Will NADAl have a Chang like career?

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
Tennis.Addict said:
Reason why its easier to be no 1 now compared to 70s-80s: too many small tournaments all over the place/year.
The ranking system has changed the last a few years. You are not going to be No. 1 on ATP now if you only win small tournaments. Grand Slam and super 9 are mandatory tournaments, while only 5 other small tournaments count in ranking.
 

!Tym

Hall of Fame
Problem for Chang was that there was always a dominant player on every surface, and he was never quite it. He was always right up there with the contenders, but deep down everyone all knew that if just one "top" player got hot during the course of a slam when playing him, he'd probably lose. If a top player was a little off his game or just playing average, Chang would probably win; but honestly there's a reason why Agassi said that of all the top ten players he preferred to play Chang the most. He said that although Chang was great he felt that of all the top ten players if he was playing well, Chang made it the easiest for him to play his game. Why is that? Quite simply because Chang's average shot simply wasn't forcing enough, it kind of just sat there begging to be creamed, not too slow, not too fast, not too much spin, not too little, not too short, not too deep, etc. Basically it was like playing a ball machine set up to feed you balls just where you like 'em. The trajectory of his shots, neither super high or super flat, were adaptable to pretty much every top ten player's ideal strike zone regardless of whether they used an extreme western grip or an old school eastern. The truth is that he really didn't have any weapons other than his speed and nifty little, angled backhand passing shots/returns to outright hurt you with, and because Agassi didn't volley much that wasn't a factor.

Nadal's not like that as you saw when he played Agassi recently. A fired up Nadal's balls JUMP, which induced many errors from Agassi as the ball bounded just out of his strike zone at the last second. You saw the same thing against Federer in Miami earlier this year. Also, Nadal unlike Chang has the potential to hit for pure pace when he wants to AND actually still keep it in, unlike Chang who whenever he tried to smack one would more likely smack the back fence. Nadal's also a lefty, and his shots have FAR more work on them than Chang's. Chang's shot just sat there. Nadal's shots at their best make your racket twist in your hand and induce errors because of their action. Nadal can win baseline points by forcing errors as well as just retreiving until you miss. Chang could only hope that you missed if another top player was having a good day.

I think the more apt comparison is a PEAK Thomas Muster. In spite of what people say about Muster not being able to play on faster stuff, he was the second best player behind only Sampras in the first half hardcourt season in 97 when he decided to focus on hard courts. Muster's peak was very short lived, but during that peak he burned intensely. I think he got unlucky in 96 as the French played abnormally fast that year. Had the conditions been normal, I think he would have won the whole thing for sure. He had a three year window, where he was a force. He did not focus on hard courts for two of those three years, because his knee couldn't take the pounding for obvious reasons for extended periods of time. In 97 he made a concerted effort at the beginning of the year though to prove he could play on hardcourts and he did. The only player with a better record was Sampras who had his best start record wise to a year ever that year.

To me, PEAK level Muster is much more similar comparison to Nadal. Both are lefties with average serves but HUGE, HUGE, HUGE hearts that cannot EVER be counted out in a match. Unlike Chang, however, they also had power and WEIGHT behind their shots, crazy, HEAVY spin that induces errors all by itself...unlike Chang who needed you to miss, he couldn't force you to miss. Muster and Nadal are both JOCKS, exceptional athletes, muscle bound, strong like ox yet so light on their feet and with a mental altertness to the ball that allows them to retrieve virtually any ball they set their mind to retrieve...which is pretty much every ball. Both players, however, are vulnerable against guys with big serves who can swing them out waaay wide and knock away the volley to the open court. Why? Because they both choose to stand way too far back in order to get a full cut in. This means that if an attacking player is hot under fast conditions, they're definitely vulnerable. Still, this does not mean they're not formidable.

I'd say that Muster would have won the 97 Australian for sure had he not had the misfortune of running into a red hot Sampras. Had he kept up the early pace he showed in 97 on hard, I think he could have well won more slams.

Muster's a unique example though. His knee really set him back, and it took him a looong time to hit his peak. And when he finally did, it was relatively short lived. It was not ended by injury either, it was basically ended by him burning out. He said after winning the 97 Lipton that it was sweet justice. He played AMAZING that tournament, certainly good enough to win a hard court slam, BUT you could see in his eyes that he laid it ALL on the line to win that tournament to get back at his personal demons for screwing him there so many years ago. After that, he was never the same. Check his results immediately after that. He was a total dud. Quite frankly, he stunk. He played a very tight match with Kuerten at the French, but other than that he really did stink. Mark Goellner nearly knocked him out in the first there, Rafter knocked him out on clay in his hometown, he lost early at every clay tournament leading up basically. He just totally lost it after that for some reason. Then against Henman at the US Open later that year? That one point where he jokingly chased Henman? That was NOT like Muster. The ferocious bark in him was gone, he just didn't have the same intensity anymore, and it suddenly made him look very normal.

