These are off the cuff remarks of a TV commentator (who are really paid
to make interesting comments, whether true or not). IMHO, "Atlantic" made a mistake
in writing a whole article over a stupid comment by JMac.

 

[bobvance]

Da Vinci didn't get coaching from the stands :lolz:

In all seriousness through, I do agree that

 

[Moxie]

I wasn't being snide when I said "I assume you read the article, GSM." I wish we could get off the Da Vinci part of the article, though. The point was about Nadal's talents, and aspects of his game that sometimes get overlooked, which I agree with.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree that Nadal constantly improves his game and tweaks it to the demands of
the situation. However, I am not so sure as to how much of this tweaking (the brainy
part) is by him and how much is by his team.

The following quote is from an articles that was cited in the Atlantic article.

" The changes Nadal made to close the gap on Djokovic were subtle, ranging from the psychological to the technical to the tactical. Rather than do anything major, I think Uncle Toni studied the film and made some adjustments in his nephew’s game. A few that I noticed (and I welcome your ideas): vary the serve more; go down the line more on both sides, but especially the backhand; do not rally with neutral balls, but hit out with aggression; play defense relentlessly and make Djokovic finish; play at a high level of energy and intensity and do not waver; keep an eye out for lulls in Djokovic’s game and pounce on him; and, finally, remember that you are Rafael Nadal."

If Nadal has so much brain power why does his team and Uncle Toni keeps coaching
him during matches almost to the extent of getting him a point penalty.

All of this make me think that a substantial part of credit for the brainy part should
go to his team, although ultimately it is Nadal who executes the modified game plan
on court.

 

[calitennis127]

The Atlantic published this article, which makes the case for Nadal's brains as a great feature of his tennis success, and I think it's worth reading. He's too often relegated to the "brawn" category...unfairly, I would say. Give it a read.

I am absent from the boards for a couple weeks and inevitably I have to come back and see this kind of nonsense.

 

[Moxie]

I agree that Nadal constantly improves his game and tweaks it to the demands of
the situation. However, I am not so sure as to how much of this tweaking (the brainy
part) is by him and how much is by his team.

The following quote is from an articles that was cited in the Atlantic article.

" The changes Nadal made to close the gap on Djokovic were subtle, ranging from the psychological to the technical to the tactical. Rather than do anything major, I think Uncle Toni studied the film and made some adjustments in his nephew’s game. A few that I noticed (and I welcome your ideas): vary the serve more; go down the line more on both sides, but especially the backhand; do not rally with neutral balls, but hit out with aggression; play defense relentlessly and make Djokovic finish; play at a high level of energy and intensity and do not waver; keep an eye out for lulls in Djokovic’s game and pounce on him; and, finally, remember that you are Rafael Nadal."

If Nadal has so much brain power why does his team and Uncle Toni keeps coaching
him during matches almost to the extent of getting him a point penalty.

All of this make me think that a substantial part of credit for the brainy part should
go to his team, although ultimately it is Nadal who executes the modified game plan
on court.

I bolded above the "I think" proviso, which indicates it is the author of the piece who is interpolating that these are Toni Nadal's suggestions. We're told that it was Rafa who came up with the grip change that gave him the better serve at the 2010 USO, so it's not unreasonable to think that he's also come up with some of the changes to counteract Djokovic's game. And what I also bolded is where you rightly point out that it is Nadal who makes the choices on court. (I won't get into the coaching thing with you, but mid-point, no one is making decisions but the player.) He's always been a good tactician…this is not new. It's all fine for a coach or a team to come up with solutions, but it's up to the player to be able to effect them, and not all can. To that point, I don't know why acting as if Nadal's learning something from a coach is a knock on him. Most players have coaches, and one presumes they do something to earn their keep. It doesn't make the players dummies. Federer fans have often cried loudest for him to get a coach when he hasn't had one, and everyone is wondering if and when he'll get another one, now.

