Bad Nadal Article

flyer · Jan 10, 2009

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870373,00.html

Does anyone else think this article is misunderstood/informed....?

Who is this goofy Eben Harrell anyway? From my research hes got absolutely no tennis background and has no business writing this story, he was probably just assigned to the story

David L · Jan 10, 2009

flyer said:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870373,00.html

Does anyone else think this article is misunderstood/informed....?

Who is this goofy Eben Harrell anyway? From my research hes got absolutely no tennis background and has no business writing this story, he was probably just assigned to the story

What's wrong with it?

flyer · Jan 10, 2009

David L said:
What's wrong with it?

Umm, well i think it is misinformed and misunderstood because it is written by somebody who is not a tennis journalist or even enthusiast...

Its really just facts....no analysis

I would even say there are some factual errors...

oneguy21 · Jan 10, 2009

The article is basically everything about Nadal. It's kind of redundant for us tennis fans. Yes, we know how he plays. But I find it peculiar how he uses the word "unique" to describe Nadal's game. I mean there are many heavy topspin grinders out there. And also, what does he mean when he says win by "embracing normal?" Is he refering to Nadal's outfit? If so, I don't know how that's going to help him win the AO and he can't be talking about his game - it's obvious he's not going to change too much.

David L · Jan 10, 2009

flyer said:
Umm, well i think it is misinformed and misunderstood because it is written by somebody who is not a tennis journalist or even enthusiast...

Its really just facts....no analysis

I would even say there are some factual errors...

Be more specific. I actually thought the article was one of the better ones you tend to see about tennis these days. It covers all the main issues regarding Nadal and is a personal piece, so there isn't meant to be in depth analysis about tennis related matters. 'Time' magazine is a news journal, not an instruction manual.

David L · Jan 10, 2009

oneguy21 said:
The article is basically everything about Nadal. It's kind of redundant for us tennis fans. Yes, we know how he plays. But I find it peculiar how he uses the word "unique" to describe Nadal's game. I mean there are many heavy topspin grinders out there. And also, what does he mean when he says win by "embracing normal?" Is he refering to Nadal's outfit? If so, I don't know how that's going to help him win the AO and he can't be talking about his game - it's obvious he's not going to change too much.

He means by playing a more conventional game, instead of the reverse forehand, falling back on the shot etc. Generally being less unorthodox.

SourStraws · Jan 10, 2009

I personally enjoyed it..... I dont see anything wrong really

S.S.

TheShaun · Jan 10, 2009

pretty good article. remember, it's TIME magazine, not tennis magazine or some fanboy site.

flyer · Jan 10, 2009

David L said:
Be more specific. I actually thought the article was one of the better ones you tend to see about tennis these days. It covers all the main issues regarding Nadal and is a personal piece, so there isn't meant to be in depth analysis about tennis related matters. 'Time' magazine is a news journal, not an instruction manual.

i think oneguy21 pretty much summed it up, its pretty much just facts the writer gathered, but he didn't really understand them in depth just facts he gathered....even some of his facts were suspect in my opinion

such as calling nadal a counter puncher...which he is certainly not anymore

and calling him a bad boy, which no body in tennis sees him as a bad boy in any form in any circumbstance

slicefox · Jan 10, 2009

Ye, he says "Nadal's style is unique" but I don't think there is anything unique or original about it. All he does is stand at the baseline, hit back as hard as he can and with as much spin as he can, run fast for all the balls, and hope his opponent f*(ks up and hits the net or out.

That's not unique, I know lots of kids who do that.

tacou · Jan 10, 2009

^ that's a very over simplified version of Nadal's game.

I thought the article was fine, I'll be interested to see if Rafa "grows up" this year.

DJG · Jan 10, 2009

I don't know, I didn't think the article was bad - I quite enjoyed it. Different perspectives on some of the stuff most of us know already.

egn · Jan 10, 2009

Anything sports related in Time Magazine always strikes me subpar..this didn't change my views. The read was blah, the article was not that entertaining and yes the writer seemed to have absolutely no knowledge of tennis outside of it is played with a ball, two people with rackets and a net. He did his research and put facts on paper..really seemed like a typical intro to those "Nadal is great cause.." or "Nadal sucks cause.." threads.

