Rafa Is Probably the Player with the Most Match Wins Playing Poorly - Toni Nadal

[the AntiPusher]

Thanks, BobV, and good to see you around. One of my interests in translating it is to show the complexities of Toni Nadal. I think he's understood a little too one-dimensionally in English. But I would challenge you that he's underrated as a coach.

I agree with that, no ordinary coach could get Nadal so far. As talented as Rafa, i don't think he is flat out more talented than Djoker, Murray or Delpo yet he is more accomplished than them all combined together; must be doing something right.... also consider that Djoker has a good long-term coach himself!

Excellent post, ricardo. Nadal is very talented but he is also a major overachiever. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The two are not mutually exclusive.
'Two events are 'mutually exclusive' if they cannot occur at the same time', if you saying that Rafa is very talented but also a major overachiever but you say its "not" mutually exclusive.. Cali.. I am confused.. can you expand upon this

Of course it's not mutually exclusive in this case, 'talent' and 'overachiever' occur at the same time.

:laydownlaughing

 

[Moxie]

I agree with that, no ordinary coach could get Nadal so far. As talented as Rafa, i don't think he is flat out more talented than Djoker, Murray or Delpo yet he is more accomplished than them all combined together; must be doing something right.... also consider that Djoker has a good long-term coach himself!

Excellent post, ricardo. Nadal is very talented but he is also a major overachiever. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The two are not mutually exclusive.
'Two events are 'mutually exclusive' if they cannot occur at the same time', if you saying that Rafa is very talented but also a major overachiever but you say its "not" mutually exclusive.. Cali.. I am confused.. can you expand upon this

Of course it's not mutually exclusive in this case, 'talent' and 'overachiever' occur at the same time.

:laydownlaughing

Some people are running out of wiggle-room for explaining Nadal's vast "over-achievements."

 

[Ricardo]

Excellent post, ricardo. Nadal is very talented but he is also a major overachiever. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The two are not mutually exclusive.
'Two events are 'mutually exclusive' if they cannot occur at the same time', if you saying that Rafa is very talented but also a major overachiever but you say its "not" mutually exclusive.. Cali.. I am confused.. can you expand upon this

Of course it's not mutually exclusive in this case, 'talent' and 'overachiever' occur at the same time.

:laydownlaughing

Some people are running out of wiggle-room for explaining Nadal's vast "over-achievements."

I am looking at the logic of this, not that i actually subscribe to Nadal's lack of talent and overachiever theory. AP would be laughing as he should, clearly he got the logic the wrong way around...... but coming from him i am not surprised, his logic (or lack of) is a fun thing to see :snigger.

i thought you'd understand better where i was coming from, but no... you are Moxie

 

[Moxie]

The two are not mutually exclusive.
'Two events are 'mutually exclusive' if they cannot occur at the same time', if you saying that Rafa is very talented but also a major overachiever but you say its "not" mutually exclusive.. Cali.. I am confused.. can you expand upon this

Of course it's not mutually exclusive in this case, 'talent' and 'overachiever' occur at the same time.

:laydownlaughing

Some people are running out of wiggle-room for explaining Nadal's vast "over-achievements."

I am looking at the logic of this, not that i actually subscribe to Nadal's lack of talent and overachiever theory. AP would be laughing as he should, clearly he got the logic the wrong way around...... but coming from him i am not surprised, his logic (or lack of) is a fun thing to see :snigger.

i thought you'd understand better where i was coming from, but no... you are Moxie

Don't blame it on me being "Moxie." Explain yourself. You're dancing a bit around the notion of "mutually exclusive." So, which is it? Can Rafa be talented, and an over-achiever, at the same time, or not? (And is this dichotomy too simplistic to describe his success?)

 

[the AntiPusher]

The two are not mutually exclusive.
'Two events are 'mutually exclusive' if they cannot occur at the same time', if you saying that Rafa is very talented but also a major overachiever but you say its "not" mutually exclusive.. Cali.. I am confused.. can you expand upon this

Of course it's not mutually exclusive in this case, 'talent' and 'overachiever' occur at the same time.

:laydownlaughing

Some people are running out of wiggle-room for explaining Nadal's vast "over-achievements."

