Nadal's playing style saved him from early retirement?

[Backspin1183]

"It has been written many times that Nadal’s lefthanded power and high topspin neutralizes Federer’s devastating backhand, and that has been Nadal’s advantage when they play. Perhaps. But in 2013, we saw a more important difference.

Federer is so gifted that he never had to be as mentally tough as Nadal. Against 95 percent of Federer’s opponents, the gifts were enough. Federer did not learn to win on guts and resourcefulness. This year, when his age showed, Federer did not have a strong enough mental foundation to save him. He just never had to build it. It almost isn’t his fault. He was too good.

Nadal is a gloriously talented grinder; he fights his opponent with every shot. He is not as complete as Federer or Djokovic, and he isn’t particularly graceful, but he is mentally sharper than either man.

For years, people wondered if Nadal’s grinding style would force him and his knees into early retirement. We now see that it saved him from retirement. When he had to come back from that knee injury, he was ready. When he had to adapt, he knew how."


To read the complete article:

http://m.si.com/3612369/my-sportsman/

 

[jg153040]

I could agree with this theory. Federer is not mentally weak. Just a bit more fragile than Rafa, so it's not Rafa specific. Fed has poor BP conversion vs entire field. And a poor 5-set record maybe.

But there is a lot more to mental tougness than just how you do on court. How about how you come back from a tough loss and how you deal with the pressure. Seems losses and the press just don't affect Fed. Mental toughness is also how you train and Fed trains hard.

I don't think mental tougness is just how you do on court. It is just one aspect of it. And overall in mental toughess, I think Fed is really great.

When astronauts go to space, that is not what tougness is. Real tougness and courage is all those years they sacrificed training for this moment.

You don't spent 302 weeks and win 17 majors and 6 WTF (when only elite plays) without being mentally very strong.

And Rafa is afraid of sleeping in the dark and being alone in the house and lightning. I don't equate this with mental tougness. He is also afraid to live alone and go on his own. What we mistake for toughess is high net clearence. So, less errors.
I don't equate low risk style with mental tougness. Mentally tough people usually take more risks.

I mean it's easy to look mentally tough when you walk the rope and there is a net bellow.

 

[adil1972]

please post federer, nadal, djokovic and murray 5 set match records

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

please post federer, nadal, djokovic and murray 5 set match records

idon't have these figures, i could get them but i'm lazy :lol: anyway these 5 sets stats would not mean much about Rafa as he didnt play many 5 sets matches.
Usually when he got the edge he will finish in 3 or 4.


edit: Nadal is 16-5 in Five set matches.
don't know about the other guys, Djokovic probably got a great stat, not sure about Murray and Federer ?

I can think of many 5 setters lost by Federer: Nadal at least 3 times, Djokovic 2 times, Tsonga, Nalbandian, Safin, Haas, Hewitt, Murray, Del Potro...

 

[jg153040]

idon't have these figures, i could get them but i'm lazy :lol: anyway these 5 sets stats would not mean much about Rafa as he didnt play many 5 sets matches.
Usually when he got the edge he will finish in 3 or 4.

Also when Fed was pushed to 5 and lost it was mostly vs champions like Murray, Hewitt, Safin, Delpo, Nadal, Djokovic.

Nadal didn't play that many matches vs champions which went to 5-sets.

Because most champions are retired or old now. Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Kuerten, old Agassi, Roddick.

Also since Delpo and Murray are GS champs, Nadal didn't get to play them in majors.

So, it's like you said, we can't compare.

 

[TheAnty-vic]

Also when Fed was pushed to 5 and lost it was mostly vs champions like Murray, Hewitt, Safin, Delpo, Nadal, Djokovic.

Nadal didn't play that many matches vs champions which went to 5-sets.

Because most champions are retired or old now. Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Kuerten, old Agassi, Roddick.

Also since Delpo and Murray are GS champs, Nadal didn't get to play them in majors.

So, it's like you said, we can't compare.

Because Nadal didn't let 'em go to 5 sets? No?

