Right from the beginning, people always under estimated Nadal's ability and potential. Almost everybody predicted that his career will be very short because of his physically taxing style of play. People always had very less expectations on him (many people predicted that Nadal would just be another Michael Chang or Jim Courier) and therefore Nadal had the privilege to play without any pressure or burden of expectations. In other words, Nadal basically had nothing to lose and everything to gain from the beginning of his career and he could play with a free mind without any fear of losing or failure since not many people really expected him to have a great career.
But for both Federer and Djokovic (especially Federer), it was totally the other way around. Right from the beginning, people and media were quick to tout Federer as greatest player of all time. People only saw his shot making talent and ignored his real weakness which is his fragile mind and thereby his difficulty in finishing of matches and in taking opportunities of available openings. Therefore Federer was overestimated from the beginning and was always considered as a huge favorite in every big tournament which put a huge pressure on him. The same is with Djokovic also. People always tend to over estimate his ability. Therefore both Federer and Djokovic have high burden of people's expectations of them and therefore they have to play with fear of losing.
Thus I feel that Nadal is very fortunate in this regard since he was always considered by most of the people as a less talented underdog compared to Federer and Djokovic and therefore basically Nadal had no much pressure on him and had nothing to lose from the beginning of his career.
Secondly, another big psychological advantage that Nadal always had and still has is that he was always the virtual lock to win French Open and other clay court titles starting from 2005. On clay, Nadal is like a horse in the midst of donkeys and mostly he just needed to ensure that he is in a reasonably good physical shape in order to win those titles. Therefore, one slam and at least a couple of masters is almost assured for him every year and therefore he can afford to play other grand slams and tournaments without any pressure or tension (with nothing to lose attitude) since one slam and a few more big titles are already in his pocket.
But Federer and Djokovic do not have that privilege. Federer may be a great grass court player but still he is not unbeatable on grass and was never a virtual lock to win Wimbledon at anytime. Even in Wimbledon, he has lost to many good players like Berdych, Raonic, Tsonga and especially Djokovic. Similarly, even though Djokovic is a great player in Australian Open, still he is not a virtual lock to win that and many players were able to beat him there (Tsonga, Chung, Wawrinka, Istomin etc.). But Nadal has lost only just twice in 14 attempts in French Open and he rarely loses on clay. Thus Nadal can play without any fear of losing on grass court and hard courts since clay titles are already in his pocket but Federer and Djokovic do not have that privilege.
Actually why is it that people and media always tend to under estimate Nadal's potential and always tend to over estimate Federer's and Djokovic's potential?
Also I really feel that it is always better to be under estimated rather than over estimated since it gives you the privilege to play without any pressure or fear and with nothing to lose and everything to gain mentality. Actually if given a choice, I would be very happy to be in Nadal's position rather than being in Federer's or Djokovic's position since I feel that it is always better to be under estimated and there by over exceed people's expectations rather than the other way around.
What do you think?
But for both Federer and Djokovic (especially Federer), it was totally the other way around. Right from the beginning, people and media were quick to tout Federer as greatest player of all time. People only saw his shot making talent and ignored his real weakness which is his fragile mind and thereby his difficulty in finishing of matches and in taking opportunities of available openings. Therefore Federer was overestimated from the beginning and was always considered as a huge favorite in every big tournament which put a huge pressure on him. The same is with Djokovic also. People always tend to over estimate his ability. Therefore both Federer and Djokovic have high burden of people's expectations of them and therefore they have to play with fear of losing.
Thus I feel that Nadal is very fortunate in this regard since he was always considered by most of the people as a less talented underdog compared to Federer and Djokovic and therefore basically Nadal had no much pressure on him and had nothing to lose from the beginning of his career.
Secondly, another big psychological advantage that Nadal always had and still has is that he was always the virtual lock to win French Open and other clay court titles starting from 2005. On clay, Nadal is like a horse in the midst of donkeys and mostly he just needed to ensure that he is in a reasonably good physical shape in order to win those titles. Therefore, one slam and at least a couple of masters is almost assured for him every year and therefore he can afford to play other grand slams and tournaments without any pressure or tension (with nothing to lose attitude) since one slam and a few more big titles are already in his pocket.
But Federer and Djokovic do not have that privilege. Federer may be a great grass court player but still he is not unbeatable on grass and was never a virtual lock to win Wimbledon at anytime. Even in Wimbledon, he has lost to many good players like Berdych, Raonic, Tsonga and especially Djokovic. Similarly, even though Djokovic is a great player in Australian Open, still he is not a virtual lock to win that and many players were able to beat him there (Tsonga, Chung, Wawrinka, Istomin etc.). But Nadal has lost only just twice in 14 attempts in French Open and he rarely loses on clay. Thus Nadal can play without any fear of losing on grass court and hard courts since clay titles are already in his pocket but Federer and Djokovic do not have that privilege.
Actually why is it that people and media always tend to under estimate Nadal's potential and always tend to over estimate Federer's and Djokovic's potential?
Also I really feel that it is always better to be under estimated rather than over estimated since it gives you the privilege to play without any pressure or fear and with nothing to lose and everything to gain mentality. Actually if given a choice, I would be very happy to be in Nadal's position rather than being in Federer's or Djokovic's position since I feel that it is always better to be under estimated and there by over exceed people's expectations rather than the other way around.
What do you think?