I am looking at the logic of this, not that i actually subscribe to Nadal's lack of talent and overachiever theory. AP would be laughing as he should, clearly he got the logic the wrong way around...... but coming from him i am not surprised, his logic (or lack of) is a fun thing to see :snigger.

i thought you'd understand better where i was coming from, but no... you are Moxie

no no I didn't get it confused.. how could I when I inputed the correct explanation of the term..you replied with some silly icon.. I laugh at your lack of responding to my inquiring.. Don't think you have it to match wits with AP

 

[the AntiPusher]

Of course it's not mutually exclusive in this case, 'talent' and 'overachiever' occur at the same time.

:laydownlaughing

Some people are running out of wiggle-room for explaining Nadal's vast "over-achievements."

I am looking at the logic of this, not that i actually subscribe to Nadal's lack of talent and overachiever theory. AP would be laughing as he should, clearly he got the logic the wrong way around...... but coming from him i am not surprised, his logic (or lack of) is a fun thing to see :snigger.

i thought you'd understand better where i was coming from, but no... you are Moxie

Don't blame it on me being "Moxie." Explain yourself. You're dancing a bit around the notion of "mutually exclusive." So, which is it? Can Rafa be talented, and an over-achiever, at the same time, or not? (And is this dichotomy too simplistic to describe his success?)

Moxie .. he cant explain it .. that's why I asked earlier and he began the dance.. Now he trying to make it appear that I or you are a bit derelict in our response.

 

[Ricardo]

Of course it's not mutually exclusive in this case, 'talent' and 'overachiever' occur at the same time.

:laydownlaughing

Some people are running out of wiggle-room for explaining Nadal's vast "over-achievements."

I am looking at the logic of this, not that i actually subscribe to Nadal's lack of talent and overachiever theory. AP would be laughing as he should, clearly he got the logic the wrong way around...... but coming from him i am not surprised, his logic (or lack of) is a fun thing to see :snigger.

i thought you'd understand better where i was coming from, but no... you are Moxie

no no I didn't get it confused.. how could I when I inputed the correct explanation of the term..you replied with some silly icon.. I laugh at your lack of responding to my inquiring.. Don't think you have it to match wits with AP

but AP doesn't have a lot of wits, which is why he often stands corrected by many. anyone can put in 'explanation' of the term but you got the logic wrong..... which is a lot harder for you to comprehend. And no i'd never wish for my 'wits' to match yours thanks for the suggestion though.

 

[Ricardo]

Of course it's not mutually exclusive in this case, 'talent' and 'overachiever' occur at the same time.

:laydownlaughing

Some people are running out of wiggle-room for explaining Nadal's vast "over-achievements."

I am looking at the logic of this, not that i actually subscribe to Nadal's lack of talent and overachiever theory. AP would be laughing as he should, clearly he got the logic the wrong way around...... but coming from him i am not surprised, his logic (or lack of) is a fun thing to see :snigger.

i thought you'd understand better where i was coming from, but no... you are Moxie

Don't blame it on me being "Moxie." Explain yourself. You're dancing a bit around the notion of "mutually exclusive." So, which is it? Can Rafa be talented, and an over-achiever, at the same time, or not? (And is this dichotomy too simplistic to describe his success?)

no i can never blame someone for being 'someone'. to answer your question in short, yes he can be both, at the same time. but that doesn't mean i agree with that notion (about over-achieving).

 

[the AntiPusher]

Y
:laydownlaughing

Some people are running out of wiggle-room for explaining Nadal's vast "over-achievements."

I am looking at the logic of this, not that i actually subscribe to Nadal's lack of talent and overachiever theory. AP would be laughing as he should, clearly he got the logic the wrong way around...... but coming from him i am not surprised, his logic (or lack of) is a fun thing to see :snigger.

i thought you'd understand better where i was coming from, but no... you are Moxie

no no I didn't get it confused.. how could I when I inputed the correct explanation of the term..you replied with some silly icon.. I laugh at your lack of responding to my inquiring.. Don't think you have it to match wits with AP

but AP doesn't have a lot of wits, which is why he often stands corrected by many. anyone can put in 'explanation' of the term but you got the logic wrong..... which is a lot harder for you to comprehend. And no i'd never wish for my 'wits' to match yours thanks for the suggestion though.

If u say so but it's obvious to everyone that u don't have a clue about whatever point you was trying to convey

 

[Ricardo]

Some people are running out of wiggle-room for explaining Nadal's vast "over-achievements."