 

[Deuirej]

Also since Delpo and Murray are GS champs, Nadal didn't get to play them in majors.

So, it's like you said, we can't compare.

What does that mean? Didn't delpo beat rafa in the 09 USO semis?

 

[jg153040]

What does that mean? Didn't delpo beat rafa in the 09 USO semis?

I said since they become GS champions Rafa didn't play them at majors. I think you just misunderstood a bit.

 

[jg153040]

Because Nadal didn't let 'em go to 5 sets? No?

No, it's just bad timing. There aren't many great champions today.

I mean there is Murray / Delpo, but Rafa didn't play them since they become champs.

There is Fed, but is over the hill, not a threat at majors any more.
There is only Djokovic out of champions who is a threat. And they played only 2 setters. It's 1-1.

We don't have enough Sample size for Rafa. Since he didn't play that many champions at their peak to be even pushed to five.

You can't compare Isner 5-setter with Rafa at RG with Fed vs Safin in AO.
This skews numbers a lot. 5-setter with him and guys at W I never heard of against 5-setter with Fed and Nole.

Fed played 5-setters mostly with GS champs in their primes. It's not that Rafa didn't let champs go to 5. He just didn't play them.

Tell me how many different GS champs did Rafa play last 3 years? That were in their primes and how often?

I mean it was Fed FO 11. Fed was past his best, but I guess still a champ. And Nole. That's it.

Nole is the only real competiton Rafa has. A GS champ in his prime. Since Delpo and Murray are champs Rafa didn't play them at majors.

I mean Fed was playing these guys in their primes and who ALREADY were GS champs:Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Hewitt, Potro.

Fed played them all when they were at their best and when they were already a GS champions. So, Fed had it much tougher.

Guys Rafa was playing at majors when they were already GS champs and at their primes : Djokovic, partly Fed from 05-08.

That's it for Rafa.

 

[NatF]

Because Nadal didn't let 'em go to 5 sets? No?

Or he simply got blown off the court no?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Or he simply got blown off the court no?

Either way, Rafa ensured that not many were played.

 

[Sentinel]

I could agree with this theory. Federer is not mentally weak. Just a bit more fragile than Rafa, so it's not Rafa specific. Fed has poor BP conversion vs entire field. And a poor 5-set record maybe.

But there is a lot more to mental tougness than just how you do on court. How about how you come back from a tough loss and how you deal with the pressure. Seems losses and the press just don't affect Fed. Mental toughness is also how you train and Fed trains hard.

I don't think mental tougness is just how you do on court. It is just one aspect of it. And overall in mental toughess, I think Fed is really great.

When astronauts go to space, that is not what tougness is. Real tougness and courage is all those years they sacrificed training for this moment.

You don't spent 302 weeks and win 17 majors and 6 WTF (when only elite plays) without being mentally very strong.

And Rafa is afraid of sleeping in the dark and being alone in the house and lightning. I don't equate this with mental tougness. He is also afraid to live alone and go on his own. What we mistake for toughess is high net clearence. So, less errors.
I don't equate low risk style with mental tougness. Mentally tough people usually take more risks.

I mean it's easy to look mentally tough when you walk the rope and there is a net bellow.

Interesting. However, I am just wondering that you are clubbing two different things together. The toughness of coming back from a loss I would say could be more of an attitude than toughness. Seems like a positive and mature attitude to me, not to let losses pull you down.

However, although i do agree that you can't win 17 slams or be number one for 237 weeks without being tough, yet when we see him losing a game after being up 40-0 or losing a set being up 5-2 etc, you can't help but wonder.

Yet, I have also seen him pull through some really tough ones like Bennetau in WO 12, although some would say JB is not in his league.

You also talk of the toughness of training. I know of one case of a great runner Fernando Mamede of Portugal. He was once the world record holder in the 10,000m. You do not break a 10k record or run 27 minutes for the 10k without being mentally tough. Yet that chap could never win a high level competition. Usually he never even completed such races, he dropped out of the Olympics race in the first few laps. What I am getting at is that it appears that these are different kinds of toughnesses - training alone, handling pressure situations, being in the public (in a match or center stage).

