I can understand your predicament and I too take things far at times. But the thing is Nadal polarises the opinions either you will like him or dislike him. There is no middle ground.
Problem with nadull is like as many others see is his penchant for breaking rules. He has not played his tennis fairly and that's one of the reasons for so many to not to like him.
On your predictions tbh I think that nadull was really lucky to win even RG. The field will catch with him up. Nadal's best days are between Apr-June. His season is now nearly finished.
I might sound too opinionated but this is what I think.
that I read yesterday was too much when I read that a person said that Rafael Nadal is actually the least talented player out of top 50 players in men's tennis.
-------------------------------------------------
That's from me.
What do you talent? maybe if you give me a definition, we can start discussing and see the point.
read: *What do you call talent? How do you define it?
Will on court movement count as talent?
Yes it could but it's very difficult to define what is the innate and which is the acquired part of it.
Nadal might run faster than Federer but to me Federer's footwork shows more talent than Nadal's. Borg's footwork was also very talented, natural. Nadal is pounding the ground. His footwork is not "light".
I do not like Nadal with a passion, but even I admit the criticism he gets on ja606 is a little excessive. It takes something special to win a slam even if conditions favour you.
However, if you remember the old bbc 606 around 3 or 4 years ago, it was full of Federer haters. People like Jewell Of East was a pathetic poster.
At least Tenez and co give reasons for criticising Nadal.
And it's not so much a criticism. It's an honest observation.
I know it defies imagination of many cause the slam count would tend to prove otherwise...but I can easily explain why.
ey tenez maybe cya 2mo!
if its not too much to ask can you explain why im very interested
tenez and co
Yes, I agree that there are reasons for disliking Nadal. I dont think anyone is discounting that he has won 11 slams but 7 of those came on clay which in itslef is a big achievment.
Nadal has been the biggest beneficiary of the slowed courts because of his RG pedigree.
At times nadal did not win fair and sqaure and that's why a lot of tennis fans struggle to put him close to Fed. Nadal has exploited the rules, ill timed MTOs are just one example.
What I think is truly exceptional about Nadal is his movement on court and his topspins other than that there is not much which is good about his game. His forehand is powerful but can be negated if court is fast.
Another comment that I read about Nadal and tennis players was that mental strength is not needed to be a top tennis player when French Open was being played about three weeks ago!
------------------
I believe this pearl of wisdom was from Tenez.
One of the reasons I have filtered Tenez, is because trying to talk about such matters sensibly with him is like trying to teach Spanish to a badger.
If you have filtered tenez then why bother to talk about him?
ey tenez maybe cya 2mo!
if its not too much to ask can you explain why im very interested
--------------------------------------
I wish I was going but it looks like it's going to be raining all day...I'll see how it goes!
TMF it wasn't me who raised the point re tenezs ridiculous comments about mental strength not being important.
Are we not allowed to comment?
Sure we do, but ridiculing him when you cannot even see his full posts. I don't know if that's fair.
I just raised a question but you are the best judge of it. I enjoy having discussions with you anyway
I'm not ridiculong him, just explaining why i filtered him.
It's because Tenez makes comments like that, that I question whether he has actually played the game.
He's clearly knowledgeable but seems incapable of taking on board anyone else's opinion which sea to make the point of a forum a bit pointless.
I also found it strange that he would write articles and then title them something like:
'Interesting article I wrote'
I believe this pearl of wisdom was from Tenez.
------------------------------------------
Sarcasm alert
In short, Talent's definition is "A marked innate ability".
So in tennis that is to me the eye/hand coordination giving a player the possibility to time the ball better than the less talented players.
You might say that Nadal has a "talent" to work hard...(which again I am not sure we can really assess) but even the talent to work hard is not what I'd call a talent related to tennis.
In short this eye/hand coordination talent is what sorts the talented players from the less talented.
My main point to back that Nadal would not be in the top 50 for talented players is that you have consider Nadal without that "extraordinary fitness". What coudl he do?
In autumn 2009 he lost some weight and power. What were his result? He coudl not grab a set to the top 10 players. A top 50 player can take a set out of the top 10 player. Nadal did not. When not slam fit he aslo loses to low ranked players Dodig, Mayer, Melzer, etc....