I am looking at the logic of this, not that i actually subscribe to Nadal's lack of talent and overachiever theory. AP would be laughing as he should, clearly he got the logic the wrong way around...... but coming from him i am not surprised, his logic (or lack of) is a fun thing to see :snigger.

i thought you'd understand better where i was coming from, but no... you are Moxie

no no I didn't get it confused.. how could I when I inputed the correct explanation of the term..you replied with some silly icon.. I laugh at your lack of responding to my inquiring.. Don't think you have it to match wits with AP

but AP doesn't have a lot of wits, which is why he often stands corrected by many. anyone can put in 'explanation' of the term but you got the logic wrong..... which is a lot harder for you to comprehend. And no i'd never wish for my 'wits' to match yours thanks for the suggestion though.

If u say so but it's obvious to everyone that u don't have a clue about whatever point you was trying to convey

i just did, and proved that you just don't get it. "mutually exclusive"... write a definition then apply it totally wrong, hohohohohohohoho :snigger

 

[the AntiPusher]

I am looking at the logic of this, not that i actually subscribe to Nadal's lack of talent and overachiever theory. AP would be laughing as he should, clearly he got the logic the wrong way around...... but coming from him i am not surprised, his logic (or lack of) is a fun thing to see :snigger.

i thought you'd understand better where i was coming from, but no... you are Moxie

no no I didn't get it confused.. how could I when I inputed the correct explanation of the term..you replied with some silly icon.. I laugh at your lack of responding to my inquiring.. Don't think you have it to match wits with AP

but AP doesn't have a lot of wits, which is why he often stands corrected by many. anyone can put in 'explanation' of the term but you got the logic wrong..... which is a lot harder for you to comprehend. And no i'd never wish for my 'wits' to match yours thanks for the suggestion though.

If u say so but it's obvious to everyone that u don't have a clue about whatever point you was trying to convey

i just did, and proved that you just don't get it. "mutually exclusive"... write a definition then apply it totally wrong, hohohohohohohoho :snigger

See that is where you have error.. I just wrote the definition and ask you to explain it. I didn't apply anything.. I will take the "High Road" meaning not the road where you travel afterwards of consuming alcohol or illegal substances but the road above your BS

 

[Ricardo]

Great interview, and great job translating, Moxie! As much as I've been irked in the past by Uncle Toni, his candor is pretty refreshing. And I'll always be convinced he's an underrated coach.

Thanks, BobV, and good to see you around. One of my interests in translating it is to show the complexities of Toni Nadal. I think he's understood a little too one-dimensionally in English. But I would challenge you that he's underrated as a coach.

I agree with that, no ordinary coach could get Nadal so far. As talented as Rafa, i don't think he is flat out more talented than Djoker, Murray or Delpo yet he is more accomplished than them all combined together; must be doing something right.... also consider that Djoker has a good long-term coach himself!

You may not consider Rafa as more talented than all the rest beside Federer, but he is. The numbers speak for themselves and Never Lie.

The numbers don't determine talent, otherwise we'd have Lendl as being more talented than JMac which only you believe. Against simplistic and shallow statement from you, with all those wits :laydownlaughing

 

[Moxie]

The two are not mutually exclusive.
'Two events are 'mutually exclusive' if they cannot occur at the same time', if you saying that Rafa is very talented but also a major overachiever but you say its "not" mutually exclusive.. Cali.. I am confused.. can you expand upon this

Of course it's not mutually exclusive in this case, 'talent' and 'overachiever' occur at the same time.

:laydownlaughing

Some people are running out of wiggle-room for explaining Nadal's vast "over-achievements."

I am looking at the logic of this, not that i actually subscribe to Nadal's lack of talent and overachiever theory. AP would be laughing as he should, clearly he got the logic the wrong way around...... but coming from him i am not surprised, his logic (or lack of) is a fun thing to see :snigger.

i thought you'd understand better where i was coming from, but no... you are Moxie

No, actually, I do see that you were asking for clarification about "talent" and "over-achievement" being mutually exclusive. However, you did state that they don't have to be mutually exclusive, implying that you see both as possible, vis-a-vis Nadal, and therefore the contretemps.