It used to be that the LAST person on earth you'd suspect of sudden burnout would be Muster, because he of all people seemed to be consumed by such FIRE when he played. Yet, the ironic thing is, that Muster is the one who let himself the most go and flamed out the most precipitously. The next year, he got worked by pretty much everyone, and I don't even think he really cared anymore. He shortly unofficially retired thereafter and lost ALL interest in the game completely for years until his doctor told he better start getting in shape again because he had gained fifty pounds. That to me is just amazing...but it happened.

Not saying this could happen to Nadal. But like everything else in life, it's a possibility. Nadal is just soooo fired up out there allllll the time, that one wonders if one day he'll fall in love or something with a girl or who knows what else and suddenly tennis won't seem that important anymore. In all honesty, tennis really is just a game. It's NOT that important. Michael Stich understood this fundamental truth, Andrei Medvedev did too. That's why guys like that fall short of expectations. But whose expectations are we talking about? There's or their handlers who have vested interests? Medvedev said it best when he said the other players schedule their lives around their tennis, but he was more the type who scheduled tennis around his life.

What makes guys like Muster and Nadal at PEAK intensity so great is that they simply want "it," whatever that means, more than you. I think it's always intimidating to play someone you know wants it more than you. When a guy seems to be playing every match like it's his life on the line, that's awe inspiring and generates fear in other players. But really as long we're all human here, EVERYONE has an epiphany sooner or later. One day, Nadal will wake up and realize that hey, he just doesn't feel like training anymore. Just doesn't see the point. Muster of all people did. Heck, even Lendl's put on the poundage. Then again, McEnroe's fire's still burning strong. Everyone's different. Sometimes you just wake up and tennis no longer seems that important. You gain perspective and realize it IS just a GAME. What we imbue upon a game is what we imbue. We can paint baseball as the most beautiful game and think of Field of Dreams and The Natural, and we can also just wake up one day and realize we want to flip the channel in the bottom of the fourth, either that or fast forward to the bottom of the ninth. At a certain point, the process becomes mundane, and at that point, when players just want to fast forward to the good stuff, the pivotal moment, the glory, the championship match, etc. to get excited, that is when you know it is time to pack it in.

For me, I'd say the question is not whether Nadal has the capacity to go down as an all-time great type player, because to me he clearly does. But the REAL question is can he maintain his peak level of interest, this level of consummation by the sport, for how long? Had Muster's knee not been surgically reconstructed and he been able to play on hard courts more, I think he showed in early 97 that peak Muster could win on any surface. Give him a peak 95 - first half of 97 without the bum knee and extend that for an entire career, and you have yourself the makings of an all-time great caliber player whether you want to admit it or not. The problem with Muster's legacy is that he started to build it too late in his career, and when he did begin to build it; he just as soon flamed out.
 

Tenez

New User
Insightful comments, as always, from !Tym.
Interestingly, Sergi Bruguera (remember him?), recently made the same comparison in an interview, basically equating Nadal to Muster.
--Tenez
 
Nadal...Can you say BURNOUT....

You cant grind out every point, every match all the time. He'll be better than Chang, but needs to open up with more offence.
 
The tennis guy said:
The ranking system has changed the last a few years. You are not going to be No. 1 on ATP now if you only win small tournaments. Grand Slam and super 9 are mandatory tournaments, while only 5 other small tournaments count in ranking.
No, that's the ATP race. That and the ATP entry rankings are different in some aspects.
 

LendlFan

Semi-Pro
spinbalz said:
If peoples read my post carefully, they will see that it is my main point, Chang was unfortunate to have Sampras, while Nadal is unfortunate to have Federer, that is why I see a potential strong similarity.
Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to read this entire Thread which I will do later but it seems to me that one should probably compare Nadal's current results to that of Muster's or Sergi Bruguera's more than Chang.

And Chang unfortunately had Sampras ???? Which prevented him from accomplishing more ??? Well for a brief moment Chang did rise to #2 and lost in the USO Finals against Pete. ( I had front row seats for that match - but I was really there to watch Steffi v Monica Finals) ... aside from that Chang also had a few other people stopping him from greater achievements like Agassi, Courier, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Wilander, etc ....

Make no mistake about it, Chang didn't beat Lendl in the Semis of the French 89' Lendl beat himself because he couldn't deal with Chang's injury and pulled up on his shots. Then he had the great fortune of facing a S&V Specialist in the Finals.
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
LendlFan said:
Make no mistake about it, Chang didn't beat Lendl in the Semis of the French 89' Lendl beat himself because he couldn't deal with Chang's injury and pulled up on his shots. Then he had the great fortune of facing a S&V Specialist in the Finals.
Make no mistake about it, Chang didn't beat Lendl in the semis of theFrench 89', he beated Ronald Agenor actually. And make no mistake, a player who win a tournament is the best player of that tournament, it as simple as that.
 

