PDA

View Full Version : Nadal actually comes off like an intellectual in Spanish


octogon
06-12-2011, 12:03 PM
Anyone else noticed this?

There seems to be a massive disparity in how Nadal comes off in Spanish language interviews, compared to how he comes off in English interviews. I've just read an interview he gave with the Spanish paper El Pais, after he won this year's French Open, and his answers are incredibly thoughful, wise and detailed....he sounds almost like a younger version of his Uncle Toni. He doesn't hold back anywhere as much as he does with English language interviewers. In the Spanish interview, Nadal even hands out a book recommendation by the Irish novelist John Boyne, about a young boy in a concentration camp in World War 2. Deep stuff. Not exactly Twilight or Harry Potter.

Seriously?

If I just read Nadal's English interviews, I'd have no idea he even read novels. Or even knew what a novel was. He just gets characterised (or allows himself to be characterised) as this nice simplistic jock, who likes fishing, spending time with his family and playing video games. You never get a sense of how intelligent this really guy is in English interviews. His English has improved massively over the years, but he still hold back a lot.

I wonder if this is a deliberate strategy. Playing the simply jock who repeats the same catchphrases for the English language media, while being as sharp as a tack for his native country speakers.

Joe Pike
06-12-2011, 12:09 PM
Anyone else noticed this?

There seems to be a massive disparity in how Nadal comes off in Spanish language interviews, compared to how he comes off in English interviews. I've just read an interview he gave with the Spanish paper El Pais, after he won this year's French Open, and his answers are incredibly thoughful, wise and detailed....he sounds almost like a younger version of his Uncle Toni. He doesn't hold back anywhere as much as he does with English language interviewers. In the Spanish interview, Nadal even hands out a book recommendation by the Irish novelist John Boyne, about a young boy in a concentration camp in World War 2. Not exactly Twilight ot Harry Potter.

Seriously?

If I just read Nadal's English interviews, I'd have no idea he even read novels. Or even knew what a novel was. He just gets characterised (or allows himself to be characterised) as this nice simplistic jock, who likes fishing, spending time with his family playinmg video games. You never get a sense of how intelligenent this guy is in Eglish interviews. His English has improved massively over the years, but he still hold back a lot.

I wonder if this is a deliberate strategy. Playing the simply jock who repeats the same catchphrases for the English language media, while being as sharp as a tack for his native country speakers.


You should listen to American players speaking Spanish, French or German.
They come across as complete idiots.

FeVer
06-12-2011, 12:12 PM
Anyone else noticed this?

There seems to be a massive disparity in how Nadal comes off in Spanish language interviews, compared to how he comes off in English interviews. I've just read an interview he gave with the Spanish paper El Pais, after he won this year's French Open, and his answers are incredibly thoughful, wise and detailed....he sounds almost like a younger version of his Uncle Toni. He doesn't hold back anywhere as much as he does with English language interviewers. In the Spanish interview, Nadal even hands out a book recommendation by the Irish novelist John Boyne, about a young boy in a concentration camp in World War 2. Not exactly Twilight ot Harry Potter.

Seriously?

If I just read Nadal's English interviews, I'd have no idea he even read novels. Or even knew what a novel was. He just gets characterised (or allows himself to be characterised) as this nice simplistic jock, who likes fishing, spending time with his family and playing video games. You never get a sense of how intelligent this really guy is in English interviews. His English has improved massively over the years, but he still hold back a lot.

I wonder if this is a deliberate strategy. Playing the simply jock who repeats the same catchphrases for the English language media, while being as sharp as a tack for his native country speakers.

He always seemed like a thoughtful kind of guy, just very intense at the same time. Could you link us the interview? Is it translated?

brownsfan456
06-12-2011, 12:13 PM
I am (almost) fluent in Spanish and I completely agree. His interviews in Spanish are much more well spoken. His speech at the French Open sounded pretty intelligent too. Feddy totally showed him up though with being completely fluent in French....

octogon
06-12-2011, 12:14 PM
He always seemed like a thoughtful kind of guy, just very intense at the same time. Could you link us the interview? Is it translated?

Just look on the "Nadal News thread". It's translated by a poster, and should be on the last page right now.

borg number one
06-12-2011, 12:15 PM
Nadal is a smart guy. I really don't think you can be as successful as tennis player as he has been and achieved the things he has by 25 without some serious smarts. You have to figure out a whole lot more than tennis tactics and strategy to be that successful at this Sport and it's certainly not just because of family support. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. He's made some very smart choices in his life and has not listened to all the naysayers during his career. He sticks with what works for him. Plus, look how his game has evolved. That's not just talent, but he smartly realizes how to evolve his game. He's smart in terms of match strategy as well. I'm not at all surprised that his English doesn't allow most of us to appreciate the nuances of what he's trying to communicate.

Manus Domini
06-12-2011, 12:19 PM
I wonder, does Spanish being his native tongue have any bearing on this shocking discovery? Does his limited English have any relevance?