It is MY opinion that Nadal is actually talented, something that it has take Cali some years to admit. As to being an "over-achiever," I don't think he is, but that's not something you've necessarily asserted, Ricardo. That's Cali's POV, and I don't mean to hoist you on his petard.

"Over-achieveing" is a complicated proposition, but I don't think it applies to Nadal. If it means reaching beyond what your capabilities have ever demonstrated themselves to be, that doesn't describe Rafa. He is the last prodigy in men's tennis, to date. He showed skills and talents that were preternatural for his years at 16 and 17. That he has been able to evolve and adapt his game is not "over-achieving," it's simply the evolution of a game that was already impressive at a tender age. Gasquet, who is of the same vintage and was seen to have the same promise, couldn't do it. Plenty of others who showed early promise haven't done it, either. What Nadal has done is fulfill the early promise, and then some, but it's a stretch to call it "over-achieving."

 

[Ricardo]

no no I didn't get it confused.. how could I when I inputed the correct explanation of the term..you replied with some silly icon.. I laugh at your lack of responding to my inquiring.. Don't think you have it to match wits with AP

but AP doesn't have a lot of wits, which is why he often stands corrected by many. anyone can put in 'explanation' of the term but you got the logic wrong..... which is a lot harder for you to comprehend. And no i'd never wish for my 'wits' to match yours thanks for the suggestion though.

If u say so but it's obvious to everyone that u don't have a clue about whatever point you was trying to convey

i just did, and proved that you just don't get it. "mutually exclusive"... write a definition then apply it totally wrong, hohohohohohohoho :snigger

See that is where you have error.. I just wrote the definition and ask you to explain it. I didn't apply anything.. I will take the "High Road" meaning not the road where you travel afterwards of consuming alcohol or illegal substances but the road above your BS

'high road'? bhbhahaha, all these years and you sing the same song, every time you get corrected..... no no no, you don't have a high road you are just looking for hiding :laydownlaughing

again can "talent" and "over-achiever" be true for a player at the same time? you might want to think about it.

 

[Moxie]

^ Ricardo, I think we just cross-posted. I hope you'll read mine.

 

[Ricardo]

Of course it's not mutually exclusive in this case, 'talent' and 'overachiever' occur at the same time.

:laydownlaughing

Some people are running out of wiggle-room for explaining Nadal's vast "over-achievements."

I am looking at the logic of this, not that i actually subscribe to Nadal's lack of talent and overachiever theory. AP would be laughing as he should, clearly he got the logic the wrong way around...... but coming from him i am not surprised, his logic (or lack of) is a fun thing to see :snigger.

i thought you'd understand better where i was coming from, but no... you are Moxie

No, actually, I do see that you were asking for clarification about "talent" and "over-achievement" being mutually exclusive. However, you did state that they don't have to be mutually exclusive, implying that you see both as possible, vis-a-vis Nadal, and therefore the contretemps.

It is MY opinion that Nadal is actually talented, something that it has take Cali some years to admit. As to being an "over-achiever," I don't think he is, but that's not something you've necessarily asserted, Ricardo. That's Cali's POV, and I don't mean to hoist you on his petard.

"Over-achieveing" is a complicated proposition, but I don't think it applies to Nadal. If it means reaching beyond what your capabilities have ever demonstrated themselves to be, that doesn't describe Rafa. He is the last prodigy in men's tennis, to date. He showed skills and talents that were preternatural for his years at 16 and 17. That he has been able to evolve and adapt his game is not "over-achieving," it's simply the evolution of a game that was already impressive at a tender age. Gasquet, who is of the same vintage and was seen to have the same promise, couldn't do it. Plenty of others who showed early promise haven't done it, either. What Nadal has done is fulfill the early promise, and then some, but it's a stretch to call it "over-achieving."

that's right it is possible both ways, they can be but don't have to be.... just funny how AP gives a definition (which itself is correct) but totally fails to understand its logic when putting it into application.

regarding Rafa's talent, like i said i believe he has a lot of 'hiden' talent.. it's something you cannot see by just watching his game, and his special ability as evolving to improve is something you just cannot tell until it happens. unlike guys like Federer, Djoker and Murray, who you can tell that their natural game was always going to win them something big; for Nadal he is born with a game suitable for clay and took him years to translate that success onto other surfaces.