LendlFan

Semi-Pro
spinbalz said:
Make no mistake about it, Chang didn't beat Lendl in the semis of theFrench 89', he beated Ronald Agenor actually. And make no mistake, a player who win a tournament is the best player of that tournament, it as simple as that.

Sorry got the year wrong but I disagree that the person that wins is the best Player of the Tourney. Depending on the Draw you can have say what we had when Hewitt won USO 2001. We had two Giants going up against each other (Sampras v Agassi) in the Qts ... Sampras vs Safin in the Semis and then a beat down tired no gas left in the tank Sampras to face Hewitt.

I firmly believe Hewitt had the luck of the draw that year because I doubt seriously that Hewitt would have beaten Agassi had Andre got past Sampras.

And I don't think Hewitt would have beaten Rafter had he made it to the Finals.
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
LendlFan, it is not the year that you got wrong, CHANG NEVER DEFEATED LENDL IN ANY FRENCH OPEN 1/2 FINAL, PLEASE KEEP IT IN YOUR MIND.

And about Hewitt's victory at Wimbledon, please understand that the "Agassi should have Blah blah blah", "If Sampras Blah Blah Blah", "and if Rafter..." "and if, and if, and if..." are pointless, because one can never know what would have really happened if... Winning a slam event is beeing the only one who won 7 matches in a raw, and that one is considered the champion of that tournament, end of the story.
 

LendlFan

Semi-Pro
spinbalz said:
LendlFan, it is not the year that you got wrong, CHANG NEVER DEFEATED LENDL IN ANY FRENCH OPEN 1/2 FINAL, PLEASE KEEP IT IN YOUR MIND.

And about Hewitt's victory at Wimbledon, please understand that the "Agassi should have Blah blah blah", "If Sampras Blah Blah Blah", "and if Rafter..." "and if, and if, and if..." are pointless, because one can never know what would have really happened if... Winning a slam event is beeing the only one who won 7 matches in a raw, and that one is considered the champion of that tournament, end of the story.
Round of 16 !!! Roland Garros 1989 !!! Ok does that make you happy ?

This very Thread speaks of speculation as do many others in this Forum. My point is, do you really think a strong, well rested Sampras would have lost to Hewitt in 2001? So your contention is the BEST player wins .. I disagree. The best Player doesn't always win .. sometimes it's the luckiest player that wins.
 

GotGame?

Rookie
Nadal is just as fast, revolutionized topspin and attitude, and he's got the muscle. Throw in the lefty factor as well. I believe Nadal's game is also more varied.

It is the playing style and coaching/management situation I'm concerned about with Nadal.
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
LendlFan said:

This very Thread speaks of speculation as do many others in this Forum. My point is, do you really think a strong, well rested Sampras would have lost to Hewitt in 2001?


Why not? Wasn't Hewitt the N°1 player that year, and in 2001 Sampras was far to his best level.


LendlFan said:
So your contention is the BEST player wins .. I disagree. The best Player doesn't always win .. sometimes it's the luckiest player that wins.
Tennis is not lotery. At the begining, 128 players on the same line, and at the end only one stays undefeated.
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
LendlFan said:
Make no mistake about it, Chang didn't beat Lendl in the Semis of the French 89' Lendl beat himself because he couldn't deal with Chang's injury and pulled up on his shots. Then he had the great fortune of facing a S&V Specialist in the Finals.

Chang wasn't injured, he was cramping, and what Lendl was unable to deal with was Chang's strategy of soft moonballs suddenly followed by an unexpected acceleration, + the fact that Chang found a way to get under Lendl's head.

And was Chang lucky to play in the 1/4 final Hagenor who was a very competant clay player hitting his forehand as hard as anybody of this era? Was Chang lucky to play in the 1/2 final someone like Chesnokov who was considered just before the tournament, as the best or second best claycourt player, and if he played Edberg in the final, it was because that year Edberg's game was great enough to bring him in the Final by playing better tennis than the 63 other players who were in his side of the draw, so where is the luck?
 

LendlFan

Semi-Pro
spinbalz said:
Chang wasn't injured, he was cramping, and what Lendl was unable to deal with was Chang's strategy of soft moonballs suddenly followed by an unexpected acceleration, + the fact that Chang found a way to get under Lendl's head.