Also, Rafa's fear of the dark etc are entirely personal issues that have nothing to do with being tough or not.

I think Federer falls into some kind of negative pattern when playing Rafa. He seems to get psyched out.

 

[Crisstti]

Interesting. However, I am just wondering that you are clubbing two different things together. The toughness of coming back from a loss I would say could be more of an attitude than toughness. Seems like a positive and mature attitude to me, not to let losses pull you down.

However, although i do agree that you can't win 17 slams or be number one for 237 weeks without being tough, yet when we see him losing a game after being up 40-0 or losing a set being up 5-2 etc, you can't help but wonder.

Yet, I have also seen him pull through some really tough ones like Bennetau in WO 12, although some would say JB is not in his league.

You also talk of the toughness of training. I know of one case of a great runner Fernando Mamede of Portugal. He was once the world record holder in the 10,000m. You do not break a 10k record or run 27 minutes for the 10k without being mentally tough. Yet that chap could never win a high level competition. Usually he never even completed such races, he dropped out of the Olympics race in the first few laps. What I am getting at is that it appears that these are different kinds of toughnesses - training alone, handling pressure situations, being in the public (in a match or center stage).

Also, Rafa's fear of the dark etc are entirely personal issues that have nothing to do with being tough or not.

I think Federer falls into some kind of negative pattern when playing Rafa. He seems to get psyched out.

Of course. To suggest it somehow diminished his toughness as a player is completely ridiculous.

 

[Chanwan]

idon't have these figures, i could get them but i'm lazy :lol: anyway these 5 sets stats would not mean much about Rafa as he didnt play many 5 sets matches.
Usually when he got the edge he will finish in 3 or 4.


edit: Nadal is 16-5 in Five set matches.
don't know about the other guys, Djokovic probably got a great stat, not sure about Murray and Federer ?

I can think of many 5 setters lost by Federer: Nadal at least 3 times, Djokovic 2 times, Tsonga, Nalbandian, Safin, Haas, Hewitt, Murray, Del Potro...

Here you go:
1. Ross Case .000 - 0-0 .824 - 14-3
2. Jean Borotra .000 - 0-0 .818 - 27-6
3. Johan Kriek .000 - 0-0 .818 - 18-4
4. Bjorn Borg .000 - 0-0 .800 - 24-6
5. Henri Cochet .000 - 0-0 .800 - 16-4
6. Bill Tilden .000 - 0-0 .800 - 16-4
7. Marcel Bernard .000 - 0-0 .773 - 17-5
8. Tommy Robredo 1.000 - 3-0 .765 - 13-4
9. Rafael Nadal 1.000 - 1-0 .762 - 16-5
10. Harold Solomon .000 - 0-0 .762 - 16-5
11. Aaron Krickstein .000 - 0-0 .757 - 28-9
12. Novak Djokovic .750 - 3-1 .741 - 20-7
13. Gardnar Mulloy .000 - 0-0 .737 - 14-5
14. Manuel Santana .000 - 0-0 .737 - 14-5
15. Thierry Champion .000 - 0-0 .733 - 11-4
16. Ashley Cooper .000 - 0-0 .733 - 11-4
17. George Lyttleton-Roger .000 - 0-0 .733 - 11-4
18. Rod Laver .000 - 0-0 .725 - 29-11
19. Clark Graebner .000 - 0-0 .722 - 13-5
20. Chris Lewis (NZL) .000 - 0-0 .722 - 13-5
21. Andy Murray 1.000 - 2-0 .714 - 15-6
......
129. Roger Federer .667 - 2-1 .564 - 22-17
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-5th-Set-Record-Career-List.aspx

Not exactly Federer's greatest record. If one has to try and explain it from the Federer viewpoint, the explanation would be that when he's on, he never needs five sets and when he's off or half off, his opponents still need five sets to finish him off.

