Obsessed Winners, Are They Accepted in Tennis Culture?

[brokenshoelace]

The difference between Roger's winning mentality and Jordan's (or Nadal's for that matter) is that Roger wants to win badly, but he doesn't seem to "hate" his opponents per se. When I say "hate" I'm not talking about his relationship with these guys off the court. Nadal gets along well with most, but on the court, he looks like he hates his opponent and wants to destroy them. That was Jordan's mentality. He wanted to embarrass his opponents, even Ewing and Barkley who were his friends. Roger doesn't have that cut-throat mentality, but he's certainly obsessed with winning.

You have to be kidding. Nadal looks like he "hates" his opponents? What are you looking at?

No wonder you and others misunderstand Nadal so much, if you attribute this sort of mindset to him.:lolz::lolz::lolz::lolz:

This comparison of Nadal to Jordan is preposterous on so many levels, this one being one of those. Nadal does not "hate" his opponents. He simply has immense confidence in his ability to outlast them and win points when he most needs them.

Jordan was the ultimate Type A personality. The games he played were on his racket, no one else's. Jordan did not win half of his titles by forcing his (superior) opponents to self-destruct. We are talking about Michael Jordan here, not Dirk Nowitzki with his lone title.

Take a deep breath...

Now, do something veeeeeeeeeeeeery important: Read... Then do something even more important, and perhaps beyond your abilities, but try: Understand.

I never mentioned anything about THE WAY Nadal plays tennis. I didn't compare his skills to Jordan. In fact, if you weren't so drowned in your ever moronic quest to take a shot at Nadal at every opportunity, you would have noticed that I compare FEDERER's skills to Jordan earlier, as far as playing with extreme confidence, believing he is so superior, and producing moments of genius.

I also said these guys have some TRAITS of Jordan (Federer has one of a kind talent, Nadal has the win at all cost mentality, etc...). I didn't say Nadal was exactly like Jordan.

And please, for someone who's been wrong about Nadal so much (and I know you'll deny this with some fickle arbitrary justification of your questions regarding him throughout the years), you're in no place to say anyone "misunderstands" Nadal.

Nadal wants to destroy his opponents. That's the point. I put "hate" in between brackets on purpose, but of course I shouldn't expect you to get that. He wants to win every set 6-0. That level of intensity is somewhat similar to Jordan. I never said he is exactly like Jordan. Good god, just re-read the OP and you'll notice how I said THERE IS NO ONE LIKE JORDAN in any sport, and certainly not tennis.

But of course, any stupid excuse to bring up Nadal "outlasting" those with "superior" talent. Now please, I'm not going to play a mod card because I'm not one, but if you're going to turn this thread into another discussion of Nadal's talent, sod off. Thanks.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The difference between Roger's winning mentality and Jordan's (or Nadal's for that matter) is that Roger wants to win badly, but he doesn't seem to "hate" his opponents per se. When I say "hate" I'm not talking about his relationship with these guys off the court. Nadal gets along well with most, but on the court, he looks like he hates his opponent and wants to destroy them. That was Jordan's mentality. He wanted to embarrass his opponents, even Ewing and Barkley who were his friends. Roger doesn't have that cut-throat mentality, but he's certainly obsessed with winning.

I agree. And I think you stated it batter than other posters. Some people think that Roger has to glare at opponents or do something that makes him look intimidating in order to show that he is obsessed with winning. I think that he does his talking with the racket and he has a different character, so there is no need for him appear belligerent on court because it is not his style. People have ben saying over the years that Roger has to openly show that hates Rafa in order to beat him, which I find rather reductive. Hating Rafa would not have changed anything because Roger always won with his preternatural tennis ability, and Rafa just happens to be a tough opponent for him as we all know. Roger has the obsession and he shows with his racket, not with gestures. Roger has also shown his obsession through his tears in Melbourne, once when he won, and once when he lost.

Most people don't understand this at all, but Nadal's mindset is rooted in persistence, consistency, constancy, and stamina. All of this, along with his athleticism and very good (not Federer or Djokovic-level) shotmaking, make him very confident that he can win any match he plays if he executes.

To say that he is motivated by anything like Jordan's hatred of opponents is absolutely absurd. He doesn't look like that at all, nor does he talk like it. Nadal is much more of a cardboard than that, in that sense. Jordan would have, for example, been much more of a jackass in how he talked about opponents if he was a tennis player and had an 18-3 record against someone (like Nadal against Ferrer).

