Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Speedy_tennis, Jul 11, 2005.
Do you like NADAL's playing style???why?
i vote for no because i don't like a roadrunner tennis
He's good. Therefore I like it. Same reason why I don't like pushers, they suck.
clay court specialist, no more, no less.
I think its a bit premature to peg him as a claycourt specialist this early in his career. While he doesn't play my favorite brand of tennis, his fight and athleticism keep me watching when he's on.
If Nadal gets more of his forehands close to the baseline, I'd like his style a lot more, but Nadal focuses more on his topspin than hitting deep so I'm in between liking his style and not.
i like his fire and intensity, and i love how he sprints to the baseline after the coin toss
its fun to watch him celebrate, however sometimes it can get boring to watch him play, unless hes playing someone who makes him run, and then he can get a nadty angle or a really nice passing shot
i like his personality way more than his actual game
hes fun to watch, but he is everything that is wrong with tennis
yes cause he ahs a lot of consistency and a lot of technique!
Yes, I like Nadal's style of play because IMO he's the only competition to Federer.
Nadal is the best tennis player at his age. Have you ever seen a player so good at 19? He's not just a clay court specialist. He can play on the hard courts. He had Federer down 2 sets to 0 before Roger came back to win the next 3 sets in Miami earlier this year. He has a great forehand and his footwork and speed is exceptional. Look for Nadal to get at least into the Semis at Flushing Meadows. Nadal is probably the only guy that gives Federer any concern.
don't like it at all, IMO he is mostly a pusher, very powerful pusher but he still win match by opponent error.
Ya I like his massive spin. It forces errors
He's not even one dimensional. A full one dimension would at least have some variety within that dimension. Do one thing, and one thing only, and practice till you're the best at it. Great way to get ahead in life (and sports), but excruciatingly dull. He's Borg without the charisma, variety, or men's clothing.
Any game style that can win Roland Garros is a game style I like!
I can't believe someone actually called Nadal a pusher. Some people really don't get this game at all.
I love his attitude and am amazed by his speed on the court. He also has stunning physical proportions for a teenager. But I don't like his style of play with its extreme grips and baseline slugging.
Dude never gives up on a point, and gets a lot of would-be-winners back.
he doesnt seem like a really classy cool guy... i voted no, besides, i dont really like baseliner top spin players that go crazy on the court. however, i do enjoy safin and hewitt just because hewitt isnt as "flashy" but hes got the stuff.
i like his playing style. he has so much determination. he just never gives up.
Id rather watch him than Hewitt.
The topspin is amazing.
For me style of play is something different from the character of the player.
He is resembling me Born Borg with his persistance. But I don't think he can excel Borg. I think he'll be pesistent while he is young and runs good. As soon as he starts lose youth and speed and will not excel others in these 2 parameters immediately he turns into some kind of Hewitt not able to battle against Fed's tennis.
Definetly, I don't like his style as well as he himself despite I respect his character and persistence.
Not liking his game is one thing, but I think Nadal has tons of charisma.
I think tennis as everything else in life must evolve , so there's nothing wrong with tennis.
-about nadal; well, the kid is effective with his style so I guess it's fine. more than playing styles I appreciate players who fight for every ball out there, and in that sense there's no one like Nadal or Hewitt.
For instance, my two favorite players are Rios and Safin. but they are both known for tanking matches, so that makes Nadal a better player.
Nadal and Hewitt are fighters out there and that's great..... I like Nadal for that.
I like his playing style because it reflects his whole appearance, emotions and charisma. As someone else said, he's only 19, and is probably the best player at 19 that we've seen in a long time. I love how he's fired up for every game, even if he loses the match, you know that he put up a fight and did his best to win the match. There are matches I've seen from other players where if they're down, they stay down, and for some the enthusiasm just goes right from their game, but not this player. He could be down 40 love, and he's still going to play that particular game to win it. That to me is something that many other of the tennis players could take a lesson from.
I've also had the chance to see Nadal off the court when they've done a special on him, on the tennis channel. He's mature, but also in his last year of being a teenager, and enjoying life. He also is enjoys his tennis, and that to me is what counts the most.
And I agree that it's to early to say that he's only a clay court specialist. Federer is 4 years older, and it took him time to adapt. I remember some older matches where the announcers were saying when are we going to see the complete form from Federer, and now we do see it. Am sure we'll see it from Nadal as well.
I know he's definitely not a full counter-puncher like Hewitt, because I've seen him attempt many winners, especially on clay... yet I don't see him at the net much at all, so he's probably not all-rounder. So is he still considered a counter-puncher, just not so hardcore? Or can he be considered aggressive baseliner?
I disagree. He is in the basic claycourter's style.
But he is way more than that. He is a sensational
super-talent. There's something about way he strike the ball.
And he obviously has great footwork. These are simple
basic talents you need to be a great tennis player.