And was Chang lucky to play in the 1/4 final Hagenor who was a very competant clay player hitting his forehand as hard as anybody of this era? Was Chang lucky to play in the 1/2 final someone like Chesnokov who was considered just before the tournament, as the best or second best claycourt player, and if he played Edberg in the final, it was because that year Edberg's game was great enough to bring him in the Final by playing better tennis than the 63 other players who were in his side of the draw, so where is the luck?
You're point is well taken .. and I'm certainly not trying to take anything away from Chang's awesome achievement that year or Hewitt's in 2001.
I believe in both cases .. if Ivan had not have gotten so shaken up over Michael's condition, I will boldly say the outcome would have been different.

And if Pete was in better shape going into the finals, I'm certain he would have prevailed. So bottom line for me is these wins were a result of not being the best Player but benefiting from the not playing an opponent that was in their Best condition.

btw, the win over Chesnokov was a very big win for Micheal
 
It was sad Chesnokov never managed to win a French Open title between 88-90. He was one of the best clay court players those years but just couldnt come through in the final few rounds of the French. It would have been nicer to see him as the first Russian to win a Grand Slam, other than the sour Kafelnikov. He is a much nicer guy, more interesting, and in alot of ways just as good a player I believe, although I have to acknowledge Kafelnikov as the better player now since he managed to win 2 slam titles. IMO Kafelnikov is a very weak player for 2-time slam winning standard, he has never even won a Masters Series title, and I think he had alot of luck that Chesnokov did not get, but thats sport sometimes.
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
Chesnokov is really a nice guy, very funny, he always have a joke ready to come out of his mouth. He is a long time member of the "Tennis club de Paris", and when he has some time, he is ready to hit a few balls with anybody who asks him, whatever the level of the asking guy is.
 

LendlFan

Semi-Pro
federerhoogenbandfan said:
It was sad Chesnokov never managed to win a French Open title between 88-90. He was one of the best clay court players those years but just couldnt come through in the final few rounds of the French. It would have been nicer to see him as the first Russian to win a Grand Slam, other than the sour Kafelnikov. He is a much nicer guy, more interesting, and in alot of ways just as good a player I believe, although I have to acknowledge Kafelnikov as the better player now since he managed to win 2 slam titles. IMO Kafelnikov is a very weak player for 2-time slam winning standard, he has never even won a Masters Series title, and I think he had alot of luck that Chesnokov did not get, but thats sport sometimes.
One of the best matches I ever saw (on tv) was Chesnokov vs Lendl US Open 1989 Grandstand Stadium. Ivan prevailed but it was a toe-to-toe 5 setter with as much drama as you could ever expect from a USO match. One of the few times Ivan displayed real emotions during the match.
 
LendlFan said:
One of the best matches I ever saw (on tv) was Chesnokov vs Lendl US Open 1989 Grandstand Stadium. Ivan prevailed but it was a toe-to-toe 5 setter with as much drama as you could ever expect from a USO match. One of the few times Ivan displayed real emotions during the match.
Yeah I remember seeing that match, it was a classic U.S Open baseline brawl, a great match. I remember Chesnokov being one of the my favorite players when I first started watching tennis in the late 80s.

Of course the 89 U.S Open was where Lendl managed to reach his 8th straight final at the U.S Open, something I cant imagine even Federer doing(I will be happy if he proves me wrong, but I will be shocked if even he manages to do that). It is one of his several all-time records, it is also amazing that he has reached the most slam finals of anybody in history, and the most slam semis of anybody in history, and few people seem to even recognize that much, they might be aware of it, but is overlooked alot.
 
As for Chang vs Nadal, Chang in any era would only win 1 or 2 slams IMO. He is an amazing retriever but no better than Hewitt or Nadal who have come since him, among many others before him. His serve was solid at best, inconsistent and unreliable at worst. He does not have nearly the spin or firepower as Nadal, he did not hit the ball as early, pass, or return serve nearly as well as Hewitt; and even Hewitt may win only 2 career slams. I cant picture any era where he would win more than 1 or possably 2 slams. Nadal will win alot more slams than Chang, because he is atleast as quick, does not try to press his serve beyond what he is capable of and have a 40% percentage like Chang did often, has similar power off the forehand but more off the backhand, hits with more spin, has more command of directions and trajectories, has more consistent groundstrokes especialy off the forehand, and is an even more tenacious competitor, that is even if he doesnt improve.
 

timmyboy

Professional
I think changs game is a bit more versatile than nadals. Nadal's requires a full swing and alot of time. i don't think that swing will do him any good on faster hardcourts and grass.
 
I agree he might not end up being quite as good as Chang on faster courts(note I said maybe, I am not convinced of that by any means, he could well be as good or better on them as well, although I agree he wont ever win Wimbledon probably), but Chang was not good enough on faster courts vs the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Courier to win grand slams, so it is almost a moot point. Nadal is great enough on slow surfaces to win alot of slams on them, Chang was not.
 