He can also get bagelled by Federer or Murray. The Tokyo Murray match is the more significant. When Nadal is slam fit he beat Murray in the last 3 GS in 2011 but in Tokyo 2011, as soon as he physique dropped, he got bagelled. Talent can help yuo win points and games easily. Nadal doesn't know how to win easily, he has to muscle the ball as hard as possible, he has to stand 4m behind the BL to retrieve serves when most other players can return the ball earlier (that is probably the most obvious trait of talent in tennis). He can only affoard to stand that far cause he physically (not talent) compensate by being able to move fast right and left and hammer the ball back.
Those who believe the physical side of Nadal's game is negligeable don't understand anything about his game. It's like saying Karlo's success is not linked to his serve...or that Karlo's great serving is not linked to his tall size.
What I have observed over the 6 years of watching Nadal is that he simply cannot win point with ease, which is the definition of a talented player.
Now I might be wrong, he might be extremely talented...but even if he were, he is not relying in his talent to win. He banks on his superior physique to play with high margins. He could not play those high margins without his extraordinary physique.
talent- natural ability. Like fed is naturally talented. You can say that Nadal is naturally talented to play on clay. His talent of hitting those spinning shots suits RG more. No one can give the kind of spin to ball what nadal does so surely than can constitute as talent. His forehand can be talent.
You can say that Nadal is naturally talented to play on clay. His talent of hitting those spinning shots suits RG more.
============================
You cannot say that. Clay actually favours the physical game. That is why Nadal does so well on it.
We can see that on fast surface where talent plays a biggr role and physique less Nadal struggles. In particular in that first week of Wimbledon when the grass is green and faster. He says it himself, "the first week is the hardest!".
He could not cope with Rosol's pace. A talented person like Kholi can. Kholi was able to return Rosol's serve earlier and rush him into mistake.
What does allow a player to take the ball early? better hand/eye coordination, therefore talent.
How about hittig those top spin shots?
No one can give the kind of spin to ball what nadal does so surely than can constitute as talent. His forehand can be talent.
-----------------------------------
What makes you say this? Other players, especially with talent, can send the ball faster without having to use so much energy. You forget once again that it's the power that allow the racquet to get through the ball so fast. Is that power innate? According to everything I read from you, you seem to think that that power is anything but "innate".
Look at Errani..same thing. She was a nobody but as soon as she got fitter and was able to topspin like mad she was able to beat many players at RG....simply out of the blue. She simply applied Nadal's tactics and that was almost enough to win a slam.
People don;t want to see that a physical game takes the match away from talent and brings it into a physical battle where talent has little impact...certainly less.
How about hittig those top spin shots?
-----------------------------------------
Remember, those topspin shots are not hit right after the bounce....but 4m behind the BL when the pace of the ball has dropped considerably and it's easier to time.
Yeah so Kohlschriber has got more talent than Nadal.
Well done Tenez for again making a ridiculous and stupid comment!
Yeah so Kohlschriber has got more talent than Nadal.
Well done Tenez for again making a ridiculous and stupid comment!
=================================
Typical of a Nadal fan response!
Doesn't have any counter argument, therefore dismiss the point with a smiley!
You haven't even replied about what you define as talent. I guess you are scared to follow a logical reasoning and come to the conclusion you do not want to read.
Anyway, Rosol, a player ranked 170 got rid of your man....for a good reason! Try to understand why!
Interesting when it comes to Nadal, very much the Marmite of Tennis..people either seem to love him or hate him, there is no middle ground.
Maybe a bit of grudging respect for what he has achieved (Same GS number as Borg lest we forget)..but to say he doesn't have any talent is ludicrous...to win GS's you need all the attributes, stamina, mental toughness etc as well as talent. Connors and Lendl wern't the most talented players in the world but their records stack up vs the likes of Becker, Edberg, Mac - all supremely taleneted players.
For me, he could be so much better. The power is there but it is not utilised to its full potential. The serve could be a lot stronger and the forhand could be used far more potently if he stepped into the ball, hit flat, eary and though it.
His strength is his main weapon but I feel he never quite gets the best out of it. Obvioulsy his style suits clay but he will never be as dominant on the other surfaces for the above reasons IMO.
Sign in if you want to comment
Some comments on ja606 regarding Nadal?
Page 1 of 2
posted on 1/7/12
I can understand your predicament and I too take things far at times. But the thing is Nadal polarises the opinions either you will like him or dislike him. There is no middle ground.
Problem with nadull is like as many others see is his penchant for breaking rules. He has not played his tennis fairly and that's one of the reasons for so many to not to like him.
