Toni Nadal Interview

[britbox]

Uncle Toni interviewed by Mats Wilander.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPyqJEBcEtw[/video]

 

[Denis]

He's even wearing that Iberostar cap in his house. No English too. The Nadals are quite a special breed.

He says Ferrer is a favorite at the same level as Nadal, but he's not sure about Federer being a favorite. LOL. Although Ferrer has come closer to beating Nadal on clay recently, Nadal is not the only player that will play Roland Garros.

 

[Moxie]

Toni doesn't speak comfortable English, though Rafa does. However, Toni speaks creditable French, which Rafael doesn't. There was a cultural shift between their generations in terms of language education in Spain. Rafa HAD to improve his English in order to make the most of his super-star status. Not the same impetus for Toni...it doesn't make him less of a coach because he doesn't speak English, right?

Yes, Toni has his opinions about Ferrer and Federer at RG...but Toni always has an opinion, whatever language he expresses it in.

 

[Denis]

Yeah I know. Still find it funny. But what is it with this cap? I thought he wore it to please his nephew, but now he wears it all the time?

 

[Moxie]

I'm pretty sure Iberostar gives him money to wear it, wouldn't you think? I don't think it has anything to do with Rafa.

 

[Denis]

Somehow I thought Rafa made him wear it. I thought I saw or read that somewhere, but I couldn't find it on the net. Must have been the product of my imagination uzzled.

 

[Moxie]

Somehow I thought Rafa made him wear it. I thought I saw or read that somewhere, but I couldn't find it on the net. Must have been the product of my imagination uzzled.

I looked it up...Iberostar does pay him to wear that cap. They are based in Mallorca, so the sponsorship makes sense.

 

[Kieran]

Toni Nadal is some idiot for saying Ferrer had a better chance than Federer. What a fool, eh? It's as if he isn't on the inside watching things...

 

[Moxie]

Toni Nadal is some idiot for saying Ferrer had a better chance than Federer. What a fool, eh? It's as if he isn't on the inside watching things...

Good one, Kieran!

I also read that Toni had to exit an interview on Friday a bit overcome by emotion. This is the culmination of a long road back, for Rafa and his team.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ no surprise. he seemed to be holding back tears when the match was over.

as for Ferrer v Fed? well, i think Sunday made pretty obvious that as far as *winning* this thing goes, neither man had the slightest chance. but of course, that means the correct answer by Toni would've been "if Novak doesn't stop my nephew, nobody else has a chance", and that would've probably not seemed like a nice thing to say either.

 

[SF Nadalite]

wearing my favorite jacket, too !

 

[Denis]

Toni Nadal is some idiot for saying Ferrer had a better chance than Federer. What a fool, eh? It's as if he isn't on the inside watching things...

Good one, Kieran!

I also read that Toni had to exit an interview on Friday a bit overcome by emotion. This is the culmination of a long road back, for Rafa and his team.

Making the finals doesn't mean you have a better chance to win the tourney. There was no way Ferrer would have been able to beat either Djokovic or Nadal. Federer would have had a chance against Djokovic.

 

[Moxie]

Toni Nadal is some idiot for saying Ferrer had a better chance than Federer. What a fool, eh? It's as if he isn't on the inside watching things...

Good one, Kieran!

I also read that Toni had to exit an interview on Friday a bit overcome by emotion. This is the culmination of a long road back, for Rafa and his team.

Making the finals doesn't mean you have a better chance to win the tourney. There was no way Ferrer would have been able to beat either Djokovic or Nadal. Federer would have had a chance against Djokovic.

In fairness, however, making the finals means you have a better shot at winning than not making the finals.

Look, you objected to Toni giving Ferrer a better shot than Federer. He wasn't wrong, in the end. When there were two men left standing, one was Ferrer. Everything else is Fantasy Tennis.

 

[Denis]

Ferrer's chances to win RG depend upon Nadal, Djokovic and Federer getting upset. Federer's chances depend upon Djokovic beating Nadal or Nadal getting upset. I just don't see how making the finals is relevant. You still need to win that match. And Ferrer's chances to win all 7 matches are significantly lower than Federer's, because that last hurdle cannot be mounted by him.