However I must say Federer is the only number 2 who gets his ass kissed by the number 1. I understand that Nadal has the utmost respect for Federer, and hell I am more of a Federer fan than Nadal fan not going to lie because I hate the whole grinder thing, but still why the hell do you still kiss his ass. Anything I read involving Nadal winds up making its way to "Federer is so much better than me.." or Toni Nadal saying "Federer is still miles ahead.." seriously..just stop. You are rank 1 for the year live for the moment in the year 2008 you played better than Roger Federer. Ignore all the *******s and their excuses and simply take pride in it. Focus on 2009 without making comments about how great Fed is and how he is coming back for the spot. Someone needs to help Nadal realize that he is now actually in the driver's seat. Or is that what happens after being number 2 for so long?

David L · Jan 10, 2009

flyer said:
i think oneguy21 pretty much summed it up, its pretty much just facts the writer gathered, but he didn't really understand them in depth just facts he gathered....even some of his facts were suspect in my opinion

such as calling nadal a counter puncher...which he is certainly not anymore

and calling him a bad boy, which no body in tennis sees him as a bad boy in any form in any circumbstance

A lot of Nadal's game does involve counter-punching. I mean, he's known more as a defensive than attacking player.

The article does not call him a bad boy. It actually says he is normal, middle-class and well behaved, but gets cast as the villain by tennis purists and seen as a rebel with his on court persona. All of this is true.

The article isn't perfect, but it's not that bad.

matchmaker · Jan 11, 2009

Well, I don't think the article is that bad. Except maybe the intro about the evolution theory. Kinda makes me think that Nadal is considered as an ape...

I love the line about the slow clay of RG and the slick (note "slick" not "fast" anymore) grass of Wimbledon.

Cyclone · Jan 11, 2009

yeah this article was silly, pretty obvious the poor writer didn't realize that tennis has a lot more subtleties than a lot of outsiders realize.

Nadal is definitely not "tennis's antihero", just because he's the juggernaut opposition of Mr. Smooth doesn't mean he's an antihero.

tacou · Jan 11, 2009

actually it does. that's pretty much the definition of antihero.

MajinX · Jan 11, 2009

article was fine... the views of nadal are expressed and yes for a top 10 pro player, nadals game is a bit unique, he hits heavy spin loopy forehands and plays more defensively than offensively, serves with a major spin and not as much pace... how is it the conventional game???

cucio · Jan 11, 2009

I haven't seen anyone hit a forehand like Nadal's. Andreev's is somehow similar in action, but nowhere near the racquet head speed, pace, spin, bounce and accuracy that Nadal achieves. Since it seems to be a successful weapon I think in years to come we will see more youngsters trying to develop it.

vive le beau jeu ! · Jan 11, 2009

flyer said:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870373,00.html

Does anyone else think this article is misunderstood/informed....?

Who is this goofy Eben Harrell anyway? From my research hes got absolutely no tennis background and has no business writing this story, he was probably just assigned to the story

what is the pb with this article ? i think it's kinda vulgarization (a rather good one) : it was just written by somebody who knows tennis for readers who don't.
not that i loved the article... but there are some good points.

TIME mag said:
Even in this setting, there has always been something particularly childlike about Nadal's public persona, from his obsessive prematch routine of arranging his water bottles just so, to his compulsive butt-scratching between points, to his habit of posing for championship photographs while biting onto trophies like a teething tot.

i admit i'm surprised to see these points in Time !

TIME mag said:
(...) the ability to impose his muscular game on more talented players.

few words, excellent synthesis about what his game is based on.

martini1 · Jan 11, 2009

Nadal is only 22. For a 22 yr old to reach the top of the world, can anybody expect him to spend any time at all to play the PR game? Yes, I agree that he can be "annoying" for some about his pre match routine, and the time he takes between points and so on. But at least he is polite towards fans, and other players, etc. He doesn't swear like crazy or destory sponsor signs with a racket. His english is not the best but he tries very hard to answer questions properly. I think that's already better than most players at his age.

The biting... lol who didn't bite his/her medal in the Olympics this time?

Love Game · Jan 11, 2009

Cyclone said:
yeah this article was silly, pretty obvious the poor writer didn't realize that tennis has a lot more subtleties than a lot of outsiders realize.