The Atlantic published this article, which makes the case for Nadal's brains as a great feature of his tennis success, and I think it's worth reading. He's too often relegated to the "brawn" category...unfairly, I would say. Give it a read.

I am absent from the boards for a couple weeks and inevitably I have to come back and see this kind of nonsense.

I'd love to hear why you think it's nonsense. (Most of us put up these kinds of articles as points of discussion. If you disagree with the point, you're welcome to say why.) I'd also love to hear how you think your not being around might have prevented my posting it. uzzled

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree that Nadal constantly improves his game and tweaks it to the demands of
the situation. However, I am not so sure as to how much of this tweaking (the brainy
part) is by him and how much is by his team.

The following quote is from an articles that was cited in the Atlantic article.

" The changes Nadal made to close the gap on Djokovic were subtle, ranging from the psychological to the technical to the tactical. Rather than do anything major, I think Uncle Toni studied the film and made some adjustments in his nephew’s game. A few that I noticed (and I welcome your ideas): vary the serve more; go down the line more on both sides, but especially the backhand; do not rally with neutral balls, but hit out with aggression; play defense relentlessly and make Djokovic finish; play at a high level of energy and intensity and do not waver; keep an eye out for lulls in Djokovic’s game and pounce on him; and, finally, remember that you are Rafael Nadal."

If Nadal has so much brain power why does his team and Uncle Toni keeps coaching
him during matches almost to the extent of getting him a point penalty.

All of this make me think that a substantial part of credit for the brainy part should
go to his team, although ultimately it is Nadal who executes the modified game plan
on court.

I bolded above the "I think" proviso, which indicates it is the author of the piece who is interpolating that these are Toni Nadal's suggestions. We're told that it was Rafa who came up with the grip change that gave him the better serve at the 2010 USO, so it's not unreasonable to think that he's also come up with some of the changes to counteract Djokovic's game. And what I also bolded is where you rightly point out that it is Nadal who makes the choices on court. (I won't get into the coaching thing with you, but mid-point, no one is making decisions but the player.) He's always been a good tactician…this is not new. It's all fine for a coach or a team to come up with solutions, but it's up to the player to be able to effect them, and not all can. To that point, I don't know why acting as if Nadal's learning something from a coach is a knock on him. Most players have coaches, and one presumes they do something to earn their keep. It doesn't make the players dummies. Federer fans have often cried loudest for him to get a coach when he hasn't had one, and everyone is wondering if and when he'll get another one, now.

While the author of that article was gracious enough to acknowledge that it was his
opinion that Uncle Toni and Team have studied the videos and came up with suggestions
for tweaking, you are acting as though Nadal made a phone call to you and told that
he made the 2010 grip change; I have underlined that part. Truth is nobody really
knows what happens unless one is part of his inner circle.

What I have heard is that a Spanish coach by name Oscar taught Nadal the
new service motion and it is not just about a grip change. Actually, apparently
the coach filed a case against Tony for not giving him recognition for that. I am
attaching an article below which explains Nadal's 2010 serve along with videos.

http://tpatennis.net/the-truth-behind-nadals-improved-serve-it-wasnt-just-a-grip-change/

With respect to your later comment, while there is nothing wrong in having a coach and
a team, it is improper to take credit for strategy and tactics changes, if they are primarily
thought of by Coaches.

Sometimes, I get the picture of Rafa as some sort of a dignified version of someone
like Mike Tyson who was being completely controlled by his agents and managers.
Of course, this is an extreme comparison and Rafa can certainly do lot of basic tasks
that Tyson would be completely incapable of. I am making this comparison to
easily form a mental picture. Of course, this is my opinion (that is formed by
careful observation of several years) and I am not claiming that I was told this.

 

[Moxie]

I agree that Nadal constantly improves his game and tweaks it to the demands of
the situation. However, I am not so sure as to how much of this tweaking (the brainy
part) is by him and how much is by his team.