You might find this hard to believe, but this has nothing to do with my apathy towards uncle Toni (I appreciate that he speaks French, softening up a bit). I just think he is dead wrong here.

 

[Kieran]

Ferrer's chances to win RG depend upon Nadal, Djokovic and Federer getting upset. Federer's chances depend upon Djokovic beating Nadal or Nadal getting upset...

And Federer beating Tsonga - which he couldn't do. But Daveed Ferrer did...

 

[Denis]

Ferrer's chances to win RG depend upon Nadal, Djokovic and Federer getting upset. Federer's chances depend upon Djokovic beating Nadal or Nadal getting upset...

And Federer beating Tsonga - which he couldn't do. But Daveed Ferrer did...

This is becoming tiresome. We are talking about being able to WIN RG. In order to WIN RG chances are that you will need to face Novak or Nadal. Or in the case of David 'the future of tennis' Ferrer, Roger Federer. He is not beating one of those players. Roger doesn't have to face himself, and has a decent shot at Novak. It's as simple as that.

 

[Moxie]

Ferrer's chances to win RG depend upon Nadal, Djokovic and Federer getting upset. Federer's chances depend upon Djokovic beating Nadal or Nadal getting upset...

And Federer beating Tsonga - which he couldn't do. But Daveed Ferrer did...

This is becoming tiresome. We are talking about being able to WIN RG. In order to WIN RG chances are that you will need to face Novak or Nadal. Or in the case of David 'the future of tennis' Ferrer, Roger Federer. He is not beating one of those players. Roger doesn't have to face himself, and has a decent shot at Novak. It's as simple as that.

Look, Deni, I take your point, in theory, and I'm not really defending Toni's opinion here so much as trying to give Ferrer his deserved props. He beat everyone in front of him until he got to Nadal, where he lost, but the list of people who have lost to Nadal at RG is looooong. You can say with reasonable credibility that there are scenarios where other people might have had a better shot v each other, had they gotten there, but they didn't.

You may find it tiresome, but I wonder if that isn't because it pisses you off that Ferrer got the shot at the title, rather than someone that you think might have made more hay out of the opportunity. But, as we were discussing on another thread, in tennis terms, you only 'deserve,' if you will, the opportunities that you make for yourself. Ferrer played a heck of a tournament.

 

[Denis]

Ferrer's chances to win RG depend upon Nadal, Djokovic and Federer getting upset. Federer's chances depend upon Djokovic beating Nadal or Nadal getting upset...

And Federer beating Tsonga - which he couldn't do. But Daveed Ferrer did...

This is becoming tiresome. We are talking about being able to WIN RG. In order to WIN RG chances are that you will need to face Novak or Nadal. Or in the case of David 'the future of tennis' Ferrer, Roger Federer. He is not beating one of those players. Roger doesn't have to face himself, and has a decent shot at Novak. It's as simple as that.

Look, Deni, I take your point, in theory, and I'm not really defending Toni's opinion here so much as trying to give Ferrer his deserved props. He beat everyone in front of him until he got to Nadal, where he lost, but the list of people who have lost to Nadal at RG is looooong. You can say with reasonable credibility that there are scenarios where other people might have had a better shot v each other, had they gotten there, but they didn't.

You may find it tiresome, but I wonder if that isn't because it pisses you off that Ferrer got the shot at the title, rather than someone that you think might have made more hay out of the opportunity. But, as we were discussing on another thread, in tennis terms, you only 'deserve,' if you will, the opportunities that you make for yourself. Ferrer played a heck of a tournament.

And this is were you and Kieran conflate two things: Ferrer playing an excellent tournament and Ferrer having a legitimate shot at winning RG.

There is no doubt that Ferrer played an amazing tournament. He didn't lose a set up to the final. Good for him and good for you and Kieran. The point is that Kieran came back to the initial point of whether Ferrer had a better shot at the title than Federer. This is something completely different than the issue whether he had a good tournament. Kieran was twisting it, I don't know why, but his excellent performance has nothing to do with his chances to win RG. Robredo also had an excellent tournament, but everyone knows his chances to win RG are not great either.