FeVer
06-12-2011, 12:21 PM
Here it is:


"Be humble, but not foolish"

JUAN JOSÉ MATEO - London - 12/06/2011

He says he took his tenth Grand Slam title because he brings together the essential mixture of obstinacy and self-sacrifice. The formula seems simple, but at 25 years old, very few can implement it to overcome the confidence crisis that he went through in Paris.
.................................................. ..........

Q There is a photo of you on a wooden bench, tired and in the locker room at Roland Garros. It is a photograph of the moments immediately following your victory in the final over Roger Federer. What was going through your head then?

A I was very pleased with myself. With my enthusiasm and support of my team I had achieved something that 10 days ago seemed almost impossible. In that image ... It isn't clear, but what I was crying in the locker room. I arrived there and I wanted to sit and. .. was an exciting time because I knew that I had won something that days before seemed impossible. I won with a determination to change the situation in addition to the daily work of many months and years. I was pleased to have been able to take the initial failure, or more than failure, the disaster of how I was playing and from there improve bit by bit every day.

Q After that photo, you came to center court and met with the basketball player Pau Gasol. What values ​​bind two champions like you?

A All the winners have always one thing in common that is basic. There is always humility and all those things that are very good and beautiful. Great if you have it, and he does, but there are many people who have won a lot, and are arrogant. What makes you win and wanting to win and wanting to do whatever it takes to win. Wanting to work when you don't want to. Knowing that if you are in a difficult place things will change. Being stubborn enough to think that things will go well even when they don't the first time, or the tenth. The mind must be prepared to accept difficulties in order to overcome them. Undoubtedly, all champions have this.

Q Did you recognize that in Severiano Ballesteros? When he died, you won a game and signed "Seve" in a room after the victory. There were 24 years of age difference between you and, yet connected.

A I did not live during his peak, but I met him. I am a great lover of golf. I've watched all his videos. ​​Seve had the added difficulty of being a pioneer in Spain and created a profile, style, worldwide. His greatest virtue, no doubt, was that he wanted to do that and he was prepared to do whatever it takes to get there. If you think you can get there, no matter if you do with an hour of training or 10 million hours. The important thing is to come. That was Seve. I played 18 holes with him and kept in touch. He was an excellent person.

Q Was it for that way of thinking, that you were training on grass, 24 hours after winning the biggest clay tournament?

AThat comes from experience. The first year I won Roland Garros in 2005, I was not prepared [ lost in the first round of Halle ] . It also come from my desire to always improve on all surfaces; wanting to be good everywhere, something I was clear on. In 2005 I failed, I was overcome by the happiness of winning my first major, there was a drop in tension. Once I got my second Roland Garros ... Bam! My head began to think about the next tournament[in the grass].

Q So now were you mentally ready for the journey from RG to Queens?

A Am I tired? Yes. Do I want to be here? No. I feel like being at home. It's been since the Davis Cup in Belgium [March] that I've spent a week at home. I think this is a sacrifice that can help me do better at Wimbledon. Perhaps it may not help me. What is certain is that I'll feel more at ease with myself having done everything right to play well at Wimbledon. Having that peace with yourself can allow you to play better at a given time.

QDid winning in Paris will remove a weight off?

A Winning Roland Garros, my 10th Grand Slam, is a step forward in my career and given me the confidence to play the rest of the year with more tranquility. Is it a weight off my back? Perhaps, yes. I am not obligated to win, but it is a very great personal satisfaction to be a top year, winning at least one major tournament a year. This year when I played being healthy, I made ​​four finals and won three titles. Then there's the history. I always say I do not care, but of course I care. What happens is that I have no time to dwell on it because the next day I'm playing another tournament. Of course I care about history. Of course I think about having the same titles at Roland Garros as Borg. Of course I care about being one of the few that have won the most Grand Slams. Of course I care. I love the sport and what makes sports great is the history. Be humble, but we should not be foolish. With 10 titles, am I among the greats? Yes. It's a great personal satisfaction.

Q In Paris you started of bad but ended up playing well...

A It has happened many times. In all Roland Garros I started playing badly. None entered playing well. This one especially, I was playing a tad more nervous than before. At the others I had not lost four finals in one year [all against Serbian Novak Djokovic]. That's hard, but we must also see that I was there at all those finals. I did not to win those final, but accepted the defeat well enough to return to fight from the first day for the next tournament. At Roland Garros, seeing that he had been unable to win any of those four finals, I was insecure when dealing with the tournament. Hence the problem. Once past the first week, I saw that and I had no other option but to play well ... And that's when I started to play well. The requirement led me to play well.

Q "He was out playing Rafa" summed up Carlos Moya of the start of final against Federer. How do you handle this situation, the number one, is being outplayed when he's supposed to be the best?