LendlFan

Semi-Pro
federerhoogenbandfan said:
I agree he might not end up being quite as good as Chang on faster courts(note I said maybe, I am not convinced of that by any means, he could well be as good or better on them as well, although I agree he wont ever win Wimbledon probably), but Chang was not good enough on faster courts vs the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Courier to win grand slams, so it is almost a moot point. Nadal is great enough on slow surfaces to win alot of slams on them, Chang was not.
You guys do remember of course that Nadal did beat this guy from Las Vegas on a hard court just prior to the USO and was in very good position to beat FedEx on a hard court as well. Can't imagine why he lost so badly against Blake because I think he's much better than Blake.
Which makes me wonder, Chang & Hewitt are/were counter-punchers whereas Agassi, Courier, Nadal are not.

Granted Nadal hasn't proven himself worhty of all the hype he's receiving but to say he will not win Wimby is like saying in 1991 Agassi may win the French, USO & Auusie but certainly doesn't have what it takes to win at Wimby based on his style of play.

Nadal can win Wimbledon with the game he plays if he beefs up his serve and percentage.
 
I am sorry but I highly doubt Nadal will ever win Wimbledon, I could see him making some quarters, and maybe a semi or two much later in his career if he has improved a ton on grass(he would have to to even reach that far). Here are some reasons why:

1)First of all I cant see him beating Federer, Roddick, or Hewitt on grass. All three will be near the top another 5 years atleast, maybe more.

2)The other young players around his age-Berdych, Gasquet, Murray, Monfils, are already probably better than him on grass, and those guys are likely players with more improvement ahead of them than Nadal, even though Nadal can improve alot too, Nadal may forever be ahead of those guys on other surfaces, but if he is already behind them on grass, and I believe he is, I would favor any of those to have beaten him if they played him on grass this year, I think he will always be behind.

3)His backswings are far too big, he is not going to change that, since it would be to renovate the mechanics of his game.

4)He plays too far behind the baseline, again that is one thing that wont change too much in his game no matter how much he improves.

5)He can improve his volley and serve, but I dont think he will ever come into net or win the free points on serve all Wimbledon winners, minus Hewitt, do.

6)He does not hit the ball flat enough, again that is another thing that wont change much, since it is the basic structure of his game.


I do think Nadal will have a great career. I am not going to make definite guesses since there is alot of unknown to just how great, which is part of the fun, the guessing, the waiting.

Australia I would say he would win atleast once, but he could win as much as three times, depending how he progresses, and how the other young players his age progress. The French I could not see him winning any less than 3 times, but he could win 5 or 6 in his career, I wouldnt give a certain number. The U.S open he might be able to pull 1 out in his career, I would be surprised if he won it more than once, with all the big hitters on the scene.
Wimbledon virtually no way though.
 
Agassi's baseline game is totally different to Nadal's, compact swings, hits the ball earlier, plays further inside the baseline, can regularly hit winners early in points rather than setting them up in a few shots, I dont know what others said but I never felt Agassi was pretty certain to never win Wimbledon in the early 90s, unless a dominant player on grass emerged, and it did in Sampras, but Agassi was lucky enough to win his Wimbledon before that period started. I never felt the same way on him as I do on Nadal regarding Wimbledon.
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
LendlFan said:
Granted Nadal hasn't proven himself worhty of all the hype he's receiving but to say he will not win Wimby is like saying in 1991 Agassi may win the French, USO & Auusie but certainly doesn't have what it takes to win at Wimby based on his style of play.
No. Agassi since ever has been one of the purest ball striker of all times, one of the greatest returner of serve, played close to or inside the baseline, took the ball early on the rise, and hitted pretty flat with low net clearance, which is good or grasscourt tennis, so despite his lack of a true big serve and his limited volleying skill, it has always been evident that Agassi's game had a big chance to provide him good resulst on grass.

On the other side, Nadal has nothing in his game that can make us believe that he should obtain great success on grass, like Agassi he doesn't have the big serve and his volleying skill is not his strong point, but as opposed to Agassi, Nadal is not one of thegreates returners ever, he hits spinny shots with loopy trajectories with high net clearance, and he has a natural tendancy to stand far behind the baseline and to take the ball late, very rarely on the rise, add to that his extreme grip, and his FH swing a lot less compact than Agassi's, then you can see that Nadal has currently nothing in his game that translates well on grasscourts.

That is why it is not accurate to state that saying that Nadal will not win Wimbledon is the same as saying in 1991 that Agassi didn't have what it takes to win on grass.

