Brad Smith said:
It takes incredible hand-eye coordinaton to play the way Nadal does, and he has plenty of touch and feel as evidenced by his drop shots and net play. Nadal uses his talent to play high percentage tennis rather than the flashy tennis performed by a whole host of "talented" players.
EXACTLY in my opinion. People think it's so easy to hit like Nadal, or for that matter any so-called clay courter. It is NOT easy to generate that kind of racket head speed period, especially not without shanking the ball repeatedly--ESPECIALLY against pro level placement, foot speed/fitness faced, and power. Note, that of all the so-called "talented" players pretty much *every* single one uses a less extreme technique. It is NOT a mere coincidence.
The extreme western grip enables you to generate incredible angles, spin, and power BUT (and this is a very big but anywhere but on clay) also robs you of a great deal of time and adds a complicated set of body mechanics and coordination/contoritionism to the shot; whereas more traditional techniques give you the "ability" to hit on the rise and return and direct the ball "flat" better, which everyone seems to think means you have talent. In other words, teach a mediocre kid an eastern grip and tell him to hit flat and "through the court" and people will automatically say he's more talented than they would if they saw the same mediocre kid taught with an extreme western technique, then they'd say he's not only a mediocre talent he's also "ugly," "lacks grace and fluidity," "can't take the ball on the rise or return thus he has no hand-eye coordination," "has a less than fluid transition game to the net thus no volleying ability whatsovever, an uncouthe sort, a cave men in trousers...hands of stone at net." Thing is, BOTH technique variants require talent, but the extreme western technique takes more out of you in terms of physicality required to sustain it. Just remember, Robert Landsdorp's logic regarding this issue. He says that the elite clay courters are every bit as talented as Sampras/Agassi, but the typical tennis fan will NEVER know it because they're grip prevents them from winning slams outside the French. Tennis "purist" fans complain that clay courters can only play on clay and that they unfairly can get all their points on clay without ever venturing out and get a good ranking. Fine, but still doesn't change the fact that when all is said and done, they really only get one shot at tennis glory, the French, whereas three of the four other slams (really the only things tennis historians, pundits, and purists remember in the end) favor those with more traditional techniques namely because of the advantages presented on the return of serve and the so-called "ability" to take the ball on the rise. Is that an "ability?" Sure it is, but it's also an ability directly tied to technique as well. They go hand in hand, and you can't have one without the other without *directly* compromising the other and inherently imposing caps on "what you can do" and demonstrate. In effect, the technique puts a cap on you.
Also, remember as Landsdorp said, and this coming from the biggest purist of them all. He said that the average tennis fan never takes into account when evaluating so-called innate talent a different kind of perspective. Landsdorp says that you actually have to be MORE talented to rise into the tennis elite with the extreme western technique than you do with more traditional grips, which are not only more sustainable (see Sanguinetti, Todd Martin, and Tim Henman who all were able to retain a level closer to their prime to the end) over the long haul since they don't require the same degree of energy expenditure to "get off" each and every time, but also that there are FAR less players growing up who are taught with the more conservative techniques than there are the extreme grips. The extreme grips are brought on by MOST of the world being reared on clay with high bounces, and simultaneously also most good players starting from a very young age when the grip acts as a crutch against balls getting to high up on them. Because of this he says there are far, far, FAR more "prospects" brought up who are taught to play this way and thus become set in their ways...which means what? It means more competition overall for those practioning this "style" to separate/distinguish themselves from the pack with this style. I mean why did Royce Gracie "revolutinize" MMA when he first came up? Because, back then you had a bunch of strikers, martial artists, brute specimens, and brawlers from different disciplines thinking that was how you won, even the movies said so. And yet, here comes this very unfreakoid like creature and athlete, and he's beating guys left and right who are phsyically more imposing than him. How? Because back then, he BLINDSIDED them. Say you were a striker, fine, get in line. A lot more of you than there were of him then. Now, what happened? You have a superior athlete in Matt Hughes take him down easily and in essence Royce Gracie game him the OPEN mind and tools needed to beat him. It's no longer a "secret." With just about everyone in MMA these days realizing the importance, bare necessity, and effectiveness of submissions and defending submissions, ask yourself this. If Royce Gracie came up today for the first time, do you think he'd reach the status of hallowed legend like has now? I don't think so. Good fighter? Sure. But, he would not be this revered mythical character either. Why? Because now there are ten times the practioners of his "style" than there back in his day. Now he has a lot more competition for him to "stand out" as he once did.
