Nadal's aura

crawl4

Rookie
Ive watched some of nadal's hardcourt matches in Toronto and Cincinnati and he looks very impressive and much improved. The commentator's though have been praising him which some would agree with but they are saying that he has an 'aura' much like federer has had for 4 1/2 years.

Do you think its to premature for this as he has been dominating only since the French Open?
 

Cloudy

Semi-Pro
I love Rafa but it is premature we don't know how good he is on hard yet.

Yes he won toronto but there are faster courts.
 

Tanya

Hall of Fame
I think everything is getting a little blown out of proportion... Nadal has a better summer than usual and all of a sudden he's king of tennis. I don't necessarily disagree, I just think it's too early to say anything yet. There's still a lot of tennis to be played in the year and we need to wait and see what happens.
 

AAUS

Rookie
hes on a 31 match winning streak though on clay grass and hard including two grand slams and a few MS titles, I dont, that sounds fed like to me
 

Noveson

Hall of Fame
yeh but has he been doing that for 4 years?
Nobody is comparing this to Federer's run. They are saying Nadal has that unbeatable aura that Fed used to have surrounding him. Now all the sudden Federer is losing in early rounds and it is a sure thing that Nadal will at least get to the semis of every tournament.
 

Noveson

Hall of Fame
I know, i'm talking about i'll consider him #1 if he wins cincy.
Well good? Most of the tennis world has considered him #1 since Wimbledon, barring that at least since Montreal. The computer, and you apparently, are the last to acknowledge it.
 
N

NADALwonWIMBLEDONagain

Guest
Just to clarify, is Nadal truly dominating all-surfaces if he wins on a fast hardcourt (this week in Cin) or is he still "just" a clay-grasscourt player?
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Ive watched some of nadal's hardcourt matches in Toronto and Cincinnati and he looks very impressive and much improved. The commentator's though have been praising him which some would agree with but they are saying that he has an 'aura' much like federer has had for 4 1/2 years.

Do you think its to premature for this as he has been dominating only since the French Open?
Yes. It takes longer than a few months to develop that aura. All marketing, no common sense.
 

TheNatural

G.O.A.T.
If not for that injury near the end of the Wimbledon final 07, Nadal wins it and everyone then says he's been dominant since early 07. thats 1 1/2 years.
 
N

NADALwonWIMBLEDONagain

Guest
If not for that injury near the end of the Wimbledon final 07, Nadal wins it and everyone then says he's been dominant since early 07. thats 1 1/2 years.
I must admit I've always felt a bit robbed when Fedex fans call the 08 Wimbledon title a fluke, when the fact is th 07 Final looked like Nadal's for most of the match. Amazing how opposite the perception would have been if Nadal was able to finish him off last year.
 

Clay lover

Hall of Fame
His shots and his serve aren't nearly as effective as Federer on hardcourts but he does have a big weapon: his mentality. I doubt he can achieve Fed's dominance but he definitely will be a consistent contender, consistent enough to guarantee him a healthy amount of points which would consolidate his no. 1 ranking.
 

janipyt05

Professional
His shots and his serve aren't nearly as effective as Federer on hardcourts but he does have a big weapon: his mentality. I doubt he can achieve Fed's dominance but he definitely will be a consistent contender, consistent enough to guarantee him a healthy amount of points which would consolidate his no. 1 ranking.
It may not be as effective as Fed but it does a good job, Nadal serve is no long a puff os smoke players would be all over it and beg to differ that his shots are not effective have you been watching the last 4 months how effective those shots have been, explain the title his won if his shots are not efective. What mentality? did you watch Wimbeldon final there is your mental strength, Nadal can last at the top of the game if he works hard and has shown how hard he has worked from last year to this year.

Against Andy Murray in Toronto it would have been easy to just make one slip he didn't Gasquet had him all over the show but came through, Nadal is mentally tough enough to stay at the top of the game. Not long ago Djokovic was poised for the number 2 spot and Rafa pushed on from there and has court up and surpassed Fed that not only takes mental strength but physical strenght because at the end of the day its the playing and winning that determines where you are in the ranking.

He may not stay at the top of the game as long as Fed but he is there. I believe its not quantity but quality that keeps you at the top of the game, Federer gave us plenty of great quality tennis, enough to keep him at the top of the game for many years

Nadal 2 years ago won 11 tounaments and and was still number 2, this year has won 7 and counting you may forget Rafal is still young and still learning and improving his game every year give the guy a break.
 