 

[KillerServe]

Also, Rafa's fear of the dark etc are entirely personal issues that have nothing to do with being tough or not.

Indeed it has nothing to do with him being tough, but it does suggest he might be more apt to play on the WTA?

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Indeed it has nothing to do with him being tough, but it does suggest he might be more apt to play on the WTA?

And Fed can play in the WTA Legends Tour Righty Edition, KillerPerv.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Wow, we are starting to see it all now.

Federer is so good it hurt him. Nadal had to work so hard to properly compete it aided him.

Sorry to the author and the people who believe this tripe, Nadal is incredibly gifted. And Federer had to also work his arse off to achieve what he did.

This is what we call a steaming pile of horse manure.

 

[Polaris]

...a nd he isn’t particularly graceful,

That is a bit of an understatement .

For years, people wondered if Nadal’s grinding style would force him and his knees into early retirement. We now see that it saved him from retirement. When he had to come back from that knee injury, he was ready. When he had to adapt, he knew how."

More transparent stupidity. Nadal's grinding playing style obviously isn't what saved him from retirement. He would have been extinct long ago, blown away by the big hitters, if it were not for Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) Therapy that "magically" revives him after an injury layoff.

 

[Andres]

I said since they become GS champions Rafa didn't play them at majors. I think you just misunderstood a bit.

Nadal met Del Potro at Wimbledon in 2011.

 

[Murrayfan31]

Fed is mentally weaker because he doesn't return as well.

 

[Mustard]

I said since they become GS champions Rafa didn't play them at majors. I think you just misunderstood a bit.

As has been mentioned by Andres upthread, Nadal beat del Potro at 2011 Wimbledon.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Fed is mentally weaker because he doesn't return as well.

This blew my mind because at first I thought it had to make sense.

 

[Crisstti]

That is a bit of an understatement .



More transparent stupidity. Nadal's grinding playing style obviously isn't what saved him from retirement. He would have been extinct long ago, blown away by the big hitters, if it were not for Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) Therapy that "magically" revives him after an injury layoff.

It's called science.

 

[Murrayfan31]

This blew my mind because at first I thought it had to make sense.

It makes sense. You don't return as well, you blow more break point opportunities. Well he isn't a bad returner. Just not aggressive enough. The other player (Nadal) can get control of the point if you don't return aggressive enough. Djokovic is way better at attacking a serve and Nadal gets the ball up high on returns. Both have better instincts on returns to be more skilled at breaking on big points. Federer is better at breaking those who rely on cheap points on their serve but don't follow up on it as well with a big second and third shot.

 

[Fedinkum]

No such a thing as talent, they all worked their butts off when we are posting on tt.

 

[clayqueen]

I could agree with this theory. Federer is not mentally weak. Just a bit more fragile than Rafa, so it's not Rafa specific. Fed has poor BP conversion vs entire field. And a poor 5-set record maybe.

But there is a lot more to mental tougness than just how you do on court. How about how you come back from a tough loss and how you deal with the pressure. Seems losses and the press just don't affect Fed. Mental toughness is also how you train and Fed trains hard.

I don't think mental tougness is just how you do on court. It is just one aspect of it. And overall in mental toughess, I think Fed is really great.

When astronauts go to space, that is not what tougness is. Real tougness and courage is all those years they sacrificed training for this moment.

You don't spent 302 weeks and win 17 majors and 6 WTF (when only elite plays) without being mentally very strong.

And Rafa is afraid of sleeping in the dark and being alone in the house and lightning. I don't equate this with mental tougness. He is also afraid to live alone and go on his own. What we mistake for toughess is high net clearence. So, less errors.
I don't equate low risk style with mental tougness. Mentally tough people usually take more risks.

I mean it's easy to look mentally tough when you walk the rope and there is a net bellow.