The following quote is from an articles that was cited in the Atlantic article.

" The changes Nadal made to close the gap on Djokovic were subtle, ranging from the psychological to the technical to the tactical. Rather than do anything major, I think Uncle Toni studied the film and made some adjustments in his nephew’s game. A few that I noticed (and I welcome your ideas): vary the serve more; go down the line more on both sides, but especially the backhand; do not rally with neutral balls, but hit out with aggression; play defense relentlessly and make Djokovic finish; play at a high level of energy and intensity and do not waver; keep an eye out for lulls in Djokovic’s game and pounce on him; and, finally, remember that you are Rafael Nadal."

If Nadal has so much brain power why does his team and Uncle Toni keeps coaching
him during matches almost to the extent of getting him a point penalty.

All of this make me think that a substantial part of credit for the brainy part should
go to his team, although ultimately it is Nadal who executes the modified game plan
on court.

I bolded above the "I think" proviso, which indicates it is the author of the piece who is interpolating that these are Toni Nadal's suggestions. We're told that it was Rafa who came up with the grip change that gave him the better serve at the 2010 USO, so it's not unreasonable to think that he's also come up with some of the changes to counteract Djokovic's game. And what I also bolded is where you rightly point out that it is Nadal who makes the choices on court. (I won't get into the coaching thing with you, but mid-point, no one is making decisions but the player.) He's always been a good tactician…this is not new. It's all fine for a coach or a team to come up with solutions, but it's up to the player to be able to effect them, and not all can. To that point, I don't know why acting as if Nadal's learning something from a coach is a knock on him. Most players have coaches, and one presumes they do something to earn their keep. It doesn't make the players dummies. Federer fans have often cried loudest for him to get a coach when he hasn't had one, and everyone is wondering if and when he'll get another one, now.

While the author of that article was gracious enough to acknowledge that it was his
opinion that Uncle Toni and Team have studied the videos and came up with suggestions
for tweaking, you are acting as though Nadal made a phone call to you and told that
he made the 2010 grip change; I have underlined that part. Truth is nobody really
knows what happens unless one is part of his inner circle.

What I have heard is that a Spanish coach by name Oscar taught Nadal the
new service motion and it is not just about a grip change. Actually, apparently
the coach filed a case against Tony for not giving him recognition for that. I am
attaching an article below which explains Nadal's 2010 serve along with videos.

http://tpatennis.net/the-truth-behind-nadals-improved-serve-it-wasnt-just-a-grip-change/

With respect to your later comment, while there is nothing wrong in having a coach and
a team, it is improper to take credit for strategy and tactics changes, if they are primarily
thought of by Coaches.

Sometimes, I get the picture of Rafa as some sort of a dignified version of someone
like Mike Tyson who was being completely controlled by his agents and managers.
Of course, this is an extreme comparison and Rafa can certainly do lot of basic tasks
that Tyson would be completely incapable of. I am making this comparison to
easily form a mental picture. Of course, this is my opinion (that is formed by
careful observation of several years) and I am not claiming that I was told this.

GSM, I'm not sure why you're so combative with me about this. As I bolded above, I said "We're told," etc. I put that wording in specifically to say that I can only know what has been reported. I made no claim that it was completely true, so I absolutely was not acting like I got a direct phone call from Rafa on this. The video you provided is instructional and interesting, btw. Those amongst us who play tennis should watch it to improve our serve.

Where I think you are pushing a bit hard is that Rafa is taking credit for any strategy or tactic changes. These are suppositions by the press. Rafa has not claimed them as his own idea. He simply has made changes. And they've been good ones, and they have been working out for him.

