The Mystery And The Magic of Rafael Nadal

[Jelenafan]

nadal can always do better in terms of court intelligence but at least he is moving in the right direction now.

anybody saw his interview with Charlie rose? he is actually a bright fellow.

I always despised the late David Wallace comparison of Roger and Nadal where he described Nadal's game as 'brutish'

Of the players who hold serve the most in the game, Nadal has the least sheer firepower and "heat" serve. He wins by precise placement and guile. There is no 15-20 aces per match. I compare him to a ML pitcher who doesn't have the 100 mph fastball but fools hitters with his variety and placement, so I'm always puzzled when people compare Nadal's game as somehow lacking in court intelligence. (I didn't mean you Clay death, just that your description triggered my vent)

He seems to be always evolving, and hugging the baseline in HC's this year is another example of that as well as breaking the predicatble (previously) pattern of FH to Nole's BH in rallies.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

nadal can always do better in terms of court intelligence but at least he is moving in the right direction now.

anybody saw his interview with Charlie rose? he is actually a bright fellow.

I always despised the late David Wallace comparison of Roger and Nadal where he described Nadal's game as 'brutish'

Of the players who hold serve the most in the game, Nadal has the least sheer firepower and "heat" serve. He wins by precise placement and guile. There is no 15-20 aces per match. I compare him to a ML pitcher who doesn't have the 100 mph fastball but fools hitters with his variety and placement, so I'm always puzzled when people compare Nadal's game as somehow lacking in court intelligence. (I didn't mean you Clay death, just that your description triggered my vent)

He seems to be always evolving, and hugging the baseline in HC's this year is another example of that as well as breaking the predicatble (previously) pattern of FH to Nole's BH in rallies.

The "brutish" remark is not aimed at his serve. Nobody claims Nadal to be a serve machine
like Isner or Karlovic. The "brutish" remark is for the way he wins by basically wearing the
opponents down by his brutal top spin and consistency of baseline game.

I believe David Wallace was right on the mark in his comparison.

 

[Jelenafan]

The "brutish" remark is not aimed at his serve. Nobody claims Nadal to be a serve machine
like Isner or Karlovic. The "brutish" remark is for the way he wins by basically wearing the
opponents down by his brutal top spin and consistency of baseline game.

I believe David Wallace was right on the mark in his comparison.

Consistency isn't a direct correlation to "brutish". Wearing down an opponent doesn't work unless you can retrieve and play defense, maybe it's semantics, but to me "brutish" implies something where power replaces guile or precision. Rafa's game involves power, precision, defense and strategy, like all great champions. If it was just topspin wearing down opponents, he would be more Thomas Muster, and Rafa is far from a one trick pony. It doesn't explain his effectiveness on grass (that pesky slice of his far from brutish) Nobody woudl accuse him of outlasting opponents on grass or even HC.

Poor David Wallace was an intellectual fawning fanboy of Roger posing as tennis analyst. Love some of his other works, pity he's gone.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

One thing is for sure, nobody will ever accuse Federer of being intelligent. If he had figured out Nadal, the way Nadal figured out Djokovic, then he'd be GOAT.

 

[Kieran]

One thing is for sure, nobody will ever accuse Federer of being intelligent. If he had figured out Nadal, the way Nadal figured out Djokovic, then he'd be GOAT.

Come on, let's not make every thread a Fedal turf war. :s

The Wallace article was silly. He has some good stuff, but that ridiculously low level...

 

[brokenshoelace]

One thing is for sure, nobody will ever accuse Federer of being intelligent.

The irony in that comment is dumbfounding.

 

[tented]

nadal can always do better in terms of court intelligence but at least he is moving in the right direction now.

anybody saw his interview with Charlie rose? he is actually a bright fellow.

Here's a link to the Charlie Rose interview:

http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60264890

 

[Didi]

this is the most brutal sport there is.

Hey Clay, go and watch Mixed Martial Arts Cage Fighting if you want to witness a perfect combination of athleticism, problem-solving strategies, flexibility, willpower and true guts in combination with brutality, sheer pain and genuine desperation. I think you would like it since you are a huge fan of gladiators. MMA makes any tennis match between Nole and Rafa look like a chess tournament for children I'm afraid.

 

[ClayDeath]

it is far more brutal in a different sense.


I will explain later when I get home.

 

[brokenshoelace]

it is far more brutal in a different sense.


I will explain later when I get home.