 

[Moxie]

for Nadal he is born with a game suitable for clay and took him years to translate that success onto other surfaces.

While this is somewhat true, I think it is a "truism." Or is generally compared in relative terms. His successes on clay were so extravagant, and overwhelming, from very young, but his successes on other surfaces also started to come early. He beat #1 Federer on HCs in Miami when he was 17. He'd also gone to the 3rd round of the AO earlier that same year, and had made inroads at all Slam finals before he won at the French. He got to his first Wimbledon final at 20. In 2005, at 19, he won Montreal on HC v. Agassi, and won Madrid on HC (indoor) v. Ljubicic. You can find it all yourself via google, but you see my point: it didn't actually take 'him years to translate that success onto other surfaces.' The success on other surfaces was just overshadowed by his overwhelming dominance on clay, but it started earlier than most are inclined to remember.

 

[brokenshoelace]

How can you be "born" with a game suitable for a surface? You DEVELOP a game suitable for a surface.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Great interview, and great job translating, Moxie! As much as I've been irked in the past by Uncle Toni, his candor is pretty refreshing. And I'll always be convinced he's an underrated coach.

Thanks, BobV, and good to see you around. One of my interests in translating it is to show the complexities of Toni Nadal. I think he's understood a little too one-dimensionally in English. But I would challenge you that he's underrated as a coach.

I agree with that, no ordinary coach could get Nadal so far. As talented as Rafa, i don't think he is flat out more talented than Djoker, Murray or Delpo yet he is more accomplished than them all combined together; must be doing something right.... also consider that Djoker has a good long-term coach himself!

You may not consider Rafa as more talented than all the rest beside Federer, but he is. The numbers speak for themselves and Never Lie.

The numbers don't determine talent, otherwise we'd have Lendl as being more talented than JMac which only you believe. Against simplistic and shallow statement from you, with all those wits :laydownlaughing

Ricardo.. When I said numbers never lie, I was referring to Rafa Nadal vs the other big 3 and the players of his generation not Lendl vs McEnroe

 

[the AntiPusher]

:laydownlaughing

Some people are running out of wiggle-room for explaining Nadal's vast "over-achievements."

I am looking at the logic of this, not that i actually subscribe to Nadal's lack of talent and overachiever theory. AP would be laughing as he should, clearly he got the logic the wrong way around...... but coming from him i am not surprised, his logic (or lack of) is a fun thing to see :snigger.

i thought you'd understand better where i was coming from, but no... you are Moxie

No, actually, I do see that you were asking for clarification about "talent" and "over-achievement" being mutually exclusive. However, you did state that they don't have to be mutually exclusive, implying that you see both as possible, vis-a-vis Nadal, and therefore the contretemps.

It is MY opinion that Nadal is actually talented, something that it has take Cali some years to admit. As to being an "over-achiever," I don't think he is, but that's not something you've necessarily asserted, Ricardo. That's Cali's POV, and I don't mean to hoist you on his petard.

"Over-achieveing" is a complicated proposition, but I don't think it applies to Nadal. If it means reaching beyond what your capabilities have ever demonstrated themselves to be, that doesn't describe Rafa. He is the last prodigy in men's tennis, to date. He showed skills and talents that were preternatural for his years at 16 and 17. That he has been able to evolve and adapt his game is not "over-achieving," it's simply the evolution of a game that was already impressive at a tender age. Gasquet, who is of the same vintage and was seen to have the same promise, couldn't do it. Plenty of others who showed early promise haven't done it, either. What Nadal has done is fulfill the early promise, and then some, but it's a stretch to call it "over-achieving."

that's right it is possible both ways, they can be but don't have to be.... just funny how AP gives a definition (which itself is correct) but totally fails to understand its logic when putting it into application.

regarding Rafa's talent, like i said i believe he has a lot of 'hiden' talent.. it's something you cannot see by just watching his game, and his special ability as evolving to improve is something you just cannot tell until it happens. unlike guys like Federer, Djoker and Murray, who you can tell that their natural game was always going to win them something big; for Nadal he is born with a game suitable for clay and took him years to translate that success onto other surfaces.

Ricardo, all due respect you keep trying to get a dig at a AP but this again is where you error.. It wasn't mutually exclusive that was posted but not mutually exclusive.. now you translate the meeting because I asked you several times to translate , that's all I posted