Nadal has dominant records against many opponents and then he still approaches the match with the most wimpy statements about how he only has a "small chance". To compare that mindset to Jordan's is utterly stupid.

Look at the way Nadal plays Soderling, or even Djokovic... that's all I'm going to say.

And bringing up how Jordan acted off the court is a big highlight of how you (typically) utterly missed the point. In fact, I explicitly mentioned how off the court, tennis players are NOTHING like Jordan, Nadal included. That's part of the different culture that you astutely brought up earlier, and part of what this thread is aiming at. Yes, Jordan was a dick to his opponents off the court. Nadal isn't. But that's not the point. It's about how they approached the game on the court, even if their methods were different (ie Nadal supposedly "outlasting"). It's all about doing what it takes to win, which they both do. Playing with unmatched level of intensity. Being extremely clutch. Rising to the occasion. Continuously improving. Relishing new challenges. Shutting up critics (you of all people should know this) These are the points of similarities. Do you seriously not see them? It has nothing to do with the irrelevant stuff you're bringing up because nobody said Jordan and Nadal are alike in the way you're implying.

 

[calitennis127]

Yes, Jordan was a dick to his opponents off the court. Nadal isn't. But that's not the point.

Yes, it kind of was. You said that Nadal looks like he "hates" his opponents on court, and I really took issue with that. Nadal does not have that kind of "you suck you worthless turd" attitude toward his opponents, for better and for worse.

It's about how they approached the game on the court, even if their methods were different (ie Nadal supposedly "outlasting"). It's all about doing what it takes to win, which they both do. Playing with unmatched level of intensity. Being extremely clutch. Rising to the occasion. Continuously improving. Relishing new challenges.

Agreed.

Shutting up critics (you of all people should know this)

When he was hitting those 2 winners in the World Tour Finals, I didn't have to shut up, because there was nothing to talk about.

Yes, I know it was slow and low-bouncing, but still.

These are the points of similarities. Do you seriously not see them?

I do. But I also think there are such stark differences that it doesn't really make too much sense to compare them more than you would any other high-achieving athletes. Everything you listed could apply to Tiger Woods or Tom Brady or Joe Montana or Lance "Livestrong" Armstrong. When comparing Jordan to Nadal, you are comparing two players with some major, major differences.

Can you find anything analogous to Jordan sneaking out a weasel win like Nadal's against Gulbis when the winner count was 59 to 13?

In basketball, this would be like scoring 17 points to a rival's 42, but winning the game, and then afterward saying, "Well, I had 17 and only 2 turnovers. My opponent had 42 and 7 turnovers. We won, I'm better".

That analogy just about sums up the argument of Nadal advocates whenever winner-to-unforced error ratio is discussed.

 

[Denis]

Maybe this thread should be moved to the 'other sports' section?

 

[tented]

I have moved the posts which were only about basketball to the Frontier Sports Bar's basketball thread, beginning with this post:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=31&pid=65484#pid65484

From now on, continue basketball-only discussions in that forum. Thanks.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I have moved the posts which were only about basketball to the Frontier Sports Bar's basketball thread, beginning with this post:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=31&pid=65484#pid65484

From now on, continue basketball-only discussions in that forum. Thanks.

You just have an agenda against the great JR Smith.

 

[calitennis127]

I have moved the posts which were only about basketball to the Frontier Sports Bar's basketball thread, beginning with this post:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=31&pid=65484#pid65484

From now on, continue basketball-only discussions in that forum. Thanks.

You just have an agenda against the great JR Smith.

Please keep your posts to just tennis on this thread. Thank you.

 

[calitennis127]

The difference between Roger's winning mentality and Jordan's (or Nadal's for that matter) is that Roger wants to win badly, but he doesn't seem to "hate" his opponents per se. When I say "hate" I'm not talking about his relationship with these guys off the court. Nadal gets along well with most, but on the court, he looks like he hates his opponent and wants to destroy them. That was Jordan's mentality. He wanted to embarrass his opponents, even Ewing and Barkley who were his friends. Roger doesn't have that cut-throat mentality, but he's certainly obsessed with winning.

You have to be kidding. Nadal looks like he "hates" his opponents? What are you looking at?

No wonder you and others misunderstand Nadal so much, if you attribute this sort of mindset to him.:lolz::lolz::lolz::lolz:

This comparison of Nadal to Jordan is preposterous on so many levels, this one being one of those. Nadal does not "hate" his opponents. He simply has immense confidence in his ability to outlast them and win points when he most needs them.