A I understand the question but my answer is different. When I play, I do not think I'm number one, but I'm in the final against Federer at Roland Garros and I know that when he plays at his highest level, he is virtually unstoppable. However, the matches do not last five or seven games. I know that playing at the highest level for three hours is very difficult. If successful, you shake hands and go to home because he is brilliant and very hard to beat. I also know that if I get to the right level, if I catch the rhythm, I will make it hard for him to play so well. If I start to play long, high, to make the points last longer, he can begin to make mistakes. My goal is to reach at least that situation. I do not feel humiliated or outplayed. I feel I have come into play. At that thought, to wait for the right moment to catch a little air. The excellence must be maintained all the time. I remain stable all the time. When he plays well, he wins, and when he's not playing so well, he loses. Finally, in the middle is where you win.

Q You have conceded only 19% of break points in the six finals you have played in Paris. How do you do that?

A Somehow, you have to win the final. The matches of this size and demand that you play to the limit. The one who saves the most situations wins. The important thing is to have confidence, and a clear idea of what you want to do. To make sure the anxiety and nerves do not get the best of you and make you do what you do not want to do. I am fortunate that so far, I've always played more nervous the first matches, in which perhaps there is more room for error, than the finals, where there are fewer.

Q Why do you recommend reading The Boy in the Striped Pajamas?

A Because I found it very harsh, but, in that harshness, there is a message. When you do it to others, it's not so bad, when it happens to you, is very serious. They [the Nazis] killed left and right, but when it happens in their own home ... it sobering. Whenever there are two ways of looking at life, it's the same situation. Interesting.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/depor...lpepidep_1/Tes

FeVer
06-12-2011, 12:23 PM
I am (almost) fluent in Spanish and I completely agree. His interviews in Spanish are much more well spoken. His speech at the French Open sounded pretty intelligent too. Feddy totally showed him up though with being completely fluent in French....

Well, obviously. Federer's native language is French.

octogon
06-12-2011, 12:24 PM
I wonder, does Spanish being his native tongue have any bearing on this shocking discovery? Does his limited English have any relevance?

Well since most people here judge Nadal by his interviews in English, I'd say it's very relevant. Not everyone is as wise as you are.

But honestly, it's not just Nadal's limited English (which actually isn't all that limited these days) that makes the difference. It's his forthrightness. He holds back a lot with the English language media, even though his English is good enough these days to be more forthcoming.

For example, in the Spanish interview, he admits that of course he cares about his legacy, about history and about possibly amassing the most grand slams in history. He would be unlikely to be as forthright about that in an English interview. He'd probably just say as usual "Roger is the best of the history".:)

Manus Domini
06-12-2011, 12:25 PM
It has happened many times. In all Roland Garros I started playing badly. None entered playing well.

Rafael, just because you lose a game here, a game there against non-seeded players in the 1st round doesn't mean you're playing poorly. Seriously, every top player would kill for the way you play in early RG matches

Manus Domini
06-12-2011, 12:31 PM
Well since most people here judge Nadal by his interviews in English, I'd say it's very relevant.

Good point.

Not everyone is as wise as you are.

I'm not wise at all, so that doesn't say much for them.

But honestly, it's not just Nadal's limited English (which actually isn't all that limited these days) that makes the difference. It's his forthrightness. He holds back a lot with the English language media, even though his English is good enough these days to be more forthcoming.

Oh ok. That makes sense. Since he doesn't feel as comfortable in English, it's only natural he would be hesitant on some issues. Maybe I shouldn't have said "limited English", but rather "limits on utilizing his capacity in the English language."

For example, in the Spanish interview, he admits that of course he cares about his legacy, about history and about possibly amassing the most grand slams in history. He would be unlikely to be as forthright about that in an English interview. He'd probably just say as usual "Roger is the best of the history".:)


Well, considering the press in America, I don't blame him for trying to be mild. Imagine the headlines: "Rafael Nadal: Arrogantly Challenging Federer Legacy."

FeVer
06-12-2011, 12:32 PM
Well since most people here judge Nadal by his interviews in English, I'd say it's very relevant. Not everyone is as wise as you are.

But honestly, it's not just Nadal's limited English (which actually isn't all that limited these days) that makes the difference. It's his forthrightness. He holds back a lot with the English language media, even though his English is good enough these days to be more forthcoming.

For example, in the Spanish interview, he admits that of course he cares about his legacy, about history and about possibly amassing the most grand slams in history. He would be unlikely to be as forthright about that in an English interview. He'd probably just say as usual "Roger is the best of the history".:)

Lol he does say that in every english interview, even when he hasn't played Federer!

nothingfails
06-12-2011, 12:34 PM
His speech at the French Open sounded pretty intelligent too.

I don't know about the Spanish part but it didn't seem that bright. I thought his speech was the lamest and dullest I ever heard. Very business-like. Very annoying ffrom somebody who won his 6th RG title.

aldeayeah
06-12-2011, 12:42 PM
Well, obviously. Federer's native language is French.

Isn't it German? :-|

rhubarb
06-12-2011, 12:48 PM
Well, obviously. Federer's native language is French.