On your predictions tbh I think that nadull was really lucky to win even RG. The field will catch with him up. Nadal's best days are between Apr-June. His season is now nearly finished.
I might sound too opinionated but this is what I think.
posted on 1/7/12
that I read yesterday was too much when I read that a person said that Rafael Nadal is actually the least talented player out of top 50 players in men's tennis.
-------------------------------------------------
That's from me.
What do you talent? maybe if you give me a definition, we can start discussing and see the point.
posted on 1/7/12
read: *What do you call talent? How do you define it?
posted on 1/7/12
Will on court movement count as talent?
posted on 1/7/12
Yes it could but it's very difficult to define what is the innate and which is the acquired part of it.
Nadal might run faster than Federer but to me Federer's footwork shows more talent than Nadal's. Borg's footwork was also very talented, natural. Nadal is pounding the ground. His footwork is not "light".
posted on 1/7/12
I do not like Nadal with a passion, but even I admit the criticism he gets on ja606 is a little excessive. It takes something special to win a slam even if conditions favour you.
However, if you remember the old bbc 606 around 3 or 4 years ago, it was full of Federer haters. People like Jewell Of East was a pathetic poster.
At least Tenez and co give reasons for criticising Nadal.
posted on 1/7/12
And it's not so much a criticism. It's an honest observation.
I know it defies imagination of many cause the slam count would tend to prove otherwise...but I can easily explain why.
posted on 1/7/12
ey tenez maybe cya 2mo!
if its not too much to ask can you explain why im very interested
posted on 1/7/12
tenez and co
Yes, I agree that there are reasons for disliking Nadal. I dont think anyone is discounting that he has won 11 slams but 7 of those came on clay which in itslef is a big achievment.
Nadal has been the biggest beneficiary of the slowed courts because of his RG pedigree.
At times nadal did not win fair and sqaure and that's why a lot of tennis fans struggle to put him close to Fed. Nadal has exploited the rules, ill timed MTOs are just one example.
What I think is truly exceptional about Nadal is his movement on court and his topspins other than that there is not much which is good about his game. His forehand is powerful but can be negated if court is fast.
posted on 1/7/12
Another comment that I read about Nadal and tennis players was that mental strength is not needed to be a top tennis player when French Open was being played about three weeks ago!
------------------
I believe this pearl of wisdom was from Tenez.
One of the reasons I have filtered Tenez, is because trying to talk about such matters sensibly with him is like trying to teach Spanish to a badger.
posted on 1/7/12
If you have filtered tenez then why bother to talk about him?
posted on 1/7/12
ey tenez maybe cya 2mo!
if its not too much to ask can you explain why im very interested
--------------------------------------
I wish I was going but it looks like it's going to be raining all day...I'll see how it goes!
posted on 1/7/12
TMF it wasn't me who raised the point re tenezs ridiculous comments about mental strength not being important.
Are we not allowed to comment?
posted on 1/7/12
Sure we do, but ridiculing him when you cannot even see his full posts. I don't know if that's fair.
I just raised a question but you are the best judge of it. I enjoy having discussions with you anyway
posted on 1/7/12
I'm not ridiculong him, just explaining why i filtered him.
It's because Tenez makes comments like that, that I question whether he has actually played the game.
He's clearly knowledgeable but seems incapable of taking on board anyone else's opinion which sea to make the point of a forum a bit pointless.
I also found it strange that he would write articles and then title them something like:
'Interesting article I wrote'
posted on 1/7/12
I believe this pearl of wisdom was from Tenez.
------------------------------------------
Sarcasm alert
posted on 1/7/12
In short, Talent's definition is "A marked innate ability".
So in tennis that is to me the eye/hand coordination giving a player the possibility to time the ball better than the less talented players.
You might say that Nadal has a "talent" to work hard...(which again I am not sure we can really assess) but even the talent to work hard is not what I'd call a talent related to tennis.
In short this eye/hand coordination talent is what sorts the talented players from the less talented.
My main point to back that Nadal would not be in the top 50 for talented players is that you have consider Nadal without that "extraordinary fitness". What coudl he do?
In autumn 2009 he lost some weight and power. What were his result? He coudl not grab a set to the top 10 players. A top 50 player can take a set out of the top 10 player. Nadal did not. When not slam fit he aslo loses to low ranked players Dodig, Mayer, Melzer, etc....