Jordan was the ultimate Type A personality. The games he played were on his racket, no one else's. Jordan did not win half of his titles by forcing his (superior) opponents to self-destruct. We are talking about Michael Jordan here, not Dirk Nowitzki with his lone title.

It's amusing that you profess to understand Nadal better than others.

It's amusing that you apparently think only Nadal fans are qualified to judge Nadal properly. I have watched countless Nadal matches and by this time I am more than qualified to have a well-founded view about his mentality.

Why do you think that only his most ardent fans "understand" him? You watch him hardly any more than I have, and the difference is negligible.

I think Broken is right to say Nadal "hates" his opponents, or, in other words, spares them no mercy.

Well, you're both largely wrong. There is a difference between constantly playing your hardest and doing the best that you can, versus seeking to explicitly dominate your opponent. Nadal fits much more in the former category.

As to "what are you looking at?": have you ever noticed the Nadal sneer across the net?

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

Yeah, it is horrifying. Just downright ghastly. So intimidating.

 

[Moxie]

The difference between Roger's winning mentality and Jordan's (or Nadal's for that matter) is that Roger wants to win badly, but he doesn't seem to "hate" his opponents per se. When I say "hate" I'm not talking about his relationship with these guys off the court. Nadal gets along well with most, but on the court, he looks like he hates his opponent and wants to destroy them. That was Jordan's mentality. He wanted to embarrass his opponents, even Ewing and Barkley who were his friends. Roger doesn't have that cut-throat mentality, but he's certainly obsessed with winning.

You have to be kidding. Nadal looks like he "hates" his opponents? What are you looking at?

No wonder you and others misunderstand Nadal so much, if you attribute this sort of mindset to him.:lolz::lolz::lolz::lolz:

This comparison of Nadal to Jordan is preposterous on so many levels, this one being one of those. Nadal does not "hate" his opponents. He simply has immense confidence in his ability to outlast them and win points when he most needs them.

Jordan was the ultimate Type A personality. The games he played were on his racket, no one else's. Jordan did not win half of his titles by forcing his (superior) opponents to self-destruct. We are talking about Michael Jordan here, not Dirk Nowitzki with his lone title.

It's amusing that you profess to understand Nadal better than others.

It's amusing that you apparently think only Nadal fans are qualified to judge Nadal properly. I have watched countless Nadal matches and by this time I am more than qualified to have a well-founded view about his mentality.

Why do you think that only his most ardent fans "understand" him? You watch him hardly any more than I have, and the difference is negligible.

I think Broken is right to say Nadal "hates" his opponents, or, in other words, spares them no mercy.

Well, you're both largely wrong. There is a difference between constantly playing your hardest and doing the best that you can, versus seeking to explicitly dominate your opponent. Nadal fits much more in the former category.

As to "what are you looking at?": have you ever noticed the Nadal sneer across the net?

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

Yeah, it is horrifying. Just downright ghastly. So intimidating.

Cali, no one said that only Nadal fans understand him. I'm saying that you, however, would be the least of anyone, as you look at him through tinted glasses. (Tinted by your endless quest to denigrate Nadal's game and your slender-as-a-thread definition of what 'talent' is.) I will leave that as my answer to your other responses about simply "doing the best he can," as opposed to trying to dominate his opponents; (he's had merciless score lines over all of the top guys.) As to the intimidation of his glare: laugh, if you like, but plenty have been withered by it, and call him the toughest opponent to play.

TBH, you counter your own argument to downplay Rafa's killer-instinct. I thought that was the only aspect of his game that you gave ground to. This proves, once again, you will argue anything that seems to shine Nadal in an favorable light, even if you contradict yourself. As Rafa continues to rack up the Majors and otherwise hardware, your arguments against his ability erode your own credibility to comment on it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think Broken is right to say Nadal "hates" his opponents, or, in other words, spares them no mercy.

Well, you're both largely wrong. There is a difference between constantly playing your hardest and doing the best that you can, versus seeking to explicitly dominate your opponent. Nadal fits much more in the former category.

As to "what are you looking at?": have you ever noticed the Nadal sneer across the net?

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

Yeah, it is horrifying. Just downright ghastly. So intimidating.

You're in denial if you don't think Nadal is seeking to dominate opponents, or that he doesn't intimidate. Oh right, Nalbandian isn't intimidated so that just means Nadal doesn't intimidate anyone. Ask Federer.