Agassi's natural game had some qualities suitable to grasscourt tennis, but Nadal natural's game is only all what players should avoid to do if they want to obtain success on grass. So if Nadal obtain in the future some great successes on grass, it will be the result of a drastical change in his playing style, while Agassi's successes on grass were simply the normal results that his natural game was supposed to bring him.
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
federerhoogenbandfan, sorry if my post is a lot like your last 2 posts about the subject of Agassi/Nadal/Grass, I didn't want to copy, but it appears that you have published your post while I was writing mine...
 

LendlFan

Semi-Pro
I think you guys are absolutely correct, which makes me wonder why then does everybody see Nadal as being greater than life ( aside from Fed) ?

Really, what has he done that Muster didn't do before him and received half the glory. Or Sergi did during his two wonderful years on clay? Or Guga's achievements on clay hasn't translated to the Stardom that Nadal is getting.

What is it that makes him so much better ?
 

LendlFan

Semi-Pro
I think you guys are absolutely correct, which makes me wonder why then does everybody see Nadal as being greater than life ( aside from Fed) ?

Really, what has he done that Muster didn't do before him and received half the glory. Or Sergi did during his two wonderful years on clay? Or Guga's achievements on clay hasn't translated to the Stardom that Nadal is getting.

What is it that makes him so much better ?
 

Rataplan

Semi-Pro
LendlFan said:
I think you guys are absolutely correct, which makes me wonder why then does everybody see Nadal as being greater than life ( aside from Fed) ?

Really, what has he done that Muster didn't do before him and received half the glory. Or Sergi did during his two wonderful years on clay? Or Guga's achievements on clay hasn't translated to the Stardom that Nadal is getting.
Life is so unfair, isn't it?
 
spinbalz said:
federerhoogenbandfan, sorry if my post is a lot like your last 2 posts about the subject of Agassi/Nadal/Grass, I didn't want to copy, but it appears that you have published your post while I was writing mine...
No problem spinbalz. The fact we were both thinking the same things on Nadal and grass, goes the show there are very valid reasoning to what we were saying. :)
 
LendlFan said:
I think you guys are absolutely correct, which makes me wonder why then does everybody see Nadal as being greater than life ( aside from Fed) ?

Really, what has he done that Muster didn't do before him and received half the glory. Or Sergi did during his two wonderful years on clay? Or Guga's achievements on clay hasn't translated to the Stardom that Nadal is getting.

What is it that makes him so much better ?
I think alot of it is that he did what he has done at a much younger age than those two. Also regardless whether ones view is that he had some luck with draws and circumstances, or that he just plain took his success without benefit of anything but his own play(and their are plently of both views, and some in between), he has already won a Masters Title and been runner up in a Masters final at that young age; something Muster took late in his career to do both of, and Bruguera never did I believe. Yet on the other hand he has yet to surpass the 4th round of any slam on hard courts, and he has not played the top players on hard courts often enough to form an established basis of his ability to/or not to compete closely with them on hard courts, thus different parties form their own views, which different greatly as you can tell. Also the press want to anoint a new rival for Federer, and it is becoming clear that it probably wont be Hewitt or Roddick, could be Safin if he held it together long enough as we saw from October last year to February this year, but still there seems to be enough of a vacancy of a serious rival for Fed they are looking for a young star to fill that spot, thus the hype. That is not the same so much as when Sampras was on top where they always looked for Agassi or Becker, even when one was going down by that point(Becker) and the other was out of the loop over half the time(Agassi), they were still the anointed choices in the presses mind, and certainly not a clay court stalwart, who could play reasonably on hard courts, like Muster or Bruguera.
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
Yes Nadal, already accomplished many great things at a very young age, and obvioulsy time should work for him, and that is why many peoples predict him an exceptionnal career.

The reason why I expect for him a slightly less exceptionnal career <but still a great career> than what some other poster here predict him, is that I think that his playing style works against him, and that is why I think that he will struggle to improve his faster courts tennis skill and will fail to surpass Federer and some future great new players having a more versatile tennis, I think that the best he can hope is several years as the top clay player, which would already be a great achievement, but I doubt that he will step up to become the next all year long dominant player, and I also think that he is a candidate for an early burn out.

So for me, he is just the usual spanish clay court type of player, having more precocity than average in his tennis developpement, and reaching a level on clay that probaly none of his past and current cocitizens have been able to reach.

So for the moment, just wait and see, and only time will prove me wrong or right.
 

Rataplan

Semi-Pro
Can I ask you guys a question:

I have seen so many threads with so many comments on why Nadal is overhyped, overrated (good but overrated), why he's peaking, why he will a less than exceptional career and why he's just the usual Spanish clay courter...

Who are you trying to convince with the many, many comments because I think you guys are just reassuring yourself.
 