French is his third or even fourth language.

Lsmkenpo
06-12-2011, 12:55 PM
Anyone else noticed this?

There seems to be a massive disparity in how Nadal comes off in Spanish language interviews, compared to how he comes off in English interviews. I've just read an interview he gave with the Spanish paper El Pais, after he won this year's French Open, and his answers are incredibly thoughful, wise and detailed....he sounds almost like a younger version of his Uncle Toni. He doesn't hold back anywhere as much as he does with English language interviewers. In the Spanish interview, Nadal even hands out a book recommendation by the Irish novelist John Boyne, about a young boy in a concentration camp in World War 2. Deep stuff. Not exactly Twilight or Harry Potter.

Seriously?

If I just read Nadal's English interviews, I'd have no idea he even read novels. Or even knew what a novel was. He just gets characterised (or allows himself to be characterised) as this nice simplistic jock, who likes fishing, spending time with his family and playing video games. You never get a sense of how intelligent this really guy is in English interviews. His English has improved massively over the years, but he still hold back a lot.

I wonder if this is a deliberate strategy. Playing the simply jock who repeats the same catchphrases for the English language media, while being as sharp as a tack for his native country speakers.

Quite naive, ninety five percent of this crap is Nadal's handlers answering the questions, not Nadal's own words. If Nadal says, " Benito, bring me banana" this would be turned into Nadal is trying to cure world hunger and he is a gourmet chef with his own recipe for banana creme pie.

Mustard
06-12-2011, 01:15 PM
Well, obviously. Federer's native language is French.

German (Swiss dialect) is Federer's first language.

A lot of people also don't seem to know that Nadal's first language is Catalan, not Spanish (Castilian).

oneness
06-12-2011, 01:17 PM
Yeah right. His handlers also plan ahead for the prize ceremony as well, taking into consideration all scenarios, whether the loser is going to be more or less emotional, will cry or just be sad etc. and do rehearsals.
Look, the guy might not be the brightest bulb in the planet, but his emotional intelligence is more than the EI of all his rabid haters in this board summed up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypdSpGJTa18

An excerpt from this article.

http://blogs.tennis.com/tennisworld/2009/02/rafa.html

"Rafa may have eclipsed his mentor, but I believe that while he's well aware of the situation and proud of what he's accomplished, he's not inclined to think of it in those terms. There's a lot more than good manners, tact and a kindly disposition at work in this; there's also a certain purity of spirit. Nobody appreciates TMF more than Rafa does, because nobody has done more for him than Federer. I can imagine Rafa experiencing many emotions on the heels of this win, but gloating isn't one of them. I thought that the consolation he offered Federer after the podium breakdown was telling; Nadal didn't need to think for a moment of what to do, or how to handle the situation. He threw his arm around Federer and produced one of the most genuine smiles I've ever seen cross his elastic, expressive features. The gesture seemed to come from the heart, and testify to how large it is.

Hail, it even made Roger look sheepish, which was quite a feat, given the emotional tone of the moment. "

So please stop with the idiot savant BS.

MichaelNadal
06-12-2011, 01:30 PM
You should listen to American players speaking Spanish, French or German.
They come across as complete idiots.

This.

10 char

Lsmkenpo
06-12-2011, 01:34 PM
................

Lsmkenpo
06-12-2011, 01:35 PM
.............

Lsmkenpo
06-12-2011, 01:36 PM
.................

cucio
06-12-2011, 01:38 PM
while being as sharp as a tack for his native country speakers.


Q Why do you recommend reading The Boy in the Striped Pajamas?

A Because I found it very harsh, but, in that harshness, there is a message. When you do it to others, it's not so bad, when it happens to you, is very serious. They [the Nazis] killed left and right, but when it happens in their own home ... it sobering. Whenever there are two ways of looking at life, it's the same situation. Interesting.

If that is your standard for tack sharpness I advise you to stick to Post-itŪ Products.

ben123
06-12-2011, 01:40 PM
i think most tennis pros are somewhat intelligent...

to be able to speak many languages is fine etc but actually every idiot can learn languages it just needs some time. it doesnt hav anything to do with intelligence.

just imo

rovex
06-12-2011, 01:48 PM
I didn't know being articulate equates to being intelligent, I'm quite certain there are various factors to take into account.

above bored
06-12-2011, 01:56 PM
Here it is:
This is what Federer was criticized for saying, but Nadal says the exact same thing.
Q "He was out playing Rafa" summed up Carlos Moya of the start of final against Federer. How do you handle this situation, the number one, is being outplayed when he's supposed to be the best?