 

[Moxie]

Ferrer's chances to win RG depend upon Nadal, Djokovic and Federer getting upset. Federer's chances depend upon Djokovic beating Nadal or Nadal getting upset...

And Federer beating Tsonga - which he couldn't do. But Daveed Ferrer did...

This is becoming tiresome. We are talking about being able to WIN RG. In order to WIN RG chances are that you will need to face Novak or Nadal. Or in the case of David 'the future of tennis' Ferrer, Roger Federer. He is not beating one of those players. Roger doesn't have to face himself, and has a decent shot at Novak. It's as simple as that.

Look, Deni, I take your point, in theory, and I'm not really defending Toni's opinion here so much as trying to give Ferrer his deserved props. He beat everyone in front of him until he got to Nadal, where he lost, but the list of people who have lost to Nadal at RG is looooong. You can say with reasonable credibility that there are scenarios where other people might have had a better shot v each other, had they gotten there, but they didn't.

You may find it tiresome, but I wonder if that isn't because it pisses you off that Ferrer got the shot at the title, rather than someone that you think might have made more hay out of the opportunity. But, as we were discussing on another thread, in tennis terms, you only 'deserve,' if you will, the opportunities that you make for yourself. Ferrer played a heck of a tournament.

And this is were you and Kieran conflate two things: Ferrer playing an excellent tournament and Ferrer having a legitimate shot at winning RG.

There is no doubt that Ferrer played an amazing tournament. He didn't lose a set up to the final. Good for him and good for you and Kieran. The point is that Kieran came back to the initial point of whether Ferrer had a better shot at the title than Federer. This is something completely different than the issue whether he had a good tournament. Kieran was twisting it, I don't know why, but his excellent performance has nothing to do with his chances to win RG. Robredo also had an excellent tournament, but everyone knows his chances to win RG are not great either.

We may just have to leave this argument as a draw. You don't like that Toni Nadal opined that Ferrer's chances were better than Federer's before the tournament even started. If you say Kieran and I conflate two things (Ferrer's tournament v. Ferrer's chances to win it,) I would say you are also injecting your opinion on a situation that didn't present itself, (i.e., how Federer or Djokovic might have done, had things gone differently.) Note that our position is much closer to reality...or actually IS reality.

Kieran didn't "twist" anything: he mentioned that Toni was right (in one post, which he was,) and that Ferrer beat Tsonga, whereas Federer did not (in another post, and also correct.) To make the parallel that Robredo also had a great tournament is to expose your prejudice. You're saying that Robredo had a good tournament for his level, (implied,) and you're implying the same thing about Ferrer.

You're just going back to the original slight, and resenting it, even though it turned out to be right. I know what you mean, that, by odd's makers standards, Fed and Novak had a better chance of winning the tournament than Ferrer at the time of the draw, or before it. However, two weeks ago, Ferrer was the only one of the 3 that still had a shot. In that, Toni Nadal was vindicated in his opinion.

Again, I've enjoyed sparring with you on this. I'll understand if we never see eye-to-eye on it. :clap

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

alright seeing as you've settled this, i got to tear that wound right back open - because i agree with Denis and don't see Toni vindicated or right in any way. Toni wasn't talking about who'll make it how far into the tournament, it was about who can WIN the whole thing. and since it was rather likely that winning it would include beating at least one top four opponent in the semis and/or final, i agree with Denis that, as much as i love Ferru (and i actually do like the guy), Toni inflated his chances by putting him up as a co-favorite (on a level with Rafa?!); i think the final showed that rather clearly. he has done so before, traditionally, probably out of respect for a paisano, and it's alright with me. mind you - had Toni listed Ferrer as a candidate for the finals (even over Roger), i doubt many would have disagreed. but what it all comes down to is whether or not Daveed had a shot at winning the F, the big one, the title. and unfortunately, all indicators on that one clearly pointed, and still do, to a firm No.