I agree with spinbalz, to be honest I am probably overrating his prospects on hard courts somewhat by his success this year in many of the hard court events, 2 great Masters Series events, and a great effort vs Hewitt in the 4th round of Australia, a deceptive result given his lower ranking at the time forcing an earlier meeting with a top seed, when he was probably in semifinal form. However the strain and pressure on his body from his playing style, the potential limitations and limited capacity for growth his playing style may create, and how many of his stroke mechanics and overall game style not being as adapt to as many surfaces, are things I probably have not taken into account enough. He is a great talent who will have a great career, but the hopes many have from him due to his young age and success this year may prove to be too much of a stretch.
 
Rataplan said:
Can I ask you guys a question:

I have seen so many threads with so many comments on why Nadal is overhyped, overrated (good but overrated), why he's peaking, why he will a less than exceptional career and why he's just the usual Spanish clay courter...

Who are you trying to convince with the many, many comments because I think you guys are just reassuring yourself.
If I was trying to reassure myself Nadal will not have that great of a career, why on earth would I have estimated a tenative range of slam victories for him from 1-3 in Australia, 3-5 or 6 at the French, and possably 1 at the U.S Open. I also stated he has potential to have a much better career than the extremely good Michael Chang. So that somehow is an example of somebody who is trying to reassure themself somebody is a one-trick pony destined for a less than spectacular career? LOL!
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
Rataplan said:
Can I ask you guys a question:

I have seen so many threads with so many comments on why Nadal is overhyped, overrated (good but overrated), why he's peaking, why he will a less than exceptional career and why he's just the usual Spanish clay courter...

Who are you trying to convince with the many, many comments because I think you guys are just reassuring yourself.
My last post was just the answer to a question that LendlFan asked.

And in each threads where someone explain his doubts about Nadal's potential, we can see you taking Nadal's defense, often with tasteless irony, <by the way almost 100% of your posts are related to taking the defense of Nadal, it is your own right, it just shows how obcessional and single minded you are>, so we can ask you the exact same question as the one that you ask us : Who are you trying to convince with your countless Nadal's defenses? Aren't you just try reassuring yourself, like if you can't support the idea that you perhaps didn't bet on the right horse publicly?
 

Rataplan

Semi-Pro
spinbalz said:
Aren't you just try reassuring yourself, like if you can't support the idea that you perhaps didn't bet on the right horse publicly?
What? (sorry but I don't understand that sentence)

it just shows how obcessional and single minded you are
It takes one to know one...doesn't it, Spinbalz?

We are both looking at this guy who is in the beginning of his career.
Some people like to doubt his potential.
Others like to take his defence against doubters but we're all just speculating.

For example, something I read a lot here is the belief that he's matured early and he has little room for improvement.
Why then do professionals (like Gimelstob just this week - a professional who has played against him so he should know what he's talking about) talk about his room for improvement?
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
Rataplan said:
What? (sorry but I don't understand that sentence)


It takes one to know one...doesn't it, Spinbalz?
We can't say that 90% of my posts are related to Nadal, as opposed to what we can say about you.

Here is in other way to write the sentence that you couldn't understand :
It looks like you can't support the idea that you perhaps didn't bet on the right horse in the person of Nadal, and that you try to reassure yourself.
 

Rataplan

Semi-Pro
spinbalz said:
We can't say that 90% of my posts are related to Nadal, as opposed to what we can say about you.
Judging from your comments in this section of the message board and only counting from the moment I arrived on this board...I would think it's fair to say that 90% of your posts have been related to Nadal so...pot, kettle, black...

It looks like you can't support the idea that you perhaps didn't bet on the right horse in the person of Nadal, and that you try to reassure yourself
First of all, tennis for me is more than just one person but I can understand that you would think that because you have only my comments in here to make that judgement.
Secondly...I'm not the one saying that he's the next Sampras, Federer, Borg,... He doesn't need to be the GOAT for me to enjoy him as a tennis player. I'm a fan of other players who have little hope to become a top ten player but I like to watch them in action (because of certain aspects of their game)
Thirdly, I don't see it as a one horse race so it's not a question of betting on ONE horse. Your retort is a bit odd, Spinbalz
Furthermore, the race is long and we're only in the beginning of his race so it's too soon to say who's betting on the right horse and who's not.
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
Rataplan said:
Judging from your comments in this section of the message board and only counting from the moment I arrived on this board...I would think it's fair to say that 90% of your posts have been related to Nadal so...pot, kettle, black...
Judging from my comments? :shock: Then you are a very bad judge, or you should learn the correct formula for to do the %, but I suppose that you must be one of the few who only consult the pro players section of this board, and only read the threads that have a chance to have the name of Nadal mentionned inside, so of course you see peoples posts only when they talk about Nadal, and it makes you believe that they only post about him... :rolleyes:

Are you aware that some other sections than the "pro player" exist in this forrum? I have for exemple a countless # of posts in the "racquets"or "string" sections of this forum, and I can sware that they are not related to Nadal.
 