Nadal is definitely not "tennis's antihero", just because he's the juggernaut opposition of Mr. Smooth doesn't mean he's an antihero.

tacou said:
actually it does. that's pretty much the definition of antihero.

except: there are more large corporations sponsoring roger than there are sponsoring rafa. time/warner is just another corporate giant. it's a way of "damning w/faint praise."

veroniquem · Jan 11, 2009

flyer said:
i think oneguy21 pretty much summed it up, its pretty much just facts the writer gathered, but he didn't really understand them in depth just facts he gathered....even some of his facts were suspect in my opinion

such as calling nadal a counter puncher...which he is certainly not anymore

and calling him a bad boy, which no body in tennis sees him as a bad boy in any form in any circumbstance

The guy knew Agassi and just thought Nadal was a clone! (Agassi used to be the bad boy of tennis). It's somewhat fun to see all the usual Nadal haters rushing to this thread to praise this article that is as biassed and grossly ignorant about tennis in general as it is about Nadal's game in particular. However as long as it trashes Nadal, some people are gonna like it naturally.

veroniquem · Jan 11, 2009

vive le beau jeu ! said:
what is the pb with this article ? i think it's kinda vulgarization (a rather good one) : it was just written by somebody who knows tennis for readers who don't.
not that i loved the article... but there are some good points.

i admit i'm surprised to see these points in Time !

few words, excellent synthesis about what his game is based on.

Mocking OCD tendencies or making it sound like it's a babyish behavior makes me want to apologize on behalf of that nitwit to all the remarkable people who happen to be dealing with that kind of problems in real life.
As far as tennis is concerned, no, (cough, cough) I don't think Nadal is an average player making up for his lack of talent with sheer power and muscles. That is not even close to assessing Nadal's game at all.

marc45 · Jan 11, 2009

the essence of the article was this "makeover" nadal is getting...yes it included some on-court discussion, but what really jumped out was this concerted effort by his handlers/management to change/update his image from boy to man....coming off a career year you might say why change everything and may be even afraid of doing so and heading downhill...of course fed seemed to have an image makeover awhile back and it didn't seem to hurt him, but if i was a rafa fan i might be nervous

veroniquem · Jan 11, 2009

marc45 said:
the essence of the article was this "makeover" nadal is getting...yes it included some on-court discussion, but what really jumped out was this concerted effort by his handlers/management to change/update his image from boy to man....coming off a career year you might say why change everything and may be even afraid of doing so and heading downhill...of course fed seemed to have an image makeover awhile back and it didn't seem to hurt him, but if i was a rafa fan i might be nervous

The whole makeover thing has been blown out of proportion (the media needs to have something to gossip about, don't they?) Apart from his outfit, I don't see him changing much really (apart from those few adjustments maybe that he started to try making about his serve, etc long before he became #1).

JankovicFan · Jan 11, 2009

I am happy to see pro tennis get coverage by big media other than sports specialists. No cause to nitpick. I think it is positive. They may have a history over the years of doing articles about new #1 players, men and women.

rubberduckies · Jan 11, 2009

The idea that Nadal is not insanely talented is absolutely ludicrous. He is one of the most precocious players of all time. He didn't train at an academy and was taught by a person with very little coaching experience - that is a huge disadvantage that he was able to overcome off his talent. It is also ridiculous to suggest that he works a lot harder than everyone else. They all work extremely hard, well not Nalbandian, but the rest of them train their *** off.

TheTruth · Jan 11, 2009

Yawn, another mindless clone who can't see or think outside the box. Why can't people live and let live? Thank goodness for originality. What a boring world we would live in without it. Nadal is bringing people to tennis in droves. Let the haters continue to bite the hand that feeds them!

marc45 · Jan 11, 2009

veroniquem said:
The whole makeover thing has been blown out of proportion (the media needs to have something to gossip about, don't they?) Apart from his outfit, I don't see him changing much really (apart from those few adjustments maybe that he started to try making about his serve, etc long before he became #1).

i certainly agree, i didn't see much in his matches this year so far that looked different (and i like his shirt), but his team certainly seems inclined to do something that will bring him in more endorsement dollars

bjk · Jan 11, 2009

I agree with Roddick. It's too late to change Nadal's game. Maybe the serve, but not the forehand. It seems like everybody is trying to "come in more." There are so many baseliners that the only way to end the point is to come in. Maybe that's why players like Karlovic, Stepanek, Cilic, Roddick have been doing well on the tour lately.

