BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
As a player himself, he was expressing the general feeling of the other players in the locker room. Can you?
Why do people blatantly assume Federer has more talent than Nadal?
- Thread starter VivalaVida
- Start date
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yeah see that's the point I expected; add 2 + 2 (or 1 + 1 was my expectation).
Nadal saying he has had to work hard in addition with him admitting Federer is a truly talented player does not = Nadal has had to work hard because Fed has so much talent.
All it proves is Nadal has had to work hard to get to where he is; and Federer is a talented player (in Nadal's opinion).
So I guess I can spit at that point. Yay my work here is done.
--
On a more relevant note:
I think it is safe to say Federer and Nadal are both talented ATHLETES.
All this thread has proven to me is that Federer has tremendous skill with a racquet. He can hit a stroke and make it look beautiful, elegant, "textbook" if you will.
More importantly though, he can move about the court gracefully. That is not talent; that is athleticism. That actually IS something that genetics can dictate ... aka "natural" talent.
The same can be said about Nadal; he can move about the court from any position. That is also its own form of athleticism, natural talent again.
Let's bear in mind that when both were adolescents, either player could have gone on to become soccer professionals. They were both athletically gifted enough to pursue either soccer or tennis.
From there on, the choice of tennis meant they WORKED HARD at tennis. One particular point sticks out. There was an article by Cahill in 07 when he mentioned a time when Fed was around 15 or 16 and saw him play in Switzerland. Cahill was quick to criticize Federer's weak, pathetic backhand. (I'll edit this post with the link when I get to it ). Cahill mentioned Federer's game as "good" but nothing spectacular.
<<EDIT: Here's the link: http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21059855-23216,00.html . I like the title too..."Young Federer had nothing." Also I think most will agree Cahill is a fairly credible source in tennis. Looks like Fed was only 13 back then too haha...much younger; point still stands though.>>
This proves to me that Federer did NOT in fact have all the natural tennis talent in the world. Federer WORKED HARD to get to where he is. He was graced with one talent: being a hell of an athlete. That was about it.
I will also make the same case for Nadal. I don't think either is more talented than the other in TENNIS TERMS. They both WORKED THEIR ASSES OFF to get to where they are.
Last edited:
Maybe it just takes inventiveness? Imagination? Try something out and run with it?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Also read what Uncle Toni said:
"The greatest of all is Rod Laver, after that the best is Federer," Toni Nadal told French reporters. "Federer is better than Rafa, better than any player. Rafa is a good player, winning this trophy and five other [Slams]. But there is still a big gap."
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/aus09/columns/story?columnist=tandon_kamakshi&id=3876885
THERAFA
Banned
Uncle Toni is a genius, and so is Rafa, they will continue to fool the public into believing Rafa is always the underdog, and its working as Federer continues to kill himself with all the pressure, I think Toni is truly the greatest coach of all-time and his tactics are taking all the pressure away Rafa and keeping it on Federer nomatter what the:
Rankings
Say
Rankings
Say
JeMar
Legend
Running around the baseline, hitting heavy groundstrokes, fighting as much as possible is not a new way of winning.
Also, saying that Federer just copies past players is almost as dumb as the previous statement.
I don't give a rats a-- what Toni Nadal thinks about a 27-year old who has won 13 slams. I'm pretty sure if Nadal were to win 7 more slams in the next few years Toni will have a different opinion anyway.
Besdies, he's just Rafa's coach and needs Rafa to want and pursue more by whatever means.
Wait how's saying Federer is copying past players (actually more relevant would be saying Federer is playing textbook strokes) dumb?
That doesn't help any argument.
Also, those colon abbreviations near the end of your last sentences also doesn't help strengthen your argument
thejoe
Hall of Fame
Why do you always post like that with the stupid colon? It annoys the hell out of me.
Anyway, I don't think topspin equates to talent. Andreev puts lots of topspin on his forehand, yet no one thinks he is more talented than flatter hitters.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Uncle Toni did not base his comment on the number of Slams won or else why would he put Laver ahead of Federer? He's basing it on what he sees with his own eyes.
JeMar
Legend
It oversimplifies the issue to the point that it's dumb?
It's like saying perfect technique isn't unusual because it's perfect.
THERAFA
Banned
Breakpoint, you are missing the point, just like Federer is, you are believing Toni as he takes pressure off Rafa and puts it squarely on Federer (same as what Rafa does in press conferences when he refuses to talk himself up), and Federer loves the attention, so its very easy to do, Toni will never say Rafa is better than Federer even when Rafa has a:
Gr8er
Record
Gr8er
Record
Oh so the two Grand Slams by Laver had nothign to do with his formulation that Laver is the greatest????