A I understand the question but my answer is different. When I play, I do not think I'm number one, but I'm in the final against Federer at Roland Garros and I know that when he plays at his highest level, he is virtually unstoppable. However, the matches do not last five or seven games. I know that playing at the highest level for three hours is very difficult. If successful, you shake hands and go to home because he is brilliant and very hard to beat. I also know that if I get to the right level, if I catch the rhythm, I will make it hard for him to play so well. If I start to play long, high, to make the points last longer, he can begin to make mistakes. My goal is to reach at least that situation. I do not feel humiliated or outplayed. I feel I have come into play. At that thought, to wait for the right moment to catch a little air. The excellence must be maintained all the time. I remain stable all the time. When he plays well, he wins, and when he's not playing so well, he loses. Finally, in the middle is where you win.

FeVer
06-12-2011, 02:03 PM
This is what Federer was criticized for saying, but Nadal says the exact same thing.

What did you quote me for?

hawk eye
06-12-2011, 02:07 PM
Didn't any of you folks know that Rafa was involved in developing string theory? Actually he was the leading force behind it. It's all about time, space and rpm.. Einstein just couldn't have imagined a worthier successor.

Federerx16
06-12-2011, 02:08 PM
Anyone else noticed this?

There seems to be a massive disparity in how Nadal comes off in Spanish language interviews, compared to how he comes off in English interviews. I've just read an interview he gave with the Spanish paper El Pais, after he won this year's French Open, and his answers are incredibly thoughful, wise and detailed....he sounds almost like a younger version of his Uncle Toni. He doesn't hold back anywhere as much as he does with English language interviewers. In the Spanish interview, Nadal even hands out a book recommendation by the Irish novelist John Boyne, about a young boy in a concentration camp in World War 2. Deep stuff. Not exactly Twilight or Harry Potter.

Seriously?

If I just read Nadal's English interviews, I'd have no idea he even read novels. Or even knew what a novel was. He just gets characterised (or allows himself to be characterised) as this nice simplistic jock, who likes fishing, spending time with his family and playing video games. You never get a sense of how intelligent this really guy is in English interviews. His English has improved massively over the years, but he still hold back a lot.

I wonder if this is a deliberate strategy. Playing the simply jock who repeats the same catchphrases for the English language media, while being as sharp as a tack for his native country speakers.
No ****. I guess you've never met anyone that doesn't speak english as their first language before.

above bored
06-12-2011, 02:09 PM
What did you quote me for?
I'm not quoting you, just a passage from the interview you posted. It's in reference to another thread were Federer was criticized for saying when he plays well against Nadal he will most likely win, but when he does not play so well he loses. He was essentially saying his level of play determines the outcome of the match because Nadal's game is just to be stable, whereas his is to be aggressive.

nadalbestclass
06-12-2011, 02:19 PM
I'm not quoting you, just a passage from the interview you posted. It's in reference to another thread were Federer was criticized for saying when he plays well against Nadal he will most likely win, but when he does not play so well he loses. He was essentially saying his level of play determines the outcome of the match because Nadal's game is just to be stable, whereas his is to be aggressive.

I remember the thread and thought of it when I was translating the interview. Two things,
1) Nadal saying Fed is the best and talking about how he's almost unbeatable, is very different than Fed saying the match is on his racket. Players will always get criticized for blowing their own horn. Not to mention, Rafa is always drooling over Fed.
2) To me what Rafa is saying makes sense, sure when Fed plays perfectly it's very difficult to beat him, but who can play perfectly for 3 hours and that too against Nadal? Plus, Rafa says his goal is preventing Fed from playing perfectly. Fed made it sound like, Rafa's role is minimal, he's content doing the same thing, and the only thing stopping Fed is Fed. Which is bologna. Someone should ask Rafa, what would the result be if regardless of how Fed was playing, if Rafa could play perfectly for 3 hours what would happen?

above bored
06-12-2011, 02:29 PM
I remember the thread and thought of it when I was translating the interview. Two things,
1) Nadal saying Fed is the best and talking about how he's almost unbeatable, is very different than Fed saying the match is on his racket. Players will always get criticized for blowing their own horn. Not to mention, Rafa is always drooling over Fed.
2) To me what Rafa is saying makes sense, sure when Fed plays perfectly it's very difficult to beat him, but who can play perfectly for 3 hours and that too against Nadal? Plus, Rafa says his goal is preventing Fed from playing perfectly. Fed made it sound like, Rafa's role is minimal, he's content doing the same thing, and the only thing stopping Fed is Fed. Which is bologna. Someone should ask Rafa, what would the result be if regardless of how Fed was playing, if Rafa could play perfectly for 3 hours what would happen?
This is your interpretation. Federer and Nadal said the same thing, which was that if Federer plays well he will most likely win in the score or in the match, but not if he does not play well. This is what is meant by the match being on a player's racquet, not that they can win at will. Also, no one mentioned anything about playing perfectly, just well.

octogon
06-12-2011, 02:44 PM
This is your interpretation. Federer and Nadal said the same thing, which was that if Federer plays well he will most likely win in the score or in the match, but not if he does not play well. This is what is meant by the match being on a player's racquet, not that they can win at will. Also, no one mentioned anything about playing perfectly, just well.