I meant to respond to Backspin.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Here you go:
1. Ross Case .000 - 0-0 .824 - 14-3
2. Jean Borotra .000 - 0-0 .818 - 27-6
3. Johan Kriek .000 - 0-0 .818 - 18-4
4. Bjorn Borg .000 - 0-0 .800 - 24-6
5. Henri Cochet .000 - 0-0 .800 - 16-4
6. Bill Tilden .000 - 0-0 .800 - 16-4
7. Marcel Bernard .000 - 0-0 .773 - 17-5
8. Tommy Robredo 1.000 - 3-0 .765 - 13-4
9. Rafael Nadal 1.000 - 1-0 .762 - 16-5
10. Harold Solomon .000 - 0-0 .762 - 16-5
11. Aaron Krickstein .000 - 0-0 .757 - 28-9
12. Novak Djokovic .750 - 3-1 .741 - 20-7
13. Gardnar Mulloy .000 - 0-0 .737 - 14-5
14. Manuel Santana .000 - 0-0 .737 - 14-5
15. Thierry Champion .000 - 0-0 .733 - 11-4
16. Ashley Cooper .000 - 0-0 .733 - 11-4
17. George Lyttleton-Roger .000 - 0-0 .733 - 11-4
18. Rod Laver .000 - 0-0 .725 - 29-11
19. Clark Graebner .000 - 0-0 .722 - 13-5
20. Chris Lewis (NZL) .000 - 0-0 .722 - 13-5
21. Andy Murray 1.000 - 2-0 .714 - 15-6
......
129. Roger Federer .667 - 2-1 .564 - 22-17
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-5th-Set-Record-Career-List.aspx

Not exactly Federer's greatest record. If one has to try and explain it from the Federer viewpoint, the explanation would be that when he's on, he never needs five sets and when he's off or half off, his opponents still need five sets to finish him off.

Thanx!
Robredo, the best.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

As has been mentioned by Andres upthread, Nadal beat del Potro at 2011 Wimbledon.

jg15 got a selective memory

 

[clayqueen]

"It has been written many times that Nadal’s lefthanded power and high topspin neutralizes Federer’s devastating backhand, and that has been Nadal’s advantage when they play. Perhaps. But in 2013, we saw a more important difference.

Federer is so gifted that he never had to be as mentally tough as Nadal. Against 95 percent of Federer’s opponents, the gifts were enough. Federer did not learn to win on guts and resourcefulness. This year, when his age showed, Federer did not have a strong enough mental foundation to save him. He just never had to build it. It almost isn’t his fault. He was too good.

Nadal is a gloriously talented grinder; he fights his opponent with every shot. He is not as complete as Federer or Djokovic, and he isn’t particularly graceful, but he is mentally sharper than either man.

For years, people wondered if Nadal’s grinding style would force him and his knees into early retirement. We now see that it saved him from retirement. When he had to come back from that knee injury, he was ready. When he had to adapt, he knew how."

[/url]

These articles are all written by Fedfans. Rafa's style of play is due mainly to his ascendancy at a young age when he was competing with people 5 years or + his seniors in age. He was very successful very quickly. Federer was competing with his own peers and Novak only really made it in 2011 when he was a mature player. Novak did not shine as much when he started not even against his own age group.

It's sacrilege to say that Djokovic is a more complete player than Nadal..........nothing short of sacrilege. The same goes for Federer being a more talented player than Nadal.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Federer IS more talented than Nadal, he's probably with Nalbandian the most talented player of the 2000 generation.

Nadal has other qualities, he's mentally way tougher, physically tougher, and he is less proud, less arrogant, that's why he had such a great career. Of course Nadal is very talented but you cant say he's as talented as Federer.

In term of pure talent i would say (talking only about former "big four")
-Federer
-Nadal / Murray
-Djokovic

 

[clayqueen]

Also when Fed was pushed to 5 and lost it was mostly vs champions like Murray, Hewitt, Safin, Delpo, Nadal, Djokovic.

Nadal didn't play that many matches vs champions which went to 5-sets.

Because most champions are retired or old now. Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Kuerten, old Agassi, Roddick.

Also since Delpo and Murray are GS champs, Nadal didn't get to play them in majors.