And wait...he saw Laver playing and winning slams with his own eyes? Wow, didn't know that. I can barely find any vids of Laver's matches on YouTube.
JeMar
Legend
At the risk of sounding like a total fanboy, you only really need one to see how awesome he was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs
Oversimplification need not equal dumb.
Anyway I'm just giving you a hard time on that. But I wouldn't say Federer has come up with his own talented shots though. One point that sticks out is the Wimby 07 comparison of Fed & Borg's forehands, which revealed an extremely similar stance and backswing + follow-through. The biggest difference between Borg & Fed would be the racquet and strings. I'm drawn to that particular comparison because it really was quite extraordinarily similar.
Haha it's a nice vid isn't it? I've come across that one. I guess I shoudla thought of it when I made my point earlier
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
No, because those were only on two different surfaces. And you're the one counting Slams in determining who the better player is.
Do you know how old Uncle Toni is? Laver played until the late-70's. I'm sure he's seen Laver play.
You're forgetting that that family member was a top-100 professional player, and from age 12 or so played regularly with Carlos Moya, who went on to win a French Open.
He didn't invent his own strokes, you fool. Nadal copied Moya's blueprints, as Carlos also plays with his non-dominant hand. Nadal's serve was never weak, either. Just because a serve isn't breaking 140 m.p.h doesn't mean it's not strong. Nadal's serve when he first came on tour was extremely heavy and had much more spin on it then than it does now.
Roddick is very talented. A guy I know (not going to name names, but he was a coach at my club for a few years) grew up with his older brother (John Roddick) and this guy played at the Zoo a couple of times, and played D-1 ball. He said Roddick was able to consistently demolish him and his brother by the time he was 14. Not any 14 year old can destroy top USTA 18s players, mind you. That takes talent. Again, you just prove that you're talking out of your ass.
You're forgetting that Nadal could beat Moya by the time he was 15. He had played against some of the best in the world
Yeah, I did count the slams, but also made a finer point about the age.
And also Toni was born in 61 and I'm sure even in the 70s Toni would be pretty young to care more about Laver than his brother's (edit...left that out earlier) imminent soccer career.
I feel like we've buried the point about Nadal ADMITTING to having to work harder because Federer is more talented, though. Dunno why you keep at it
Last edited:
OliverSimon
Hall of Fame
its because all nadal does is wrist the ball over the net while picking his butt with his racquet that has a 138 headsize
It's freaking 100 sq in. That's not bigger than what many of the pros use anyway (or at least as far as we know). Roddick's Pure Drive is 98 (or 100,c an't remember). Gonzalez uses a 98 stick. Agassi used a midplus too IIRC. In fact he was called out back in the 90s for bringing suck a "modern" racquet to the S & V days. That 100 sq in headsize has NOTHING to say about Nadal's talent.
Uncle Toni wasn't a famous soccer player, it was Rafa's other uncle, Miguel Ángel Nadal who played on the spanish national soccer team and FC Barcelona. But I agree with you he had not only good but great coaching. I'm from Spain and the top places here to develop your game (specially on clay) are Barcelona, Mallorca and Valencia in that order, after those comes Madrid and then the other cities.
stormholloway
Legend
Youtube used to carry a video of Agassi v. Federer in Basel, 1997. Federer was probably 17 years old and he played Agassi very well I thought.
Again, 13 years old? Doesn't mean much.
Actually if he were 13 and had NATURAL TALENT he would already be a good player, not one with a miserable backhand.
That is the point I'm trying to make.
In fact by that logic, since Nadal could oust the likes of Moya by age 15, Nadal could be said to have more natural talent than Federer. However I dont' want to take it that far because at the end of the day my opinion remains that both were NATURAL ATHLETES, not natural tennis talents.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Gimelstob said that on the broadcast today, that Cahill was surprised at how hard and long Federer worked in practice. He said Federer trained 5 hours a day. So, you can throw that effortless garbage out the window. Annacone has said the same thing about Pete, he said people thought because it didn't look hard, it must not be hard. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody is that "talented" that it doesn't take a lot of sweat and effort to compete in any competitive sport. Anyone who believes that, will imo, believe anything.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Why would his serve come naturally to him when he's using his non-dominant hand?
How talented is that to develop your game for clay, and within a short span of time learn how to adapt to grass and hardcourts to the tune of consecutive finals and winning a grass and harcourt major?
