The Mystery And The Magic of Rafael Nadal

[Didi]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

he surpassed Sampras yesterday.
sampy the single dimensional pony does not have nadal`s resume mate.

Clay, as much as I respect and enjoy your output here on these boards, do yourself a favor and step away from your crack dealer, mate. Calling Sampras a one dimensional pony is one of the most laughable things I've EVER heard on any tennis board. Pete is arguably the greatest grass court player ever, he's easily one of the top 5 on fast hardcourts and Indoors as well and he was damn good on medium paced or slower hard courts. That's much more diverse than Rafael Nadal ever was who so far has won 4 slams and made the finals of 9 slams outside of clay in an era where the slam surfaces are so much homogenized to a point where you can easily win with the same style on all 4.

I'm not trying to talk Rafa down or to claim Pete was the better player, just to point out how silly it is to make Pete a one dimensional pony and at the same time to praise Nadal as some kind of an allround god just because he won the career slam in heavily favored circumstances. It's also a huge mistake to think about Pete as a pure S & V player. He was arguably the game's best baseliner behind Agassi when he worked under Tim Gillickson. Paul Annacone did a great job with Sampras, maximising his strenghts and moulding him into an incredible first strike-tennis machine but I strongly believe that Pete was a much better (allround) player under Gillickson. You don't have any idea how good Pete really was.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

zero RG crowns for sampy.

and he did not have to deal with the greatest player ever lived.
and nadal would go on to beat that greatest player ever lived 21 times on all surfaces and at all slams except for flushing meadows.

Sampras could not even deal with roger when roger was 10 years old.

defense rests.

who is next?

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

clay warrior has a winning record against all of the top 30 players in the game at the moment.


does that mean anything?

 

[Mog]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

next please ??

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

he surpassed Sampras yesterday.
sampy the single dimensional pony does not have nadal`s resume mate.

Calling Sampras a one dimensional pony is one of the most laughable things I've EVER heard on any tennis board. Pete is arguably the greatest grass court player ever, he's easily one of the top 5 on fast hardcourts and Indoors as well and he was damn good on medium paced or slower hard courts. That's much more diverse than Rafael Nadal ever was

You're conveniently leaving out one surface, even though I agree with your overall point. There's no way you can claim Sampras is "much more diverse" than Nadal, since by your own argument, you're disregarding an entire surface (and a very important one at that).

 

[Kieran]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

he surpassed Sampras yesterday.
sampy the single dimensional pony does not have nadal`s resume mate.

Calling Sampras a one dimensional pony is one of the most laughable things I've EVER heard on any tennis board. Pete is arguably the greatest grass court player ever, he's easily one of the top 5 on fast hardcourts and Indoors as well and he was damn good on medium paced or slower hard courts. That's much more diverse than Rafael Nadal ever was

You're conveniently leaving out one surface, even though I agree with your overall point. There's no way you can claim Sampras is "much more diverse" than Nadal, since by your own argument, you're disregarding an entire surface (and a very important one at that).

Yeah, but his point was well made, given how diverse the game was back then. For anyone to claim Pete was one-dimensional would be like claiming Rafa was one-dimensional - and I don't know anybody who'd be so stoopah as to say that...

 

[Didi]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

Broken, I'm not ignoring clay at all but it is a surface you have to grow up on, otherwise you will never be one of the best on the dirt. It just requires different training methods and approaches and it focuses on other aspects of the game. That's why Pete even under Gillickson never really bothered to make a serious attempt to master clay courts and frankly it probably would not have been a success anyway. That's why Murray is yet to make his maiden clay final despite being one of the game's very best baseliners. My point is that in his prime Pete dominated on grass, fast hardcourts and Indoors. That's 3 different parts of the season. Nadal has a very good resume on grass and hardcourts, making 9 slam finals in total and will end in 10+ territory. But he was never, at no point, the dominant player on them, let alone for a longer period of time. One reason is of course having Federer and Djokovic in his era, another one is that IMO Pete was much better in adapting his game to any sort of hardcourts and Indoors. He was an incredible baseliner from 1993-1995 and deadly in S & V at the same time before he hired Annacone.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

Broken, I'm not ignoring clay at all but it is a surface you have to grow up on, otherwise you will never be one of the best on the dirt. It just requires different training methods and approaches and it focuses on other aspects of the game. That's why Pete even under Gillickson never really bothered to make a serious attempt to master clay courts and frankly it probably would not have been a success anyway. That's why Murray is yet to make his maiden clay final despite being one of the game's very best baseliners. My point is that in his prime Pete dominated on grass, fast hardcourts and Indoors. That's 3 different parts of the season. Nadal has a very good resume on grass and hardcourts, making 9 slam finals in total and will end in 10+ territory. But he was never, at no point, the dominant player on them, let alone for a longer period of time. One reason is of course having Federer and Djokovic in his era, another one is that IMO Pete was much better in adapting his game to any sort of hardcourts and Indoors. He was an incredible baseliner from 1993-1995 and deadly in S & V at the same time before he hired Annacone.

"Broken, I'm not ignoring clay at all but it is a surface you have to grow up on, otherwise you will never be one of the best on the dirt. "

That's a weak argument. Nadal didn't grow up on grass either, yet he's one of the best there. Disregarding clay like that just because Sampras "didn't grow up on it" is so arbitrary it makes the whole debate pointless. I thought we are arguing facts and results, not what kind of court they played on when they were 6.