Rataplan

Semi-Pro
spinbalz said:
Are you aware that some other sections than the "pro player" exist in this forrum? I have for exemple a countless # of posts in the "racquets"or "string" sections of this forum, and I can sware that they are not related to Nadal.
No kidding...:rolleyes:

In this section where we talk about the professional players = "General Pro Player Discussion"...you have been talking a LOT about Nadal and the 90% is fair. I know that you like to poke fun at Rafa obsessed people but face it, Spinbalz...you're part of the obsession. :mrgreen:
The other sections of this board is of no relevance in calculating this particular %.
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
Rataplan said:
First of all, tennis for me is more than just one person but I can understand that you would think that because you have only my comments in here to make that judgement.
Yes, what we can take from you is only what you give.


Rataplan said:
Secondly...I'm not the one saying that he's the next Sampras, Federer, Borg,...
Exact, you are just the one who constantly and almost exclusively try to make look stupid all the posters who express their doubts about Nadal's future achievements, and mainly by using tasteless irony, and very few <should I better say 0> technicals points of views.
 

Rataplan

Semi-Pro
spinbalz said:
Exact, you are just the one who constantly and almost exclusively try to make look stupid all the posters who express their doubts about Nadal's future achievements, and mainly by using tasteless irony,
It's not irony, my dear...it's called sarcasm and it's hard not to be sarcastic after reading some of your posts and it's not that hard to make SOME of those posters look stupid.

Hey, it's late here and I'm off to bed...I have better things to do at night than to argue with you
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
Rataplan said:
No kidding...:rolleyes:

In this section where we talk about the professional players = "General Pro Player Discussion"...you have been talking a LOT about Nadal and the 90% is fair. I know that you like to poke fun at Rafa obsessed people but face it, Spinbalz...you're part of the obsession. :mrgreen:
The other sections of this board is of no relevance in calculating this particular %.
Even if we take in account only the "General Pro player" section of this Forum, my post related to Nadal would be far less than 90% <not even 50% or 40% or 30%>.

And I don't see why the other section of this message board shouldn't be relevant to show the center of interest of a particular poster??? One like you who frequent a message board almost only to post about Nadal in the "general pro player" is obviously obsessed by Nadal, but we can't say that about someone like me who post about racquets, strings, and different subject on the "pro players" section, if it can make you feel better to say I'm obsessed, then just say that I'm a "tennis obsessed" because then you'd be probably right.
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
Rataplan said:
It's not irony, my dear...it's called sarcasm and it's hard not to be sarcastic after reading some of your posts
No, no, you use Irony AND sarcasms.

The fact that you believe that you sarcasms are justified, doesn't mean that they are...

Rataplan said:
and it's not that hard to make SOME of those posters look stupid.
I said you tried to make some poster look stupid, I doesn't mean that you succeeded at it. Indeed you failed at that "not so hard" thing".
 

spinbalz

Hall of Fame
Rataplan said:
Judging from your comments in this section of the message board and only counting from the moment I arrived on this board...I would think it's fair to say that 90% of your posts have been related to Nadal so...pot, kettle, black....

And just to prove that what you say about me is just b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t, the seach engine of this message board is an easy tool to use to provide evidences.

So currently I have 501 posts in the "pro players" section of this message board, and 126 of these posts are related to Nadal, so it makes 25,1% of my posts related to Nadal, which is far less than your the 90% that you attribute me. And if we take in account all my posts in all the sections of this message board, then the % of my posts related to Nadal goes down to 8.6%. So far for my supposed Nadal obsession...

Now let's talk about you, it appears that I exagerated the % of your posts related to Nadal in this message board, so perhaps that I should present some apologizes, but I won't, because though the 90% was an exagerated estimation, it apprears after the use of the search engine of this message bord, that actually around 50% of your posts are still related to Nadal, and 50% is significant enough to call you a Nadal obssesed.

So please, stop to distord the facts and to try to put my supposed "Nadal obsession" on the same line as yours, because on my side I have only 8% of my posts about Nadal, while on your side, around 50% of your posts are related to him. The result is eloquent <but of course perhaps that it will comfort you to know that your Nadal obsession will never equal the Nadal obsession of an other well known poster that I don't need to name>.

Game set and match, thank you for comming. :twisted:
 

Rataplan

Semi-Pro
You know what they say about statistics, Spinbalz? There are lies, there are big lies and then, you have the statistics. You can prove almost anything with percentages depending on how you use them.

Have you made your Nadal calculation since the beginning of your history on this board because I'm only talking about your recent history.
It doesn't matter, though...I like your recent Nadal obsession. :mrgreen:
 
Top