I'm not sure what it is that you have a problem with: that I cite an article that claims that Rafa is not an idiot/automaton who simply does what he's told and manages to effect changes simply because his body responds so well? It seems like that's what you'd like to say. Comparing him to Mike Tyson seems a bit rude and extreme. And very much against the point of the article that I presented. You've counter-punched a lot of points of Nadal taking ownership of his own improvements, but there is no reason to say that he is not the author of them, or at least the owner of them. I still don't see the distinction between what his team came up with, or what he did himself, and what he was able to change, as any detriment to himself as a player. He made changes to his game that got him back to #1. There really isn't any down-side to that.

I'm not backing off of the original point: that Rafa is a very clever tactician. It's one of the reasons that he's done so well. His tennis IQ is his own, and neither Toni, nor anyone else can make him chose more judiciously when he's on court.

 

[ClayDeath]

it is just a myth. tony really doesn't coach.

he is more of a cheerleader who tends to get a little emotional.

nadal -on the average-knows what he is doing out there.

guys like nadal and Federer don't even need a coach right now. they know far more about winning matches than their coaches.

I am sure there hundreds of fans in the stands screaming about the same thing. they are all saying stuff like "go rafa" or "get a little closer to the baseline".

it is not rocket science.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I agree that Nadal constantly improves his game and tweaks it to the demands of
the situation. However, I am not so sure as to how much of this tweaking (the brainy
part) is by him and how much is by his team.

The following quote is from an articles that was cited in the Atlantic article.

" The changes Nadal made to close the gap on Djokovic were subtle, ranging from the psychological to the technical to the tactical. Rather than do anything major, I think Uncle Toni studied the film and made some adjustments in his nephew’s game. A few that I noticed (and I welcome your ideas): vary the serve more; go down the line more on both sides, but especially the backhand; do not rally with neutral balls, but hit out with aggression; play defense relentlessly and make Djokovic finish; play at a high level of energy and intensity and do not waver; keep an eye out for lulls in Djokovic’s game and pounce on him; and, finally, remember that you are Rafael Nadal."

If Nadal has so much brain power why does his team and Uncle Toni keeps coaching
him during matches almost to the extent of getting him a point penalty.

All of this make me think that a substantial part of credit for the brainy part should
go to his team, although ultimately it is Nadal who executes the modified game plan
on court.

I bolded above the "I think" proviso, which indicates it is the author of the piece who is interpolating that these are Toni Nadal's suggestions. We're told that it was Rafa who came up with the grip change that gave him the better serve at the 2010 USO, so it's not unreasonable to think that he's also come up with some of the changes to counteract Djokovic's game. And what I also bolded is where you rightly point out that it is Nadal who makes the choices on court. (I won't get into the coaching thing with you, but mid-point, no one is making decisions but the player.) He's always been a good tactician…this is not new. It's all fine for a coach or a team to come up with solutions, but it's up to the player to be able to effect them, and not all can. To that point, I don't know why acting as if Nadal's learning something from a coach is a knock on him. Most players have coaches, and one presumes they do something to earn their keep. It doesn't make the players dummies. Federer fans have often cried loudest for him to get a coach when he hasn't had one, and everyone is wondering if and when he'll get another one, now.

While the author of that article was gracious enough to acknowledge that it was his
opinion that Uncle Toni and Team have studied the videos and came up with suggestions
for tweaking, you are acting as though Nadal made a phone call to you and told that
he made the 2010 grip change; I have underlined that part. Truth is nobody really
knows what happens unless one is part of his inner circle.

What I have heard is that a Spanish coach by name Oscar taught Nadal the
new service motion and it is not just about a grip change. Actually, apparently
the coach filed a case against Tony for not giving him recognition for that. I am
attaching an article below which explains Nadal's 2010 serve along with videos.

http://tpatennis.net/the-truth-behind-nadals-improved-serve-it-wasnt-just-a-grip-change/

With respect to your later comment, while there is nothing wrong in having a coach and
a team, it is improper to take credit for strategy and tactics changes, if they are primarily
thought of by Coaches.