Cloudy

Semi-Pro
If not for that injury near the end of the Wimbledon final 07, Nadal wins it and everyone then says he's been dominant since early 07. thats 1 1/2 years.
Rafa's hard court season last year was bad. Yes he had a knee injury but we don't know definitively that was the only reason for his losses
 
N

NADALwonWIMBLEDONagain

Guest
Federer relies on natural ability, and he's losing that natural ability with age. Nadal relies on hard work and that will always be there. So Federer hasn't got the game to do well after his prime, while Nadal does.
 

chiru

Professional
i agree. we anoint rafael as the new tennis god too quickly. but honestly, we had anointed roger as invincible when he had two majors. i remember before the 2004 wimbledon final, everyone had already picked roger to sweep everything and there was already tlak of him being the GOAT on tv. that was when he had...2 majors... then in the 04 us open, it was a done deal that he was the GOAT and like 20 times per match mary carillo adn j mac and dick enberg (like his opinion matters) they talked about how he was the most gifted player ever and how he'd break all the records. personally, i think it's hype until the person has showed consister performance for at least like 2 years or so. they gave fed all that hype after only 2 years that he'd really made any real impact on tour. nadal has made impact in a big way for like 4 years now, but not in a god like manner in the way of a roger. so yes it's too early to hail him so greatly, but by the timeline established by previous fed worshippers this is a little late.
 
N

NADALwonWIMBLEDONagain

Guest
Well, Nadal has 5 more slams than Federer did at the same age, so thats why Nadal is being regarded so highly, because his best tennis is still ahead of him and he's already won a lot of slams.

Nadal learnt a lot of new things about grass, and he will learn a lot of new things about hardcourt and get better and better.

On top of that, he's becoming a better claycourt player each year. So much so that if he was to lose a lot of form on clay he would still win Roland Garros. In other words, he will be winning Roland Garros long after his prime.
 
Before Nadal won Wimbledon, everyone especially the commentators said he was only a clay court specialist, and would never do well on grass or hard courts, then he won Wimbledon and Queens for that matter, and they said he would never do well on hard court, and anyway, he never does well in the second half of the year, so he would never dethrone Fed, because Fed was going to walk away with all the hard court tournaments post Wimbledon. I wait to see what they have to say now. He has not only won Toronto, he has reached the semis of Cincy, far better than he did last year.
 

guernica1

Semi-Pro
Federer relies on natural ability, and he's losing that natural ability with age. Nadal relies on hard work and that will always be there. So Federer hasn't got the game to do well after his prime, while Nadal does.
Nadal has had an aura for years too.

Disagree with your statement; the great ones have the game to do damage well after their prime. See Becker, Lendl, and Sampras winning slams much later than their last one.

Its too simplistic to say Federer relies only on ability and Nadal relies on hard work. Both of them have natural ability and both work extremely hard. One just has a different style than the other; just because Federer looks smoother doesn't mean he didn't put the time in.

The prime for most athletes is 4-5 years tops. Exception: Michael Jordan.
 

veritech

Hall of Fame
Federer relies on natural ability, and he's losing that natural ability with age. Nadal relies on hard work and that will always be there. So Federer hasn't got the game to do well after his prime, while Nadal does.
wow. all i can say is wow. that is a very, very ridiculous statement to make. please enlighten me on how you came to that conclusion.
 

veritech

Hall of Fame
Before Nadal won Wimbledon, everyone especially the commentators said he was only a clay court specialist, and would never do well on grass or hard courts, then he won Wimbledon and Queens for that matter, and they said he would never do well on hard court, and anyway, he never does well in the second half of the year, so he would never dethrone Fed, because Fed was going to walk away with all the hard court tournaments post Wimbledon. I wait to see what they have to say now. He has not only won Toronto, he has reached the semis of Cincy, far better than he did last year.
well if i can remember correctly, they said those things long before he won wimby. when did you hear this? pre-2005? 'cause he won HC tournaments around 2005 and been to the wimbly finals for '06, '07, and won '08. so it couldn't have been recently. plus for the past 4.5 years, federer looked amazing, and no one could've predicted his results for 2008 and his dethronement. the way you present your facts are biased.
 

matchmaker

Hall of Fame
Well, I don't think that Nadal has got quite the aura Fed had during his prime, which we can reasonably consider as over. That doesn't mean he won't win any important tournaments anymore, but less than in the past. Feds domination of the circuit was brutal. In any match, except the FO final against Nadal he was the favourite and he won almost any match too.
Nadal seems more vulnerable on certain occasions, certainly with the crowded schedules of ATP lately. He even lost in Rome, which should have been his in normal circumstances. But Nadal's aura is that you can never say you've won the match against him until the last point is over. Ask Fed, up in the Monte Carlo and Hamburg final, ask Djoko, blowing a lead twice in the Queens final, and also in Hamburg.
I'd say we are talking about two different auras: Federer's is one of elegance, perfection, utter concentration when everything is on. That of an attacking all courter, who, thanks to the nature of his game, will have easier matches and therefore can dominate for longer periods without getting tired.
Nadal's is one of a gritty, never say die player, who can always come back, can always run down an approach and hit a stunning passing, but whose game looks less elegant and needs longer rallies to finish points. Therefore he is a very tough opponent but he wears himself also down due to his style of play. Blisters, tendonitis and other injuries will always plague him and he will have a harder time dominating in an easy way, which doesn't tire him and puts stress on his body.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Ive watched some of nadal's hardcourt matches in Toronto and Cincinnati and he looks very impressive and much improved. The commentator's though have been praising him which some would agree with but they are saying that he has an 'aura' much like federer has had for 4 1/2 years.

Do you think its to premature for this as he has been dominating only since the French Open?
Yes. I don't believe you can get that kind of aura in a few months time.
 
Top