As someone who loves both sports (and is a bigger fan of tennis, by the way), and who writes about MMA for part time living, I assure you, tennis is not far more brutal in any sense. Yes, players are playing week in and week out, as opposed to fighting 3 times per year, but I'll take that over getting punched in the head, kicked in the thighs and having my joints turned in ways they're not supposed to in practice on a daily basis.

And that's not even talking about the cardio exercises...

 

[ClayDeath]

negative.



next.

 

[brokenshoelace]

negative.



next.

LOL, and this is why your opinions are difficult to take seriously. You don't explain anything. You don't bother advancing arguments. You just condescendingly act like you know what you're talking about when you clearly don't. When someone disagrees with you, you resort to acting like a child (and I'm not the first poster to point this out). Please, if you have concern for our forum, like you claim, then A) stop spamming useless posts, B) start learning how to handle disagreement and C) accept that you're really not some godsend blessing to us, and merely just another poster.

Now, I'll ask you this, just for the sake of continuing the conversation, and not turn this into a personal back-and-forth:

What part of tennis is harder than getting punched in the face, kicked everywhere, and having your joints dislocated for a living? What part of tennis is more brutal than extreme wrestling drills? What part of smacking the ball with a racket is more brutal than than fighting with broken hands, feet, etc..routinely? Check the stats for which sport has more injuries, and how serious they are...

Better question, what do you know about MMA?

Nothing?

Next.

 

[Moxie]

negative.

next.

LOL, and this is why your opinions are difficult to take seriously. You don't explain anything. You don't bother advancing arguments. You just condescendingly act like you know what you're talking about when you clearly don't. When someone agrees with you, you resort to acting like a child (and I'm not the first poster to act this out). Please, if you have concern for our forum, like you claim, then A) stop spamming useless posts, B) start learning how to handle disagreement and C) accept that you're really not some godsend blessing to us, and merely just another poster.

I have to agree with Broken here. And like that other presumed Bodhisattva of these boards, Cali, when cornered, you often say you'll get back to us later. We are not hanging on your every word. If you have an opinion, state it. But don't kid yourself that anyone is bookmarking this place in the thread until you have time to come back and finish your thought. It doesn't work like that.

I am very happy to have you here, personally, but those are a few things that would make the experience better for everyone.

 

[calitennis127]

Best shoemaker in the history of the game. Wins matches because of his ethereal ability to hit winners, especially with the forehand, from everywhere.

This was most on display when he dominated Janowicz in Montreal or Federer in Cincinnati. The guy's shotmaking is incredible and his other supposedly unique attributes are exaggerated by people who don not know the details of tennis as well as BrokenShoelace.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Best shoemaker in the history of the game. Wins matches because of his ethereal ability to hit winners, especially with the forehand, from everywhere.

This was most on display when he dominated Janowicz in Montreal or Federer in Cincinnati. The guy's shotmaking is incredible and his other supposedly unique attributes are exaggerated by people who don not know the details of tennis as well as BrokenShoelace.

The funny thing is:

A) I have never claimed anything remotely similar to what you state (and I know you're being hyperbolic). I merely disagree with you that he wins mainly because of stamina and mental toughness.

B) You keep bringing up the Federer match, when really, there wasn't much in it. Nadal wasn't dominated, nor was Federer. In many ways, it was a 1-2 punch fest. Federer puts his first serve in, fires a forehand winner. Nadal puts his first serve in, fires a forehand, either for a winner, or the rally is over 2 shots later.

The difference was one simple break of serve in each set. You can say Federer lost the match because he didn't go for his forehand down the line more, but he hardly had Nadal running all over the place. Both guys played well, relatively. Sustained level throughout, with the exception of the opening stretch of the third. Nadal capitalized and won. There isn't much else to it, but of course, you're programmed to spray the same narrative over and over.

 

[calitennis127]

But why oh why Broken does Nadal routinely win those kinds of matches where "there wasn't much in them", like the Fed Cincinnati quarterfinal?

Is it all tactics? Is it all tactical match-up issues? Is it all about that Fed backhand not being able to cope with the Nadal high bounce?

It's funny that you describe that match so casually, as if both guys played well but Nadal pulled it out in the end, and there isn't a whole lot more to read into it than that. You know why it's funny? Because winning those kinds of neutral matches over and over and over and over is what has given Nadal his many titles and his standing. You can't simultaneously say that there isn't much to be learned from that kind of match while also praising Nadal for the extent of his accomplishments - because the latter is entirely the result of the former.