He can also get bagelled by Federer or Murray. The Tokyo Murray match is the more significant. When Nadal is slam fit he beat Murray in the last 3 GS in 2011 but in Tokyo 2011, as soon as he physique dropped, he got bagelled. Talent can help yuo win points and games easily. Nadal doesn't know how to win easily, he has to muscle the ball as hard as possible, he has to stand 4m behind the BL to retrieve serves when most other players can return the ball earlier (that is probably the most obvious trait of talent in tennis). He can only affoard to stand that far cause he physically (not talent) compensate by being able to move fast right and left and hammer the ball back.
Those who believe the physical side of Nadal's game is negligeable don't understand anything about his game. It's like saying Karlo's success is not linked to his serve...or that Karlo's great serving is not linked to his tall size.
What I have observed over the 6 years of watching Nadal is that he simply cannot win point with ease, which is the definition of a talented player.
Now I might be wrong, he might be extremely talented...but even if he were, he is not relying in his talent to win. He banks on his superior physique to play with high margins. He could not play those high margins without his extraordinary physique.
posted on 1/7/12
talent- natural ability. Like fed is naturally talented. You can say that Nadal is naturally talented to play on clay. His talent of hitting those spinning shots suits RG more. No one can give the kind of spin to ball what nadal does so surely than can constitute as talent. His forehand can be talent.
posted on 1/7/12
You can say that Nadal is naturally talented to play on clay. His talent of hitting those spinning shots suits RG more.
============================
You cannot say that. Clay actually favours the physical game. That is why Nadal does so well on it.
We can see that on fast surface where talent plays a biggr role and physique less Nadal struggles. In particular in that first week of Wimbledon when the grass is green and faster. He says it himself, "the first week is the hardest!".
He could not cope with Rosol's pace. A talented person like Kholi can. Kholi was able to return Rosol's serve earlier and rush him into mistake.
What does allow a player to take the ball early? better hand/eye coordination, therefore talent.
posted on 1/7/12
How about hittig those top spin shots?
posted on 1/7/12
No one can give the kind of spin to ball what nadal does so surely than can constitute as talent. His forehand can be talent.
-----------------------------------
What makes you say this? Other players, especially with talent, can send the ball faster without having to use so much energy. You forget once again that it's the power that allow the racquet to get through the ball so fast. Is that power innate? According to everything I read from you, you seem to think that that power is anything but "innate".
Look at Errani..same thing. She was a nobody but as soon as she got fitter and was able to topspin like mad she was able to beat many players at RG....simply out of the blue. She simply applied Nadal's tactics and that was almost enough to win a slam.
People don;t want to see that a physical game takes the match away from talent and brings it into a physical battle where talent has little impact...certainly less.
posted on 1/7/12
How about hittig those top spin shots?
-----------------------------------------
Remember, those topspin shots are not hit right after the bounce....but 4m behind the BL when the pace of the ball has dropped considerably and it's easier to time.
posted on 2/7/12
Yeah so Kohlschriber has got more talent than Nadal.
Well done Tenez for again making a ridiculous and stupid comment!
posted on 2/7/12
Yeah so Kohlschriber has got more talent than Nadal.
Well done Tenez for again making a ridiculous and stupid comment!
=================================
Typical of a Nadal fan response!
Doesn't have any counter argument, therefore dismiss the point with a smiley!
You haven't even replied about what you define as talent. I guess you are scared to follow a logical reasoning and come to the conclusion you do not want to read.
Anyway, Rosol, a player ranked 170 got rid of your man....for a good reason! Try to understand why!
posted on 2/7/12
Interesting when it comes to Nadal, very much the Marmite of Tennis..people either seem to love him or hate him, there is no middle ground.
Maybe a bit of grudging respect for what he has achieved (Same GS number as Borg lest we forget)..but to say he doesn't have any talent is ludicrous...to win GS's you need all the attributes, stamina, mental toughness etc as well as talent. Connors and Lendl wern't the most talented players in the world but their records stack up vs the likes of Becker, Edberg, Mac - all supremely taleneted players.
For me, he could be so much better. The power is there but it is not utilised to its full potential. The serve could be a lot stronger and the forhand could be used far more potently if he stepped into the ball, hit flat, eary and though it.
His strength is his main weapon but I feel he never quite gets the best out of it. Obvioulsy his style suits clay but he will never be as dominant on the other surfaces for the above reasons IMO.
Page 1 of 2