So, it's like you said, we can't compare.

Nadal beat Delpo at Wimbledon in 2011.

 

[clayqueen]

Federer IS more talented than Nadal, he's probably with Nalbandian the most talented player of the 2000 generation.

Nadal has other qualities, he's mentally way tougher, physically tougher, and he is less proud, less arrogant, that's why he had such a great career. Of course Nadal is very talented but you cant say he's as talented as Federer.

In term of pure talent i would say (talking only about former "big four")
-Federer
-Nadal / Murray
-Djokovic

If Murray were that talented, it wouldn't take him until the age of 25 to win his first slam. What do you mean by the 2000 generation?

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Federer IS more talented than Nadal, he's probably with Nalbandian the most talented player of the 2000 generation.

Uhm, no. Putting Federer in the same sentence with Nalbandian is preposterous. The former is the greatest player of all time (17 slams). The latter is an overrated player with no serve, forehand and fitness. I wish people would stop calling Nalbandian talented. He has no slams and he got thrashed in the only slam final he's made.

 

[edberg volleys]

Uhm, no. Putting Federer in the same sentence with Nalbandian is preposterous. The former is the greatest player of all time (17 slams). The latter is an overrated player with no serve, forehand and fitness. I wish people would stop calling Nalbandian talented. He has no slams and he got thrashed in the only slam final he's made.

With all due respect, I can't believe my eyes, to be honest.

http://espn.go.com/blog/tennis/post/_/id/204/on-any-given-day-nalbandian-unstoppable

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

If Murray were that talented, it wouldn't take him until the age of 25 to win his first slam. What do you mean by the 2000 generation?

generation playing in the 2000's and 2010's

 

[Fed for Pope]

Nadal's grinding early on will doubtless earn him some more wins on his way down, but it will also bring his decline on earlier.

 

[Marty Cintron]

Here you go:
1. Ross Case .000 - 0-0 .824 - 14-3
2. Jean Borotra .000 - 0-0 .818 - 27-6
3. Johan Kriek .000 - 0-0 .818 - 18-4
4. Bjorn Borg .000 - 0-0 .800 - 24-6
5. Henri Cochet .000 - 0-0 .800 - 16-4
6. Bill Tilden .000 - 0-0 .800 - 16-4
7. Marcel Bernard .000 - 0-0 .773 - 17-5
8. Tommy Robredo 1.000 - 3-0 .765 - 13-4
9. Rafael Nadal 1.000 - 1-0 .762 - 16-5
10. Harold Solomon .000 - 0-0 .762 - 16-5
11. Aaron Krickstein .000 - 0-0 .757 - 28-9
12. Novak Djokovic .750 - 3-1 .741 - 20-7
13. Gardnar Mulloy .000 - 0-0 .737 - 14-5
14. Manuel Santana .000 - 0-0 .737 - 14-5
15. Thierry Champion .000 - 0-0 .733 - 11-4
16. Ashley Cooper .000 - 0-0 .733 - 11-4
17. George Lyttleton-Roger .000 - 0-0 .733 - 11-4
18. Rod Laver .000 - 0-0 .725 - 29-11
19. Clark Graebner .000 - 0-0 .722 - 13-5
20. Chris Lewis (NZL) .000 - 0-0 .722 - 13-5
21. Andy Murray 1.000 - 2-0 .714 - 15-6
......
129. Roger Federer .667 - 2-1 .564 - 22-17

Great stat for the Swiss. :lol:

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

It makes sense. You don't return as well, you blow more break point opportunities. Well he isn't a bad returner. Just not aggressive enough. The other player (Nadal) can get control of the point if you don't return aggressive enough. Djokovic is way better at attacking a serve and Nadal gets the ball up high on returns. Both have better instincts on returns to be more skilled at breaking on big points. Federer is better at breaking those who rely on cheap points on their serve but don't follow up on it as well with a big second and third shot.

He should destroy Nadal then. Wasn't Nadal a moonballer?