Sometimes, I get the picture of Rafa as some sort of a dignified version of someone
like Mike Tyson who was being completely controlled by his agents and managers.
Of course, this is an extreme comparison and Rafa can certainly do lot of basic tasks
that Tyson would be completely incapable of. I am making this comparison to
easily form a mental picture. Of course, this is my opinion (that is formed by
careful observation of several years) and I am not claiming that I was told this.

GSM, I'm not sure why you're so combative with me about this. As I bolded above, I said "We're told," etc. I put that wording in specifically to say that I can only know what has been reported. I made no claim that it was completely true, so I absolutely was not acting like I got a direct phone call from Rafa on this. The video you provided is instructional and interesting, btw. Those amongst us who play tennis should watch it to improve our serve.

Where I think you are pushing a bit hard is that Rafa is taking credit for any strategy or tactic changes. These are suppositions by the press. Rafa has not claimed them as his own idea. He simply has made changes. And they've been good ones, and they have been working out for him.

I'm not sure what it is that you have a problem with: that I cite an article that claims that Rafa is not an idiot/automaton who simply does what he's told and manages to effect changes simply because his body responds so well? It seems like that's what you'd like to say. Comparing him to Mike Tyson seems a bit rude and extreme. And very much against the point of the article that I presented. You've counter-punched a lot of points of Nadal taking ownership of his own improvements, but there is no reason to say that he is not the author of them, or at least the owner of them. I still don't see the distinction between what his team came up with, or what he did himself, and what he was able to change, as any detriment to himself as a player. He made changes to his game that got him back to #1. There really isn't any down-side to that.

I'm not backing off of the original point: that Rafa is a very clever tactician. It's one of the reasons that he's done so well. His tennis IQ is his own, and neither Toni, nor anyone else can make him chose more judiciously when he's on court.

I am not being combative at all here. I am just trying to inject some realism. That's all.
Let me explain, just in case it is still not clear.

1. See the italicized portion. You are saying "we are told ......" in one sentence. Then, you
are saying "So, it is not unreasonable to think that he also came up ................".
This means, you are claiming your first sentence as a fact and on the basis of it you are
conjuring the possibility of your next claim in the second sentence being true. I believe
I clearly demonstrated that your first claim itself is not known to be a fact (and therefore
nothing much need to be said about the second claim).

2. Yes, we all can only know what has been reported. But, can you show me a report
that claims that Rafa was the brain behind the changing of grips. Sometimes, may be
we see what we want to see in the reports instead of looking at it objectively.
I could have easily said "I am told that Toni Nadal made these changes after
studying the video tapes" without critically examining it. But, I did not do so.

3. If you are not differentiating between Rafa and his team, I am willing to
admit that he and his team is certainly one of the most brainy teams, if not
the most brainy team, out there. I was simply trying to point out that
not all the strategy and tactics can be attributed to RN per se.

4. Even if we are differentiating between Rafa and his team, I will not give
zero credit to Rafa for the strategy part. First, as I mentioned in my earlier
posting (without any prodding from you), ultimately Rafa has to execute
it on the court. That itself requires intelligence, even if the strategy and
tactics are conceived by the team. Not everybody can do it. Second,
I am sure Rafa would have had some input into the development of
new strategy and tactics. It is hard for me to distribute the credit for
the brainy part to Rafa and his team without being part of his inner
circle. My wild guess would be Rafa 35% and his team 65%.

5. I already mentioned in my post that the comparison to Mike Tyson
is extreme. I was bringing it up so that people can quickly form a
mental/visual perception of the idea behind what I was saying.
It was not meant to degrade Nadal.