But you arbitrarily decided that YOU NEED to grow up on clay to be good there, but not grass? Okay...

Again, Nadal is an elite player on all surfaces, and has the results to prove it. Sampras doesn't. And I still would rank Pete above him on an all time list by the way, but bringing versatility into the argument when Pete had such a dismal record at the French Open (by his lofty standards) is a tad rich... No matter where he grew up. Sorry. If he didn't grow up on clay, tough balls... it doesn't justify his shortcomings on the surface.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

he surpassed Sampras yesterday.
sampy the single dimensional pony does not have nadal`s resume mate.

Calling Sampras a one dimensional pony is one of the most laughable things I've EVER heard on any tennis board. Pete is arguably the greatest grass court player ever, he's easily one of the top 5 on fast hardcourts and Indoors as well and he was damn good on medium paced or slower hard courts. That's much more diverse than Rafael Nadal ever was

You're conveniently leaving out one surface, even though I agree with your overall point. There's no way you can claim Sampras is "much more diverse" than Nadal, since by your own argument, you're disregarding an entire surface (and a very important one at that).

Yeah, but his point was well made, given how diverse the game was back then. For anyone to claim Pete was one-dimensional would be like claiming Rafa was one-dimensional - and I don't know anybody who'd be so stoopah as to say that...

As I told Didi, I fully agreed with the rest of the post. However, saying "Pete was more versatile (when it comes to play on different surfaces) than Rafael Nadal ever was" is just not factual in any sense of the word. Sorry. Results are results.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

Yeah, Rafa's much better on the variation of one we have right now...

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

some of this is subjective.

so everybody's opinion counts.


keep it coming.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

I do believe that rafa is light years ahead of Sampras.


just look at who nadal has had to deal with.


does anybody really believe that Sampras would have had a winning record against the likes of guys like roger, nole, and Andy Murray?

these guys would crunch Sampras on any surface.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

Nay, CD, they wouldn't...

 

[shawnbm]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

It is getting juicy here, but I will add one thing to what I posted earlier (about Rafa being the great player who has "evolved" in terms of his game across all surface more than any other--in no small part due to the all-around brilliance and dominance of Roger--in the Open Era). If I had to pick a #2 on that list, it would be Pistol Pete, who showed a great baseliner (which he was) could become the most ferocious serve and volleyer of his epoch. Sampras and Nadal are special players no matter how you slice it.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

to say that guys like sampy and Agassi are better than the best players of today is to essentially say that the game has not evolved and progressed at all.

Sampras and Agassi would have no chance against the very best players of today.

 

[shawnbm]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

I personally believe a great service coupled with a power baseline game and great volleys can, on its day, compete with any kind of game. First strike tennis--when on--is going to win more often.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

I do believe that rafa is light years ahead of Sampras.


just look at who nadal has had to deal with.


does anybody really believe that Sampras would have had a winning record against the likes of guys like roger, nole, and Andy Murray?

these guys would crunch Sampras on any surface.

They certainly wouldn't destroy him on grass, fast hards, and indoors. You are seriously underestimating Sampras here. Sampras is the best I've seen on grass. Itd be tight on today's slower grass but he'd still be deadly there.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

I personally believe a great service coupled with a power baseline game and great volleys can, on its day, compete with any kind of game. First strike tennis--when on--is going to win more often.

you just described roger. he held serve 90 percent of time.

he had a deadly net game.

he was one of greatest baseliners ever.


now you see what is wrong with your theory?



now do you see why Sampras would be blown off the court by the players of today.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

Sampras could not beat a teenager named roger on grass.


stop dreaming about Sampras.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Rafael Nadal : What Makes Him Great

Broken, I'm not ignoring clay at all but it is a surface you have to grow up on, otherwise you will never be one of the best on the dirt. It just requires different training methods and approaches and it focuses on other aspects of the game. That's why Pete even under Gillickson never really bothered to make a serious attempt to master clay courts and frankly it probably would not have been a success anyway. That's why Murray is yet to make his maiden clay final despite being one of the game's very best baseliners. My point is that in his prime Pete dominated on grass, fast hardcourts and Indoors. That's 3 different parts of the season. Nadal has a very good resume on grass and hardcourts, making 9 slam finals in total and will end in 10+ territory. But he was never, at no point, the dominant player on them, let alone for a longer period of time. One reason is of course having Federer and Djokovic in his era, another one is that IMO Pete was much better in adapting his game to any sort of hardcourts and Indoors. He was an incredible baseliner from 1993-1995 and deadly in S & V at the same time before he hired Annacone.

"Broken, I'm not ignoring clay at all but it is a surface you have to grow up on, otherwise you will never be one of the best on the dirt. "

That's a weak argument. Nadal didn't grow up on grass either, yet he's one of the best there. Disregarding clay like that just because Sampras "didn't grow up on it" is so arbitrary it makes the whole debate pointless. I thought we are arguing facts and results, not what kind of court they played on when they were 6.

But you arbitrarily decided that YOU NEED to grow up on clay to be good there, but not grass? Okay...

Again, Nadal is an elite player on all surfaces, and has the results to prove it. Sampras doesn't. And I still would rank Pete above him on an all time list by the way, but bringing versatility into the argument when Pete had such a dismal record at the French Open (by his lofty standards) is a tad rich... No matter where he grew up. Sorry. If he didn't grow up on clay, tough balls... it doesn't justify his shortcomings on the surface.

that is an excellent post general broken shoelace.

keep them coming.