veroniquem · Jan 11, 2009

marc45 said:
i certainly agree, i didn't see much in his matches this year so far that looked different (and i like his shirt), but his team certainly seems inclined to do something that will bring him in more endorsement dollars

I still can't believe collared shirts would be introduced as a way to achieve that goal! If anything, there is every chance of that making him appear less "cool", less sexy and definitely less marketable. If those polo shirts he's wearing now are a marketing strategy, then it's certain to be a failure of epic proportions!

World Beater · Jan 11, 2009

lolz. the article was fine.

it is a little weird to see how deferential nadal's camp is to federer.it could be a tactic to keep nadal motivated to beat federer and chase his legacy i suppose. Anyways this isn't the writer's fault, is it.

Clay lover · Jan 11, 2009

What I don't like is the stereotyping of Nadal's "unorthodox" technique. If you look closely at Nadal's forehand, it's just another Western forehand that happens to be straight armed, he has good technique and timing on it, and just because he uses the reverse forehand more often doesn't make his technique any flawed. And NO, Nadal doesn't hit reverse forehands in practice.

Deleted member 25923 · Jan 11, 2009

Clay lover said:
What I don't like is the stereotyping of Nadal's "unorthodox" technique. If you look closely at Nadal's forehand, it's just another Western forehand that happens to be straight armed, he has good technique and timing on it, and just because he uses the reverse forehand more often doesn't make his technique any flawed. And NO, Nadal doesn't hit reverse forehands in practice.

Agreed. His practice forehands are pretty normal forehands.

veroniquem · Jan 11, 2009

Clay lover said:
What I don't like is the stereotyping of Nadal's "unorthodox" technique. If you look closely at Nadal's forehand, it's just another Western forehand that happens to be straight armed, he has good technique and timing on it, and just because he uses the reverse forehand more often doesn't make his technique any flawed. And NO, Nadal doesn't hit reverse forehands in practice.

It's a little puzzling but most of the stuff the media report about Nadal's play is not observation but rumors ricocheting from one journalist to the next.

flyer · Jan 12, 2009

egn said:
Anything sports related in Time Magazine always strikes me subpar..this didn't change my views. The read was blah, the article was not that entertaining and yes the writer seemed to have absolutely no knowledge of tennis outside of it is played with a ball, two people with rackets and a net. He did his research and put facts on paper..really seemed like a typical intro to those "Nadal is great cause.." or "Nadal sucks cause.." threads.

However I must say Federer is the only number 2 who gets his ass kissed by the number 1. I understand that Nadal has the utmost respect for Federer, and hell I am more of a Federer fan than Nadal fan not going to lie because I hate the whole grinder thing, but still why the hell do you still kiss his ass. Anything I read involving Nadal winds up making its way to "Federer is so much better than me.." or Toni Nadal saying "Federer is still miles ahead.." seriously..just stop. You are rank 1 for the year live for the moment in the year 2008 you played better than Roger Federer. Ignore all the *******s and their excuses and simply take pride in it. Focus on 2009 without making comments about how great Fed is and how he is coming back for the spot. Someone needs to help Nadal realize that he is now actually in the driver's seat. Or is that what happens after being number 2 for so long?

great post

yellowoctopus · Jan 12, 2009

Very good article. I believe it makes Nadal that much more human and more appreciated by his fans, especially the ending paragraph.

"And while sponsors may want Nadal to become a man, he needs to be his own man. Fans love Nadal because he seems so real. "

veroniquem · Jan 12, 2009

yellowoctopus said:
Very good article. I believe it makes Nadal that much more human and more appreciated by his fans, especially the ending paragraph.

"And while sponsors may want Nadal to become a man, he needs to be his own man. Fans love Nadal because he seems so real. "

Bravo! You found the one positive sentence in the last part of the article which I found particularly contemptuous and condescending about Nadal.

bolo · Jan 12, 2009

rubberduckies said:
The idea that Nadal is not insanely talented is absolutely ludicrous. He is one of the most precocious players of all time. He didn't train at an academy and was taught by a person with very little coaching experience - that is a huge disadvantage that he was able to overcome off his talent. It is also ridiculous to suggest that he works a lot harder than everyone else. They all work extremely hard, well not Nalbandian, but the rest of them train their *** off.