That is in essence the Robert Landsdorp logic. It's why he says, it's NOT just talent that makes champions, it's also very much his METHODOLOGY.
Todd Martin may be talented, same with Tim Henman, same with Mirnyi...but NONE of them were truly considered elite prospects either coming up. Landsdorp's reasoning is that once you reach the pro level, if you last that long with the more traditional techniques, now that same technique begins to work for you as it facilitates the handling of pace and extra placement that forces you out of position once you reach the highest levels of the game, the pro ranks. Max Mirnyi for example, this coming from someone who was a direct handler of him in his development years, was to paraphrase if you saw him then, you would NEVER think he would make it, he was by far NOT considered a superior talent back then.
What he had was work ethic and size...PLUS more conservative technique. Given his RAW "talent" level as evaluated back then, do you honestly think he would have done as well as he has for himself if he were taught with the extreme grips? Do you honestly think he'd be able to take Guga off the ground? I mean get real, in my opinion. There's just no way.
Even a guy like Davide Sanguinetti. Why is he still around, and more or less the same "level" of threat he always was for a guy with absolutely no racket head speed or explosiveness about him...plus, the dude's old? Why because his conservative technique, even for a mediocre level talent, does two things for him. 1) It makes him "unique" on tour since very few else play this way or are even taught to play this way. He has basically "no competition" in his ball massaging style. In other words, he's a SPECIALIST WITHOUT PEER. 2) Executing his basic groundstrokes takes FAR less out of him than say the incredible contortionism and racket head speed the typical western gripper has to go through on each and every stroke. 3) He's able to handle pro level pace well, by EFFICIENTLY "massaging" it, redirecting it, placing it, guiding it, and effectively using it against you at his best by taking it on the rise with minimal "complications" in his swing. It's a lot easier to teach a beginner his form than it is for example say Nadal's forehand form and motion. To tell a beginner to immitate Nadal's forehand motion is like telling a beach bum to watch Tony Hawk for three seconds, take a skate board, and go "flip around" in the air some...um, yeah.
Also, as the final bottom-line, as to why basically every so-called player ever deemed talented used less extreme technique is that quite simply, AESTHETICS. Simply put, more people find extreme technique "ugly" looking, and more classical technique like the tennis "ballet." Beauty *innately* suggests "talent." It's a natural human reaction, but it does not necessarily mean it's perfectly true. Beauty IS deceptive, much like with a "beautiful woman," it often times prevents one from digging deeper and looking under the surface for alternative reasonings and "logic" that aren't so readily, pantingly, and easily perceived.
Virtually ALL of my favorite players of all time are more "classical" technique players. Yet, this still does not blind me from realizing that even though I find Nadal's strokes "ugly;" I can't recognize or at least dig deeper to recognize and pay due to his talent as well. There's always that snide insiduation implied and it bugs me, because to me it's simply not fair. I'm misunderstood in that way, that I don't appreciate the traditional game, when far from it, I love it. It's more or less a case of feeling burdened to defend the LEGIONS of so-called untalents throughout the years that have populated the game, the clay courter. I believe they're world class talents too, and work just as hard, and so it bothers me that they're given the shaft and all their hard work and talent goes left unrecognized. I'm a champion of their "cause," but yet NOT because I like watching them so much per say.