But you don't highlight the part where Rafa says that when he plays at the right level, he's actually forcing Federer to play badly. In a way, Nadal is arguing that the match is often on his racket. If he's playing his game to the level he wants, he'll force Fed to play badly. He does that to Fed time and time again. It's not luck. Nadal makes it happen.

Federer thinks he's playing badly by some mysterious source of bad luck or fate which has everything to do with him, and little to do with Nadal. Nadal is the one pointing out that he's the one making Federer play badly...ie the match is on Nadal's racket.

zagor
06-12-2011, 02:52 PM
Federer thinks he's playing badly by some mysterious source of bad luck or fate which has everything to do with him, and little to do with Nadal. Nadal is the one pointing out that he's the one making Federer play badly...ie the match is on Nadal's racket.

We don't know what Federer thinks,only he does.To add I personally doubt that the guy who played Nadal so many times doesn't realize Nadal's game is making it very hard for him(Roger)to play his game.

nadalbestclass
06-12-2011, 03:01 PM
This is your interpretation. Federer and Nadal said the same thing, which was that if Federer plays well he will most likely win in the score or in the match, but not if he does not play well. This is what is meant by the match being on a player's racquet, not that they can win at will. Also, no one mentioned anything about playing perfectly, just well.

Actually Rafa said at the highest level. You just highlighted his summary sentence, but didn't look at the stuff he says before that.

I know that when he plays at his highest level, he is virtually unstoppable. However, the matches do not last five or seven games. I know that playing at the highest level for three hours is very difficult. If successful, you shake hands and go to home because he is brilliant and very hard to beat. I also know that if I get to the right level, if I catch the rhythm, I will make it hard for him to play so well. If I start to play long, high, to make the points last longer, he can begin to make mistakes. My goal is to reach at least that situation.

Not only is Rafa saying that if Fed were to play really well he would be VERY hard to beat, but not impossible. But obviously that is not where it ends. Rafa says that match duration and his own level of play, does not allow Fed to play his best.

above bored
06-12-2011, 03:18 PM
But you don't highlight the part where Rafa says that when he plays at the right level, he's actually forcing Federer to play badly. In a way, Nadal is arguing that the match is often on his racket. If he's playing his game to the level he wants, he'll force Fed to play badly. He does that to Fed time and time again. It's not luck. Nadal makes it happen.

Federer thinks he's playing badly by some mysterious source of bad luck or fate which has everything to do with him, and little to do with Nadal. Nadal is the one pointing out that he's the one making Federer play badly...ie the match is on Nadal's racket.
Nadal obviously does not make it easy. He makes it as hard as he possibly can. That goes without saying. It also goes without saying that the outcome of all matches in any scenario involves the contribution of both players. This is a trivial point.

The point that both players were making is that Federer's level is more instrumental in determining the outcome of their matches because Nadal's game is to be stable and hope Federer makes enough unforced errors to lose. This is evidently not a bad calculation because Nadal moves well enough and hits with enough topspin to play a defensive game with bigger margins. Federer as the aggressor takes more risks and on average is going to be more prone to error, but when he is playing well he serves at a high percentage and hits his spots more frequently, which is very difficult to stop.

A match being on one's racquet is not a boast. It is an understanding that against a constant, the variability in one's own level of play will determine the outcome.

above bored
06-12-2011, 03:37 PM
Actually Rafa said at the highest level. You just highlighted his summary sentence, but didn't look at the stuff he says before that.



Not only is Rafa saying that if Fed were to play really well he would be VERY hard to beat, but not impossible. But obviously that is not where it ends. Rafa says that match duration and his own level of play, does not allow Fed to play his best.
Highest level is not perfectly. Federer has had many instances in his career where he has sustained his highest level, but the important thing is to achieve high levels at key moments. That's the key to all matches, especially those between Federer and Nadal which are invariably close. As he said, he does not go all out when he plays against Nadal. He tries to choose his spots.

Also Nadal does not say he does not allow Federer to play his best. He says he can make it hard for Federer to play well if he keeps the ball deep and high, but this is an unchanging constant Federer is familiar with, which he wins and loses against by turns from one point to the next. Again, the key is to win against it at key moments in the match and this will mainly be determined by the level of play Federer achieves at those key moments.

nadalbestclass
06-12-2011, 03:48 PM
Highest level is not perfectly. Federer has had many instances in his career where he has sustained his highest level, but the important thing is to achieve high levels at key moments. That's the key to all matches, especially those between Federer and Nadal which are invariably close. As he said, he does not go all out when he plays against Nadal. He tries to choose his spots.

Also Nadal does not say he does not allow Federer to play his best. He says he can make it hard for Federer to play well if he keeps the ball deep and high, but this is an unchanging constant Federer is familiar with, which he wins and loses against by turns from one point to the next. Again, the key is to win against it at key moments in the match and this will mainly be determined by the level of play Federer achieves at those key moments.