It is a total contradiction on your part to say that the Cincy QF match wasn't very significant in terms of telling us something valuable. In reality, that match tells us a great deal. That match was Rafael Nadal in his pure essence.

 

[shawnbm]

I thought Rafael did very well in that interview with Charlie Rose.

 

[brokenshoelace]

But why oh why Broken does Nadal routinely win those kinds of matches where "there wasn't much in them", like the Fed Cincinnati quarterfinal?

Is it all tactics? Is it all tactical match-up issues? Is it all about that Fed backhand not being able to cope with the Nadal high bounce?

It's funny that you describe that match so casually, as if both guys played well but Nadal pulled it out in the end, and there isn't a whole lot more to read into it than that. You know why it's funny? Because winning those kinds of neutral matches over and over and over and over is what has given Nadal his many titles and his standing. You can't simultaneously say that there isn't much to be learned from that kind of match while also praising Nadal for the extent of his accomplishments - because the latter is entirely the result of the former.

It is a total contradiction on your part to say that the Cincy QF match wasn't very significant in terms of telling us something valuable. In reality, that match tells us a great deal. That match was Rafael Nadal in his pure essence.

See, this is why arguing with you is fruitless. I get it with Samson, but I honestly don't understand how this happens with you, since you should be able to grasp simple concepts. A match like the Fed match in Cinci could have been won with both shotmaking (which allowed Nadal to at least match Federer throughout the match, on average. There's no way you really claim he was significantly outplayed), but more clutch play (and thus mental toughness) in key moments, and being fresher in the third (thus stamina) as well as having the momentum.

How is this so difficult to comprehend?

 

[Moxie]

But why oh why Broken does Nadal routinely win those kinds of matches where "there wasn't much in them", like the Fed Cincinnati quarterfinal?

Is it all tactics? Is it all tactical match-up issues? Is it all about that Fed backhand not being able to cope with the Nadal high bounce?

It's funny that you describe that match so casually, as if both guys played well but Nadal pulled it out in the end, and there isn't a whole lot more to read into it than that. You know why it's funny? Because winning those kinds of neutral matches over and over and over and over is what has given Nadal his many titles and his standing. You can't simultaneously say that there isn't much to be learned from that kind of match while also praising Nadal for the extent of his accomplishments - because the latter is entirely the result of the former.

It is a total contradiction on your part to say that the Cincy QF match wasn't very significant in terms of telling us something valuable. In reality, that match tells us a great deal. That match was Rafael Nadal in his pure essence.

See, this is why arguing with you is fruitless. I get it with Samson, but I honestly don't understand how this happens with you, since you should be able to grasp simple concepts. A match like the Fed match in Cinci could have been won with both shotmaking (which allowed Nadal to at least match Federer throughout the match, on average. There's no way you really claim he was significantly outplayed), but more clutch play (and thus mental toughness) in key moments, and being fresher in the third (thus stamina) as well as having the momentum.

How is this so difficult to comprehend?

I would add this, as a counter-balance. Cali has expressed frustration that Djokovic didn't take out Nadal in the FO SF this year. But Novak was doing to Rafa what Rafa was doing to Fed in that Cincy match: he was playing tough in the big moments, though not playing the over-all better match. I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't wish for Novak to have been more opportunistic than he already was, and yet complain that Nadal beat Federer by playing the bigger points better.

 

[calitennis127]

I would add this, as a counter-balance. Cali has expressed frustration that Djokovic didn't take out Nadal in the FO SF this year. But Novak was doing to Rafa what Rafa was doing to Fed in that Cincy match: he was playing tough in the big moments, though not playing the over-all better match. I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't wish for Novak to have been more opportunistic than he already was, and yet complain that Nadal beat Federer by playing the bigger points better.

No, that is not what I think.

There is a huge difference between the two matches you are discussing. In the French Open semifinal, Djokovic played well below his potential for large portions of the match and he let Nadal get way too far in front. He also - as he has been doing too much lately against Nadal - went into musclehead mode at key moments, convinced that if he made the rallies 30 shots or longer he would win.

In the Cincinnati quarterfinal, on the other hand, Federer was simply playing at a level that Nadal cannot, and as he so often does against Nadal, he let the match slip away.

There is also a very significant similarity between the two matches: they both fall into a pattern of Nadal winning matches in which his opponent showed himself capable of a much higher level than him. This accounts for Nadal's absurd and almost artificially inflated H2H against all top players.