 

[calitennis127]

I think Broken is right to say Nadal "hates" his opponents, or, in other words, spares them no mercy.

Well, you're both largely wrong. There is a difference between constantly playing your hardest and doing the best that you can, versus seeking to explicitly dominate your opponent. Nadal fits much more in the former category.

As to "what are you looking at?": have you ever noticed the Nadal sneer across the net?

:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

Yeah, it is horrifying. Just downright ghastly. So intimidating.

You're in denial if you don't think Nadal is seeking to dominate opponents, or that he doesn't intimidate. Oh right, Nalbandian isn't intimidated so that just means Nadal doesn't intimidate anyone. Ask Federer.

Good grief.

The word "domination" clearly implies some degree of callousness, meanness, and even viciousness. Nadal does not play this way. I will agree that he looks to put opponents away when they are down and not give them second chances in matches, but often he does this with an unwavering stability and maintaining a solid level with tremendous stamina, while others cannot maintain their higher level for as long. Usually when he busts open huge leads it is with his opponents unraveling. Case and point is Federer.

As for "intimidation", I can only chuckle at you and Moxie. Are you kidding me? Intimidate in what sense? If you are going to say that he intimidates as far as being a very formidable opponent who most players feel they are going to have to play very well to beat, then yes, he "intimidates". But that wasn't you're original point. Your original (silly) point was that he seems to hate his opponents on court, similar to Jordan, and now I am hearing that this mentality makes him "intimidating". As someone who is well-acquainted with the culture of the NBA and NFL, that is a laughable comparison. Nadal does not play with a mean streak, nor does his style of play embarrass opponents. His style wins, but it does not humiliate or emphatically demoralize. Nadal does not have the quality to his game of making the opponent feel that he is just "too good" the way Federer or Nalbandian have over the years. Hard to beat and very good, yes. Out-of-this-world good, no.

As for Federer v. Nadal, you are getting this all wrong. Nadal "intimidates" Federer in one way and one way only - and that is when it comes to winning big points in tight matches. But other than that, Federer is actually very comfortable playing Nadal and he clearly trusts his own usual game, too much so. This has been reflected in his unwillingness to change strategy or re-evaluate his approach to Nadal over the years. He feels that he is just a couple small items away from winning and he feels that if he plays well, he'll win. I wish he had some of the paranoia that you think he does. It would have propelled him to make much more in the way of significant changes in his approach to Nadal.

 

[calitennis127]

I'm saying that you, however, would be the least of anyone, as you look at him through tinted glasses.

Are you kidding me? First of all - how are you not biased if he's your favorite player? Second, maybe you should consider why my glasses are "tinted" as they are. Maybe it's because I saw something over and over, identified it, and then changed the lens so that the glare wouldn't hit my eye anymore. My original understanding is right on point. I saw the same matches you did, but I just came to different conclusions.

(Tinted by your endless quest to denigrate Nadal's game and your slender-as-a-thread definition of what 'talent' is.)

I denigrate the aspects of his game that deserve being denigrated, based on how they are overhyped and credited excessively. I also point out that his record of accomplishment is highly distorted in the sense that you'd think someone with 13 Slams is worlds better and more talented than someone with 2. Nadal is not worlds better and more talented than Andy Murray. So what explains the difference in results? Factors that Moxie does not fully grasp.

As for talent, I have repeatedly acknowledged that in certain significant ways, Nadal is very talented. However, there is no way that he is talented to the point where he should have a 22-10 record over Roger Federer or that he should EVER beat Novak Djokovic in a US Open final, to take two of many examples.

I will leave that as my answer to your other responses about simply "doing the best he can," as opposed to trying to dominate his opponents; (he's had merciless score lines over all of the top guys.)

But why has he had those score lines? Is it because he is mean? Heck no. Is it because he is explicitly trying to overwhelm/humiliate his opponent? No. It's because he thinks very pragmatically and sees his best route to winning as not giving his opponents second chances after he has taken a definitive lead. Combine this with his great stamina and penchant to up his level after being on court for a couple hours, and that's how you get those score lines.

As to the intimidation of his glare: laugh, if you like, but plenty have been withered by it, and call him the toughest opponent to play.

What on earth are you talking about? "Withered by it"?:lolz::lolz:

First of all, this is tennis. This isn't the movie 300 or some form of life-or-death gladiatorial combat. Nor is it a violent contact sport such as boxing or (American) football. A little glare on a tennis court is nothing to start trembling over, and in Nadal's case, his "glare" does not have the same vicious character as what I have seen from other players, most notably Federer.

