Nadal confirms tennis evolves, says he is not sure if he can beat himself from years ago

#51
There’s already a big difference between Nadal 2008 and the Nadal of 2010 movement-wise, the former is alot more explosive and faster too. Same can be said about 2006 Federer vs his post 2007 version. Unless they start serving like Isner or volley like Edberg, they Will never be as good as their younger versions.
But speed is only a small part of tennis skills. Why is Monfils a bad player if speed is such a huge part of it? In table tennis when being explosive is even more important, I easily beat those players. Stamina, mental toughness, tactics, strategy, reading opponent, psychology, that is way more important. Nadal is way underrated in that department, they think it's just speed why he wins.
 
#53
Nadal basically contradicts Fraud , after Fred went all " We have improved so much."

Quite logical response From Ralph , he says they have re adapted and not improved. He says he may not beat Rafa of 2008 at all

Link :Tennis doesn't evolve,no ?

Nadal’s take was slightly different. “I don’t think we improved much,” he said. “I think we managed to add things because we lost other things... because of age. I am running less so I need to serve better. Of course, I am hitting the backhand better. Maybe volleying and slicing better. But I don’t know if my level today will beat my level of years ago. So, in terms of improvement, I don’t know. In terms of re-adapting our games, for sure. That’s what makes us keep playing with this intensity.”
It's probably true in his case.

He had loads of place to improve technically as he was far less gifted than many player and used to won mainly by outlasting his opponents like Puerta and Coria.
Nadal is better technically but not as physical as back in the day. In my opinion he was better younger as he was getting everything back.
 
#54
It's probably true in his case.

He had loads of place to improve technically as he was far less gifted than many player and used to won mainly by outlasting his opponents like Puerta and Coria.
Nadal is better technically but not as physical as back in the day. In my opinion he was better younger as he was getting everything back.
Is there proof that physical prime of athletes is 25? Correlation is not causation, maybe why in the past they weren't as good was because they had different mindset. At that time you were supposed to be married at age 30 and had a family. Also, due to less science, injuries were more fatal, in the 80s, Nadal would be done at age 25.

So, maybe it's not weak era that is making big 3 win, but it's science and mindset of the entire field. IN all sports longevity is improving. Heck, longevity in life in general is improving as well. Now people at age 80 are running marathons. So, surely it has to be science and mentality.

Who is more likely to be right, me who is smart or the masses here at TW? Trust me, I'm much more likely to be correct. Plus even when the masses are right, they are afraid to question it due to social pressure, so they are in denial and again will be wrong.
 
#55
Fed, all the commentators etc are all prone to talk BS to big up the sport today.

Nadal is straight forward and honest. He knows they’re not as good as they were 10 years ago.
 
#58
So, players are getting worse? Why would the field getting weaker and they can't beat them?
Pretty much. The field today is a complete joke outside of big 3, and maybe Thiem on clay.

Big 3, even at 70-80% is enough to dominate the current gen (or last 3 or whatever)

Back in 2004-2013 era, there were a lot more threats who could challenge 2019 big 3.
 
#60
Pretty much. The field today is a complete joke outside of big 3, and maybe Thiem on clay.

Big 3, even at 70-80% is enough to dominate the current gen (or last 3 or whatever)

Back in 2004-2013 era, there were a lot more threats who could challenge 2019 big 3.
Or big 3 were worse players since a lot of other guys could challenge them. But I don't expect you with your bias would understand what I'm even talking about. You aren't here for truth, you are here to have fun. So, let's not pretend you are trying to be objective.
 
#62
Fed, all the commentators etc are all prone to talk BS to big up the sport today.

Nadal is straight forward and honest. He knows they’re not as good as they were 10 years ago.
Pretty much. I think with Fed it's part of his future oriented mindset and champion's mentality, of always looking into the present and the future, regardless of the past (almost disregarding it). It probably doesn't cross his mind much, because it's important for him to always think or feel he can still do it. You always have to believe first, and all conviction may be born out of some soft delusion in a first stage. It's a kind of approach that works well for him.

With the media it's straight horseshit. The other day I finally caught myself in a small break inbetween matches where Brad and I think Cliff were going about how the game has evolved, and how it's still improving, and everyone is playing so much better now... then Cliff asked Brad why that was the case and he gave like such a bogus and non-comprehensive answer in like 5 seconds, I don't even remember what the hell he said, it was that unremarkable and weak. It made me wonder why they do this, and I concluded they have to keep pushing that narrative because it would feel lackluster for the people who are more casual or still picking up the sport to think "Oh well, if these guys were so much better some time ago, should I invest myself this weekend watching a 'sub-par' level of tennis?". It simply doesn't bode well to the audience and a potential new public to address things as matter of factly as Nadal just did. They have to go with the marketing approach to overhype things and make people believe the next match will always be the biggest, the most high level playing, everyone is playing their best, and yadda yadda so the most casual interest will always be picked. Purists don't need that motivation, but the casual public probably needs to be enticed with the propaganda.
 
#64
If he was going to be honest he would just come out and say it

This is the weakest era of all time

If you took these three from 2008-2009 and dropped them off today no one else on tour would win a ATP event they were in for another 7 years

Pathetic
 
Top