Very talented I agree although I would guess that toni thinks a lot of tennis academy training is bogus. But I would also guess that nadal suffered a little by not practising with the best regularly at a young age.

Hard to say whether he works harder than the rest. Does he work harder than other talented guys like federer and murray? probably not. Does he work harder than other talented guys like malisse and nalabandian, probably.

marc45 · Jan 12, 2009

veroniquem said:
I still can't believe collared shirts would be introduced as a way to achieve that goal! If anything, there is every chance of that making him appear less "cool", less sexy and definitely less marketable. If those polo shirts he's wearing now are a marketing strategy, then it's certain to be a failure of epic proportions!

you may be right, but i tell you....i completely hate the trend away from the classic look, collared shirts, sleeves...the baggy shirts with t-shirt collar and baggy trunks look like workout clothes to me, stuff they should wear on the practice courts before they get dressed for the big matches on the show courts...and i know rafa's pirate look was unique so i'm forgiving there, even favor it, just for him....and i have to admit as a sampras fan he played a big role in the shorts getting baggier (not too much though), he talks about in his book....btw, i read an interview with mats wilander who agrees with me here, he thinks the guys do not look good on the court, compared to the stylish women.....fed looks great, nike does him up good, like tiger....my final rant would be guys not shaving, wearing hats, lousy haircuts....i really think they could sell the sport better by thinking more of appearance, but you could be right and maybe it's looking to the past

veroniquem · Jan 12, 2009

marc45 said:
you may be right, but i tell you....i completely hate the trend away from the classic look, collared shirts, sleeves...the baggy shirts with t-shirt collar and baggy trunks look like workout clothes to me, stuff they should wear on the practice courts before they get dressed for the big matches on the show courts...and i know rafa's pirate look was unique so i'm forgiving there, even favor it, just for him....and i have to admit as a sampras fan he played a big role in the shorts getting baggier (not too much though), he talks about in his book....btw, i read an interview with mats wilander who agrees with me here, he thinks the guys do not look good on the court, compared to the stylish women.....fed looks great, nike does him up good, like tiger....my final rant would be guys not shaving, wearing hats, lousy haircuts....i really think they could sell the sport better by thinking more of appearance, but you could be right and maybe it's looking to the past

Fed doesn't always look great. That all black outfit he wore was pretty terrible. The sleeveless fit nadal, they may have looked bad on somebody else but they really looked good on him. Unshaven generally doesn't bother me.

marc45 · Jan 13, 2009

i'm picky, i admit it (shaving, hair) and though black isn't a "normal" tennis color i thought fed looked fine...his clothes are clearly tailored to his body and that's the difference between him and these guys who look like the michelin tire guy...and btw, does anybody think fed's hairstyle doesn't look better now than the greased back look when he hit the scene?...again, perfect cut for his face, softened his look....i like the lacoste stuff too, but alot of the adidas stuff is horrific....a final rant/joke...when did a towel become the official dress for male players?

knasty131 · Jan 13, 2009

I looked through 3 pages of a Nadal article only to see Nadal Freak's biased response...and i get NOTHING?!

You're slacking freak...

cknobman · Jan 14, 2009

To OP I think you read the article and took it as a knock on Nadal but I found it quite informative and a good read.

Some of the quotes from uncle Tony and Nadal let gave me some insight on how they feel and see things.

Good article I say.

And I like Nadals new look as long as it wont bother him on court.

flyer · Jan 14, 2009

cknobman said:
To OP I think you read the article and took it as a knock on Nadal but I found it quite informative and a good read.

Some of the quotes from uncle Tony and Nadal let gave me some insight on how they feel and see things.

Good article I say.

And I like Nadals new look as long as it wont bother him on court.

no, no i didn't mean it that way, i just think it was pure information with no real understanding of what he was writing about....basically that this guy knows nothing about tennis and just gathered facts

Bad Nadal Article

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Professional

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Legend

Deleted member 25923

Guest

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Professional

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Legend

Hall of Fame

Similar threads