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I agree, he has an uncanny talent for flexibility: adjusting and adapting his game, making progress.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Justin Gimelstob just said on the air during the Federer-Gonzales match that - "Watching Roger Federer play is like watching Picasso paint, while watching Rafael Nadal play is like watching a power lifter lift weights." (that is, painful). :shock:
He also said Cahill was surprised that Federer worked five hours a day on his game. Ergo, Fed's "talent" seems to equate to hard work as well.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
that sampras guy sucks too :S
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
I totally agree with you on that. Wasn't it Uncle Toni who came up with the weak backhand disclosure? Surely he had studied Federer's game and knew where the kinks were. He also understands Federer's psyche. That's an often overlooked element.
Yeah, I think the strategy is working just fine.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Mats Wilander in Tennis Magazine of March 2009: "Nadal is at least as talented as Roger, has at least as good hands as Roger, he moves as well and he is stronger mentally".
Lsmkenpo
Hall of Fame
I wonder how many posters who think Nadal is as talented as Federer have actually seen both of them hit live, up close, Federer is probably the most talented tennis player who has ever lived. The action and speed of his forehand is something special, and once you see him hit in person you would understand how talented Federer really is, watching it on TV doesnt give the
same prospective.
Every facet of Nadal's game is based on limiting unforced errors and capitalizing on the opponents errors, not on his pure ball striking talent. I think Nadal is a special player in this regard but to be honest watching him hit live wasnt nearly as impressive as watching Federer.
same prospective.
Every facet of Nadal's game is based on limiting unforced errors and capitalizing on the opponents errors, not on his pure ball striking talent. I think Nadal is a special player in this regard but to be honest watching him hit live wasnt nearly as impressive as watching Federer.
If we're comparing speeds then Roddick is a more talented server than Federer. However I would take Federer's serve over Roddick any day because Federer can place the ball and hit a kick serve better than Roddick ever could. On that note, Fed's serve has more talent than Roddicks. But if you use the argument of "action and speed" to judge Fed's shots vs. Nadal's, then Roddick's serve is due to more talent than Fed's. Which is false in my opinion.
And uh, if you want to compare the action of Fed's forehand to Nadal's, then let the science speak because last time I checked Nadal gets plenty more RPM on his shots on average than Fed ever has.
And in terms of ball striking, that's up for debate because Nadal has the ability to pull of unbelievable shots and hit wicked angles and passing shots often more brilliant than Federer's. But Federer does have plenty of placement and control going for him back in his prime, so like I said that's up for debate.
At the end of the day, I'm just going to fall back on the argument that Nad & Fed are naturally talented athletes who, through tremendous hard work, have been tremendous tennis competitors.
And uh, if you want to compare the action of Fed's forehand to Nadal's, then let the science speak because last time I checked Nadal gets plenty more RPM on his shots on average than Fed ever has.
And in terms of ball striking, that's up for debate because Nadal has the ability to pull of unbelievable shots and hit wicked angles and passing shots often more brilliant than Federer's. But Federer does have plenty of placement and control going for him back in his prime, so like I said that's up for debate.
At the end of the day, I'm just going to fall back on the argument that Nad & Fed are naturally talented athletes who, through tremendous hard work, have been tremendous tennis competitors.
Lsmkenpo
Hall of Fame
I am guessing you have never seen them both hit live Nadals forehand has slightly more rpm's than Feds but he hits it about 5 foot over the net, Feds is much faster and has a ton of action, no player in the history of the game has a better combination of speed and spin than Federer's forehand.
I actually have not, but I'm well aware of how they hit thanks to seeing different angles of their strokes on YouTube and what not.
And slightly more RPMs is an understatement. I believe the average RPM on Nadal's balls are 500 RPM more than Federer's average (that's average alone; Nadal has had plenty of shots at mind-boggling RPM for a tennis ball). Coupled with Nadal's recent improvement in his ability to flatten the ball and hit something closer to (but certainly nto as splendid as) a Federer forehand, I think Nadal has made significant improvements to show he has a powerful arsenal of shots.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
First have you seen Nadal play on his best surface? Second I've seen both of them play live at USO and I totally disagree with your conclusions, so I guess, it's very subjective in the end, it may also depend on which matches you've seen. I saw Federer-Andreev live at the USO and I can't say I was bowled over. Fed alternated great play with errors and I didn't feel he hit the ball more cleanly than Rafa. His play was very irregular or erratic if you prefer.
As far as speed is concerned or how hard they hit, they're both very intimidating.
icedevil0289
G.O.A.T.
Lol, that was his worst match at the USO. Ofcourse you wouldn't be bowled over with his play. I certainly wasn't.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
That's why I said it also depends on what match you get to see them play!
icedevil0289
G.O.A.T.
lol. Sorry.
saram
Legend
hahahahahaha...
Hey he had a terrific forehand and even though it's weaker now it's still one of the most consistent forehands in the Top 10. Nothing to laugh at.
Similar threads