6. Although many (almost all) have coaches, for some reason I have
the feeling that Rafa's team contributes more to his success than
other player's team for their player's success and also I feel that
his team seems to control (this is not just about his strategy and
shot selection) his behavior. These are just my impressions and
I cannot prove it. There are several reasons why this perception
arises.
a. Many player have different coaches at different points of time.
Rafa always had the same coach. (No, I am not asking him to change
his coach; I am just explaining why the perception arises).
b. Rafa has a elder family member as a coach and so there is
a domineering approach on the part of the coach and a docile
acceptance on Rafa's part.
c. Rafa started tour circuit at a very young age. At that age coaching
is even more important. So, the pattern of who is the boss is
set long time ago and difficult to change.

I think I have explained myself enough and clearly and so I am
going to put an end to this chain of thought (unless somebody
really makes any new points).

 

[brokenshoelace]

it is just a myth. tony really doesn't coach.

he is more of a cheerleader who tends to get a little emotional.

nadal -on the average-knows what he is doing out there.

guys like nadal and Federer don't even need a coach right now. they know far more about winning matches than their coaches.

I am sure there hundreds of fans in the stands screaming about the same thing. they are all saying stuff like "go rafa" or "get a little closer to the baseline".

it is not rocket science.

The role of coaches might get overstated at times (and I've long maintained that), but the above post, especially the part about Toni not coaching and simply being a cheerleader is ridiculous. Sorry for being harsh, but when you start a post with "this is a myth" followed what pure rubbish then it's warranted. You think Toni's advice is as simple as "stand closer to the baseline"? Tennis is decided on intricacies, minute adjustments, and strategy tweaks. Stuff that your average fan can't see. So when Toni suggested that Nadal alters his service grip, which led to his first US Open win in 2010, that was a "go Rafa" advice that fans in the stands can scream? Okay. Well, someone alert these players, because they're spending money on nothing.

 

[Kieran]

Hey GSM,

If Toni came up with the changes needed to tame Nole, or a team of scientists, Rafa still has to implement them. And of course, tennis intelligence refers to how a chap handles difficulties out in the field - not just in practice and preparation.

Rafa is the smartest at fixing things on the court, boxing off his foe and applying a strategy. They all have teams, but during the match, they're on their own.

Cali!

I'd have difficulties with any article that compares even a great composer with Mozart, let alone a tennis player, but when an article correctly praises Rafa's oncourt intelligence, then I'd have difficulties with anyone who disagrees with that assessment. And if that same anybody doesn't see real beauty in Rafa's game, then I have serious difficulties with that person.

So come on, buddy, help me out with my difficulties here - and I'll help you out with yours...

 

[brokenshoelace]

The Atlantic published this article, which makes the case for Nadal's brains as a great feature of his tennis success, and I think it's worth reading. He's too often relegated to the "brawn" category...unfairly, I would say. Give it a read.

I am absent from the boards for a couple weeks and inevitably I have to come back and see this kind of nonsense.

Why is it nonsense? You've called Nadal the most intelligent tennis player in the world. The Da Vinci comparison is obviously pretty stupid but that's just an eye-catching headline.

 

[Moxie]

I'm as bored as anyone that we got hung up on the Da Vinci comparison. I went for the flash, in my thread title, as did the writer. But the pith is more like this:

"Unlike Federer, Nadal has more frequently conjured up images of sweaty, fast-and-loose iconoclasm and brute force among sports journalists. In the years since his inaugural French Open victory in 2005, and most noticeably in the first few years after, he drew comparisons to pirates, cavemen, bulldogs, bulls, bulls, more bulls, bulls in china shops, bulls in Federer’s china shop, and, um, “Apaches.”...But his offhand remark actually sheds light on a truth about Nadal that’s been somewhat underappreciated until recently: He may not be the magical athlete-artist Federer is (or—gulp—was), but he’s the Leonardo da Vinci of the sport in that he’s a whiz kid—a tennis brainiac."

And this: "Nadal has been one of the shrewdest players in professional tennis for a while now, and these days, more fans and analysts have begun to publicly appreciate that—as illustrated by remarks like John McEnroe’s….it’s a pleasant surprise to see Nadal’s success rightly attributed to both brains and brawn."