Highest level is not "well" either. :p No point going back and forth on this, because on this board no on will ever change their opinion, and right now, all we are doing is throwing opinions.

Sid_Vicious
06-12-2011, 03:50 PM
lol Rafa is as smart as a nuclear physicist.

above bored
06-12-2011, 03:56 PM
Highest level is not "well" either. :p No point going back and forth on this, because on this board no on will ever change their opinion, and right now, all we are doing is throwing opinions.
Highest level clearly is 'well'. Federer cannot play at his highest level and play badly.

In any case, the point is Federer and Nadal agree on this matter, despite the protests against what Federer said.

Bud
06-12-2011, 03:59 PM
You should listen to American players speaking Spanish, French or German.
They come across as complete idiots.

Si, me llamo is Bud.. er :?

nadalbestclass
06-12-2011, 04:25 PM
Highest level clearly is 'well'. Federer cannot play at his highest level and play badly.

In any case, the point is Federer and Nadal agree on this matter, despite the protests against what Federer said.

It's a pity if Fed's highest level is only "well". We also don't know what rafa and Fed believe, now do we? You chose to believe what you want.

Hood_Man
06-12-2011, 04:34 PM
Si, me llamo is Bud.. er :?

Nope, sorry, I haven't seen your Llama.


I always got the impression Nadal was a smart guy, his blogs in the Telegraph were always pretty interesting. Plus I know what a tool I sound like when I try and speak another language, it's difficult to be completely open and expressive when you're not 100% sure of what it is you're saying, or how to say it.

above bored
06-12-2011, 04:49 PM
It's a pity if Fed's highest level is only "well". We also don't know what rafa and Fed believe, now do we? You chose to believe what you want.
Well, Federer's 'well' is no ordinary 'well'.

I'm not telepathic, so I'll just go with what both players said about their matches.

Lsmkenpo
06-12-2011, 04:51 PM
Yeah right. His handlers also plan ahead for the prize ceremony as well, taking into consideration all scenarios, whether the loser is going to be more or less emotional, will cry or just be sad etc. and do rehearsals.
Look, the guy might not be the brightest bulb in the planet, but his emotional intelligence is more than the EI of all his rabid haters in this board summed up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypdSpGJTa18

An excerpt from this article.

http://blogs.tennis.com/tennisworld/2009/02/rafa.html

"Rafa may have eclipsed his mentor, but I believe that while he's well aware of the situation and proud of what he's accomplished, he's not inclined to think of it in those terms. There's a lot more than good manners, tact and a kindly disposition at work in this; there's also a certain purity of spirit. Nobody appreciates TMF more than Rafa does, because nobody has done more for him than Federer. I can imagine Rafa experiencing many emotions on the heels of this win, but gloating isn't one of them. I thought that the consolation he offered Federer after the podium breakdown was telling; Nadal didn't need to think for a moment of what to do, or how to handle the situation. He threw his arm around Federer and produced one of the most genuine smiles I've ever seen cross his elastic, expressive features. The gesture seemed to come from the heart, and testify to how large it is.

Hail, it even made Roger look sheepish, which was quite a feat, given the emotional tone of the moment. "

So please stop with the idiot savant BS.

Great movie, my favorite scene is when someone moves his water bottles and he throws a fit, very emotional.

http://i56.tinypic.com/izu8o1.jpg

LeoMOMO
06-12-2011, 06:00 PM
i think most tennis pros are somewhat intelligent...

to be able to speak many languages is fine etc but actually every idiot can learn languages it just needs some time. it doesnt hav anything to do with intelligence.

just imo


I think so, too.
Also, for me, almost all players look like nice guys unlike many guys of this forum...

reversef
06-13-2011, 12:54 AM
Well since most people here judge Nadal by his interviews in English, I'd say it's very relevant. Not everyone is as wise as you are.

But honestly, it's not just Nadal's limited English (which actually isn't all that limited these days) that makes the difference. It's his forthrightness. He holds back a lot with the English language media, even though his English is good enough these days to be more forthcoming.

For example, in the Spanish interview, he admits that of course he cares about his legacy, about history and about possibly amassing the most grand slams in history. He would be unlikely to be as forthright about that in an English interview. He'd probably just say as usual "Roger is the best of the history".:)

He goes further in his spanish interviews because he trusts himself to use the right words and not sound arrogant, aggressive or whatever (given the situation). Express oneself with nuances in a foreign language is very difficult, you always sound simplistic or caricatural. It's very dangerous when you have a high profile. So, Nadal doesn't want to take the risk. When he wants to defend a point of view, he does it clearly though in one way or another. He doesn't find worth it to fight hard with his english on any question and thus he stays more generic in his english interviews very often.