I will grant that Nadal has his moments of cockiness and swagger, but he is way too wrapped up in his own game to really exert that feeling on his opponent in a direct fashion.

Finally, if you want to see real intimidation - watch the Seahawks-49ers game this Sunday. In particular, watch the head-hunting maniacal defense of the Seahawks. That, my friend, is intimidating. Not someone looking up to the crowd with a determined facial expression in a tennis match.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Good grief.

The word "domination" clearly implies some degree of callousness, meanness, and even viciousness.

dom·i·nate (dm-nt)
v. dom·i·nat·ed, dom·i·nat·ing, dom·i·nates
v.tr.
1. To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power: Successful leaders dominate events rather than react to them.
2. To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over: Ambition dominated their lives.
3. To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in: a drug company that dominates the tranquilizer market.
4. To overlook from a height: a view from the cliffside chalet that dominates the valley.
v.intr.
1. To have or exert strong authority or mastery.
2. To be situated in or occupy a position that is more elevated or decidedly superior to others.

I'm afraid you just made the above up.

Nadal does not play this way. I will agree that he looks to put opponents away when they are down and not give them second chances in matches, but often he does this with an unwavering stability and maintaining a solid level with tremendous stamina, while others cannot maintain their higher level for as long. Usually when he busts open huge leads it is with his opponents unraveling. Case and point is Federer..

Here we are with "stamina" again. Yeah, how many of Nadal's per year wins are marathon matches that require abnormal stamina? About 5%?

As for "intimidation", I can only chuckle at you and Moxie. Are you kidding me? Intimidate in what sense? If you are going to say that he intimidates as far as being a very formidable opponent who most players feel they are going to have to play very well to beat, then yes, he "intimidates". But that wasn't you're original point. Your original (silly) point was that he seems to hate his opponents on court, similar to Jordan, and now I am hearing that this mentality makes him "intimidating". As someone who is well-acquainted with the culture of the NBA and NFL, that is a laughable comparison. Nadal does not play with a mean streak, nor does his style of play embarrass opponents. His style wins, but it does not humiliate or emphatically demoralize. Nadal does not have the quality to his game of making the opponent feel that he is just "too good" the way Federer or Nalbandian have over the years. Hard to beat and very good, yes. Out-of-this-world good, no..

Let me stop you right there... Nalbandian does not belong in this conversation. As you can clearly read in the thread title, the keyword is "WINNERS" which Nalbandian very seldom was (at least not when it's anything of note). So leave him out of this and let's stick with the relevant. Nalbandian never intimidated anyone. Get real dude. He at times left everyone in awe with his level of play, but that's about it (it was particularly not intimidating to know that he's only going to play like this about once in a blue moon, or he might self-destruct in the match itself). Not to mention, those instances were few and far in between (and yes, I'm aware I originally brought Nalbandian up but you're smart enough to spot sarcasm).

You don't have to play "out-of-this-world-good" to intimidate. Sometimes, the very thought that no matter how good you play, your opponent is more than likely going to beat you is scary enough (this point is not debatable, by the way. Nadal will more than likely beat any opponent, as his H2H record attests).

As for Federer v. Nadal, you are getting this all wrong. Nadal "intimidates" Federer in one way and one way only - and that is when it comes to winning big points in tight matches.

LOL, you say that as if it's some minor detail that doesn't matter. In case you haven't noticed, the majortity of Nadal-Federer matches ARE tight and contain big points (and if the matches are one sided, Federer has come up on the losing end a fair share of times). Can you name me a Fedal grand slam match that didn't contain big points? So yeah, if one guy will win all the big points, then he's going to win the match. It's that simple.

If you're admitting this intimidates Federer, then you're conceding that he's intimidated by Nadal.

But other than that, Federer is actually very comfortable playing Nadal

I guess knowing you're going to lose is less stressful and more comforting than not knowing what's going to happen.

and he clearly trusts his own usual game, too much so. This has been reflected in his unwillingness to change strategy or re-evaluate his approach to Nadal over the years. He feels that he is just a couple small items away from winning and he feels that if he plays well, he'll win. I wish he had some of the paranoia that you think he does. It would have propelled him to make much more in the way of significant changes in his approach to Nadal.

Either that or he just hasn't found the solution.