PDA

View Full Version : Nadal: real man and throwback player


sureshs
05-26-2009, 07:21 AM
Forget about Nadal wearing a pink shirt and winning because of modern racquets. He is an actually an old-school player:


"Rafael Nadal is a throwback to the days when the top men played every point as if it was the last."

“Nadal has a throwback head to the old guys. Connors was probably the last of the bunch, where he went after every point,” said Fox.

http://www.insidetennis.com/2009/05/french-open-preview-shark-water/

8PAQ
05-26-2009, 08:35 AM
So what happened in Madrid final? Did Nadal played every point as if it was his last?

drakulie
05-26-2009, 08:43 AM
I agree. Other than Connors, I've never seen anyone on a court with the mindset of a player like Nadal. He has the attitude that when practicing>>> every ball is in, and this transcends into match play.

sureshs
05-26-2009, 08:48 AM
I would question his tactics. While getting one more ball in is widely touted as the thing to do, my mind cannot accept the fact that it would be wiser to let difficult balls go. Sort of like a game of chess where you might sacrifice some pieces for the larger goal. Tennis is not like swimming or track and field where maximum effort is always rewarded with lower times and more qualification chances in the next round/tournament, regardless of whether you win a medal. When I see a tennis pro run all the way from one side to the other and throw up a weak shot which is put away with ease, I ask: what is the point of doing this?

drakulie
05-26-2009, 09:00 AM
^^yeah, but how many times has doing exactly that paid off by hitting unbelievable winners to break, or get a break point. Or, how many times has doing that paid off by forcing the opponent to go for too much because they know he gets to everything.

I agree he needs to end points quicker, but he has every year imroved some aspect of his game. Wouldn't surpirse me to see him start doing this sort of thing in the coming months/year. You may witness him start to do this in the earlier rounds to practice it, and gain confidence in finishing points earlier.

sureshs
05-26-2009, 09:05 AM
I was talking about lesser pros. Nadal or Federer can pull off a winner on the run which curves around the net post, but that doesn't seem to be happening with others. What is so great about working hard for every point? It is about winning the war, not the battle. But a case could be made that the spectators want to see it, so it has to be done. If a pro looks two strokes ahead and decides that moving to the ball is a waste of time, he will be penalized for lack of effort. I think it is a legacy of wooden racquets and gut strings. You couldn't hit the ball with much pace or spin back then, so getting to every ball was worth it. Now balls can be put away with ease and it sometimes makes no sense to chase them.

McLovin
05-26-2009, 09:12 AM
Take it from someone who regularly plays people half his age: The mental aspect of your opponent getting to every ball wears on you over time. Whether they hit a winner, or just get to it & float it back, you will be thinking about it the next time you hit a similar shot. Inevitably, you will begin to press & go for too much, making errors and eventually giving them the match.

mental midget
05-26-2009, 09:31 AM
I would question his tactics. While getting one more ball in is widely touted as the thing to do, my mind cannot accept the fact that it would be wiser to let difficult balls go. Sort of like a game of chess where you might sacrifice some pieces for the larger goal. Tennis is not like swimming or track and field where maximum effort is always rewarded with lower times and more qualification chances in the next round/tournament, regardless of whether you win a medal. When I see a tennis pro run all the way from one side to the other and throw up a weak shot which is put away with ease, I ask: what is the point of doing this?

maybe one of the worst-reasoned posts in the already dubious history of this message board.

sureshs
05-26-2009, 09:33 AM
The mental aspect of your opponent getting to every ball wears on you over time..

But it also wears him over time. Unless his name is Nadal.

sureshs
05-26-2009, 09:36 AM
maybe one of the worst-reasoned posts in the already dubious history of this message board.

Why do you say so, mental midget? Isn't a S&V strategy basically doing this but disguised as something else? Coming to the net means leaving most of the court open and refusing to get into a baseline grind, moving side to side. It is worded differently, but all it is is a gamble that you will get the ball you want, and if not, will not try to seriously go for it.

crazylevity
05-26-2009, 09:40 AM
Nope. It works even at amateur levels; perhaps even more so. The 3.0-4.5 levels, with more errors, means that if you make your opponent play one more shot, there is a chance you will draw an error, regardless of how "easy" it seems. Heck, even top ten pros have missed absolute sitters.

raiden031
05-26-2009, 09:46 AM
What is so great about working hard for every point? It is about winning the war, not the battle. But a case could be made that the spectators want to see it, so it has to be done. If a pro looks two strokes ahead and decides that moving to the ball is a waste of time, he will be penalized for lack of effort.

Because there is always a chance you hit a lucky shot or your opponent hits a UE.

McLovin
05-26-2009, 10:01 AM
But it also wears him over time. Unless his name is Nadal.

Apparently you haven't played an 18-20 year old recently. If they are in any kind of shape, meaning they don't smoke and go for a run as often as they drink alcohol, they do not wear down over time. They're like the f'n Energizer bunny.

Youth is definitely wasted on the young.

joeri888
05-26-2009, 10:12 AM
Nadal's shirt was damn ugly, other than that of course he's a real man..

hoahuyen
05-26-2009, 10:21 AM
I would question his tactics. While getting one more ball in is widely touted as the thing to do, my mind cannot accept the fact that it would be wiser to let difficult balls go. Sort of like a game of chess where you might sacrifice some pieces for the larger goal. Tennis is not like swimming or track and field where maximum effort is always rewarded with lower times and more qualification chances in the next round/tournament, regardless of whether you win a medal. When I see a tennis pro run all the way from one side to the other and throw up a weak shot which is put away with ease, I ask: what is the point of doing this?

The effort will make the opponent think more in the next points. He will have to try harder to finish Nadal which means easier to make error. It's all mental.

vtmike
05-26-2009, 10:29 AM
The effort will make the opponent think more in the next points. He will have to try harder to finish Nadal which means easier to make error. It's all mental.

Yes but OTOH that effort will take a lot out of his knees and tire him...So, he has to evaluate where his body is and how long he can sustain it...If his strategy right now is not taking too much of a toll on his body, then it only makes sense to stick to it...but as soon as he feels that his body cannot take it anymore he would need to rework his game plan...& that is where it might be really challenging for him...

But honestly right now it doesn't make sense to alter his completely just to save his body and risk losing his num 1 ranking in the process. Although I'm sure he is making smaller improvements to shorten his points. Only time will tell if these small improvements will help him...