Smasher08
06-13-2011, 02:47 AM
One day, if he wants to be one, Rafa would probably make one helluva coach.

rafan
06-13-2011, 02:57 AM
Something i particularly noticed when i visited majorca this time was that there is not a great deal of english spoken and in my ignorance I cannot speak spanish at all well. Or rather catalan (i think they speak both). His English has improved a great deal. In Switzerland you come accross people speaking german, french, and much more english since they are bilingual from an early age and pick it up at the right time when they are kids

CocaCola
06-13-2011, 03:36 AM
It's not like it's a transcript, this interview, so it proves nothing. Based on what I saw from Nadal, you got to say he's far away from coming off as an intellectual.

BounceHitBounceHit
06-13-2011, 06:22 AM
Anyone else noticed this?

There seems to be a massive disparity in how Nadal comes off in Spanish language interviews, compared to how he comes off in English interviews. I've just read an interview he gave with the Spanish paper El Pais, after he won this year's French Open, and his answers are incredibly thoughful, wise and detailed....he sounds almost like a younger version of his Uncle Toni. He doesn't hold back anywhere as much as he does with English language interviewers. In the Spanish interview, Nadal even hands out a book recommendation by the Irish novelist John Boyne, about a young boy in a concentration camp in World War 2. Deep stuff. Not exactly Twilight or Harry Potter.

Seriously?

If I just read Nadal's English interviews, I'd have no idea he even read novels. Or even knew what a novel was. He just gets characterised (or allows himself to be characterised) as this nice simplistic jock, who likes fishing, spending time with his family and playing video games. You never get a sense of how intelligent this really guy is in English interviews. His English has improved massively over the years, but he still hold back a lot.

I wonder if this is a deliberate strategy. Playing the simply jock who repeats the same catchphrases for the English language media, while being as sharp as a tack for his native country speakers.

I did not know this but I don't find it surprising at all. I think one of his greatest weapons is his mind. I love the quote he gave (I am paraphrasing):

"You are the same after the match as before, no?"

He is not "tied to the outcome". This is a VERY mature way of looking at competition.

No dumb jock there fellas! ;)

BHBH

feetofclay
06-13-2011, 06:55 AM
Journalist Abigail Lorge wrote in an article that Nadal is impressive in his native tongue, thoughtful, serious , articulate.

Lsmkenpo
06-13-2011, 07:01 AM
A high percentage of people with savant syndrome are ambidextrous, neither side of the brain is dominant. They also have a fascination to spin objects :!:
This isn't BS, google it.

ivan_the_terrible
06-13-2011, 03:00 PM
so Nadal is not a simple guy that loves to hang out with his buddies and fish?

Is that just a facade? Nadal is really an intellectual that will one day solve the riddle of the universe?

when is the movie version coming out?

pound cat
06-13-2011, 03:10 PM
You should listen to American players speaking Spanish, French or German.
They come across as complete idiots.

Which American players speak Spanishm German or French? With the exception of Jim Courier who speaks French, I have never even heard any American player speak anything but English.

pound cat
06-13-2011, 03:15 PM
Journalist Abigail Lorge wrote in an article that Nadal is impressive in his native tongue, thoughtful, serious , articulate.

That sounds like an honest assessment. The difference between being an intellectual and being intelligent is vast, and Nadal sounds like an intelligent, thoughtful person which I am sure he is, He has not only athletic genes, but also the genes of his family who have graduated from university (toni for one) and his grandfather who is a symphony orchestra conductor, but also his mother who is a clasical pianist by profession

Several players have said that although they can converse in an intellligent way about tennis , they lack the vocabulary in English to talk about other topics.

cucio
06-13-2011, 04:48 PM
Journalist Abigail Lorge wrote in an article that Nadal is impressive in his native tongue, thoughtful, serious , articulate.

Not particularly.

Nothing personal against the guy, awesome tennis player, but in Spanish he comes off as a regular next-door kid, raised to be a sports star. He is not witty, nor cultivated, nor shows an ounce of originality. Blockbuster movies, best selling books, pop chart hits...

His barely adequate English after 7 years in an international environment speaks volumes about his interest toward intellectual pursuits.

Sorry, guys, he may be a great athlete, perhaps some will find his physique attractive, but the sharpest knife in the drawer he definitely is not.

Frankly, from what I read in the interviews, I don't think I personally would have great interest in conversing with any tennis pro after they would have exhausted their repertoire of tour anecdotes. Maybe some wild parties with witty (in a juvenile way) guys like Safin, Tursunov or Roddick, could provide some funny snippets, but that's about it.

Why this irrational need of piling up bogus gifts and qualities on top of people who in truth only excel at hitting a ball over a net? Why do you need to project semi-divine status on rich, dumb kids?

And don't get me started with the different intelligences crap. Any intelligence worth considering is expanded and cultivated through study, experience and exercising, the vast majority of pro athletes don't have the time or drive to do that.

Sentinel
06-14-2011, 05:14 AM
Which American players speak Spanishm German or French? With the exception of Jim Courier who speaks French, I have never even heard any American player speak anything but English.
Then what is the language that American posters here (such as Fedace) post in ? I am curious.

p.s. ^ totally awesome dude post, cucio.