So how does that work: Is Fed weak mentally because he is a "poor returner", or is he a "poor returner" because he is weak mentally?

 

[clayqueen]

generation playing in the 2000's and 2010's

Basically, you mean this century. How can Nalby be so talented and managed not to win even one slam in his whole career, yet Nadal who is not that talented has won 13 and counting?

It just depends who one's favourite player is how they assess their tennis qualities. In my honest opinion, Rafa is by far the most talented player, so far, of all time.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Basically, you mean this century. How can Nalby be so talented and managed not to win even one slam in his whole career, yet Nadal who is not that talented has won 13 and counting?

It just depends who one's favourite player is how they assess their tennis qualities. In my honest opinion, Rafa is by far the most talented player, so far, of all time.

Nadal is VERY talented, i just think he is less than Federer and Nalbandian, and maybe Rios.
You can have huge talent and win no slam that was the case with Nalbandian and Rios.
Because tennis is far from being only about talent, that's what some Fed fans/Nadal haters dont understand.

 

[clayqueen]

You can have huge talent and win no slam that was the case with Nalbandian and Rios.

In your opinion.

 

[Graf=GOAT]

Nadal is VERY talented, i just think he is less than Federer and Nalbandian, and maybe Rios.
You can have huge talent and win no slam that was the case with Nalbandian and Rios.
Because tennis is far from being only about talent, that's what some Fed fans/Nadal haters dont understand.

I am of the opinion that talent translates into results. That's why Federer has 17 slams, while Nalbandian and Rios have none. Reasonably talented guys like Nadal and Sampras have 13 and 14 slams, respectively. But nothing can compare to the 17.

 

[Murrayfan31]

He should destroy Nadal then. Wasn't Nadal a moonballer?

So how does that work: Is Fed weak mentally because he is a "poor returner", or is he a "poor returner" because he is weak mentally?

A moonball can be an offensive weapon if the surface is right. I just said Fed wasn't a poor returner. Just not aggressive enough. And that's where the top players can take advantage if they follow up their serve well enough. Roddick obviously didn't follow up well enough.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

I am of the opinion that talent translates into results. That's why Federer has 17 slams, while Nalbandian and Rios have none. Reasonably talented guys like Nadal and Sampras have 13 and 14 slams, respectively. But nothing can compare to the 17.

But everyone will agree Nalbandian and Rios have more talent than Thomas Johansson, Ivanisevic or Albert Costa (no offense to these guys of course).
Because talent is not everything, far from it.

 

[clayqueen]

I am of the opinion that talent translates into results. That's why Federer has 17 slams, while Nalbandian and Rios have none. Reasonably talented guys like Nadal and Sampras have 13 and 14 slams, respectively. But nothing can compare to the 17.

Don't forget the 5 years in age gap between Nadal and Federer. Sampras did not have 14 slams at the age of 27 either. Federer and Sampras are 2 dimensional players. Nadal is the greatest complete player of all time.

 

[jg153040]

In your opinion.

It's actually possible. Because most geniuses are mentally weak and lazy.

Because they had it easy, and they quit when things get hard. So, they can achieve only 10% of their potential.

Most successful people in the world usually aren't the most talented ones. But the ones who are hard workers and are mentally tough.

The irony is that guys who sucked at one thing first become the best. Because that means they are challenged and have to improve this thing at all costs, so they become good.

I remember I'm not motivated to do things that I'm good at. I usually excel in things that I don't have any talents. Because noting is more rewarding than to be great at something you thought is impossible.

 

[Chanwan]

Don't forget the 5 years in age gap between Nadal and Federer. Sampras did not have 14 slams at the age of 27 either. Federer and Sampras are 2 dimensional players. Nadal is the greatest complete player of all time.

If you say so...

 

[jg153040]

Don't forget the 5 years in age gap between Nadal and Federer. Sampras did not have 14 slams at the age of 27 either. Federer and Sampras are 2 dimensional players. Nadal is the greatest complete player of all time.

I know we are all biased, but this is just too much and too obvious.