I like Nadal and his style of play. his level of consistance, fitness and his desire to win to be that of a style i enjoy watching. his performances in the french this year were a joy to watch. yes he does grind down opponents and forces them to make errors but is that not part and parcel of the game? if you can stay in the rally longer than your opponent and until they make an error, running down balls and forcing them into errors then i feel this makes a more complete player. he may not hit as many winners as some but this should and doesnt not work against him. the fact the when he plays you get to watch long rallys that go all over the court is something i like and appreciate. he does lack the net play that Fed and Hewitt and others have and i think that this showed at Wimb. but hopefully in time this will come as he has said that he is focused on being a success at Wimb. some day. he knows that to be the complete player he must improve this part of his game. i also had the pleasure of bumping into him on the opening day of Wimb. as he was walking to the practice courts and he was very pleasant and friendly to all that asked for autographs and pictures, not that this has anything do to with his playing style.
I like everything in his play except of his FH motion which is weird IMO.
I think he's the most interesting atp player to watch. He is very impressive in his movement, technique and spirit. He is a lot like Lleyton Hewitt but makes even more low percentage shots on the run when out of position. The only thing he needs to work on is that unattractive habit of public *ss picking.
I like how he always seems so energized out there, and he can always scramble with those great wheels he has. Those two aspects make his playing style enjoyable for me.
I like his passion...
its incredible to watch him scramble. he is entertaining even when he loses points.
did you forget becker?
I retract my past statement for this one.
Clay court PUSHER.
No more, no less.
I say this because of what he has done.
FO and a few hard court tournaments. That's all.
He has only had success on slow hard courts and clay.
His serve is a joke.
All he has is speed, and heavy topspin that gets eaten alive as the courts get faster.
Let´s see...I don´t like Nadal´s style at all, for me he is an improved version of Hewitt, he fights a lot, run a lot and he wanna win all the balls...i can´t see anything special in his style...BUT i don´t understand why people (specially in USA) call players like Nadal and Coria only "clay court" specialist. I don´t think it is fair. Why don´t you use the term "hard court" specialist for a lot of players who only play well on hard and can´t play on clay? There are a lot of these and i can´t see anybody call them "only hard court specialist".
I like Nadal's playing style and my playing style is modeled after him. I love his attitude about tennis and how he tries to run down anything and everything.
Sampras was pretty good at 19 too.
And to answer the original question, No I don't like his style. Watching him in the final of RG against Puerta I could of swung for him, the way he just let Mariano take all the risks and he just let him and looped it back and waited for him make the mistake.
Against any other typical claycourter he is ultimately boring. Some like to watch him for his attitude but I can't just like a player for their celebrations and seeing him waiting for someone else to self destruct.
He's just a retreiver. If he wasn't a lefty I'd love to watch players just run him around the court like a dog on a leash.
You can talk to me when clay becomes the dominant surface on tour.
Nadal IS one dimensional. He doesn't have a serve, and he can't play net. All he has is powerful topspin.
Yet he is still fun to watch. Because he has consistency.
I agree, his stats are probably 6 winners, 2 UE's, opponent is 60 with 100 UE, how exciting.
But definitely effective.
He's quite a bore actually. Horrid fashion sense, and his game puts me to sleep. Overall I think his performance was dreadful.
It just needs to be said...If you think a Slam champ is 'DREADFULL' to watch, you ain't no tennis fan. You don't have to like the guy, but terms like 'dreadfull' only tell us much about your own game.
I can't see what the #### one has to do with the other. If you don't like robotic, repetitive, defensive, less-than-one-dimensional tennis played ultra-effectively, then you'll find Nadal dreadful at best. You can find it this way whether you're a weekend 2.0 or a satellite pro.
I'm somewhere in between, and I sure as hell found him dreadful, but it had no negative effect on my matches the following week. Don't try to push your aesthetic judgements on others as though they are absolutes.
Playing defense is part of the game. You claim I'm putting my 'judgements' on others, yet calling Nadal one-dimensional is certainly a debatable judgement. And playing tennis 'ultra-effectively'? I almost wanna laugh.
On the opposite end of the spectrum I offer this...
"Man I HATE watching that Federer guy. He just totally rolls over his opponents without even being tested. His opponents seem lucky if they even win a game. Totally BORING to watch this guy just clown everyone."
This statement is equally as silly as some here made about Nadal. Neither of these so-called fans can appreciate what's REALLY taking place on court.
Ok, Nadal doesn't blast outright winners all the time. This is due to the extreme topspin. Spin slows a balls travel threw the air. His spin alone FORCES many errors from the opponent. They aren't just making errors because of Nadal's silly semi-shorts. And to complain about a guy being able to defend well DOES INDEED speak to one's own game. Typically these players will lose to a pusher, then proceed to tell everyone how crappy his opponent was. How he had no business being on the same court. It's totally laughable. These people have no concept of tennis. It's funny to me. Believe what you like.
25 ATP tournaments are played on clay, that means 36% of all tournaments. It is a lot for me...You don´t get my point: Why don´t you call Roddick "a hard court specialist" for example? Is it fair call him that way?
I don't agree with that, PusherMan. Its a bit like saying that "If you don't like a book by a Pulitzer Prize winner, you ain't a literature buff", or more close to the point, "If you don't like a team that won the NBA finals, you aint a basketball fan". Or "Either you are with us, or.." Nevermind, bad place for a W quote . I also think that "dreadful" is too strong a word to use for Nadal, but don't you think it is still possible to like tennis while thinking that one particular player has a dreadful style of playing the game ?
Separate names with a comma.