so be itQuote:
Originally Posted by leosimha
head to head - he beats everyone and thats a great record..........
Printable View
so be itQuote:
Originally Posted by leosimha
head to head - he beats everyone and thats a great record..........
Rafael Nadal Que grande España!!!! El domingo voy a ver la final y a animar al equipo a Sudafrica!!!!! No me lo puedo perder y a animarles en persona!!!
Great Spain! I will be on Sunday in the final in SouthAfrica!!!! Can't
miss that one and want to support them live!!
http://www.facebook.com/Nadal
:cool: true...he has a record of 7-0 against Nicolas Almagro who gave him a challenge at the French Open... :shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by MADDY
but the best head to head should be Nadal against Federer and he equals 3-3 against Federer... :cool:
8-)Quote:
Originally Posted by leosimha
Quote:
With his knees playing well, Rafael Nadal is calling the shots again
Back to his ruthless best
Greg Bishop, NYT:
For the longest time, Rafael Nadal clung to his championship keepsake. He carried it, cradled it, even signed autographs with it tucked away in his right arm. The trophy did what Nadal’s Wimbledon opponents could not over the fortnight. It made tears well in his eyes.
He seized it on Sunday with an aggressive assault on Tomas Berdych, a one-sided affair confirmed by the final tally, 6-3, 7-5, 6-4. Victory vaulted Nadal into rare company -- his eighth Major championship tied the likes of Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl -- and he somersaulted across the grass in celebration.
“Having this trophy in my hands is just more than a dream,” he said.
For the first time since 2002, the Wimbledon men’s singles final did not feature Roger Federer. If that seemed strange, though, Nadal’s triumph certainly did not.
Again, he had completed a feat among the most difficult in tennis, winning the French Open and Wimbledon in the same summer, for the second time in the past three years.
Nadal slung groundstrokes, grunted and twisted his face into all the usual contortions. He seemed normal, only he played different, more vicious, more aggressive, perhaps an improved version of the player who won this tournament in 2008.
Last year, Nadal watched Federer duel Andy Roddick from the sofa in his living room in Spain. On Sunday, in front a Centre Court audience that included Bjorn Borg, Jaromir Jagr and the Rolling Stones guitarist Ronnie Wood, Nadal reclaimed the trophy and solidified his status as the best player on the men’s tour.
While even Nadal said it remained premature to debate if he could match or exceed Federer’s 16 Grand Slam titles, it is fair to wonder where he, at 24 and ahead of Federer’s pace, will eventually fit in tennis history.
“His place is undecided,” said Darren Cahill, a former player and an analyst for ESPN. “So much of the story is yet to be written. Much of it depends on how his body holds up. That said, he better make room in his trophy case.”
After taking a mandatory drug test after the match, Nadal entered a small room in the broadcast center and finished a slice of pizza. He appeared relaxed, as if the two hours since his victory had calmed him. He admitted that he considered tennis history, and added that, in evaluating it, he considered more than major championships.
“It’s an honour for me to be with these historic players,” Nadal said. “But I’m 24 years old. It’s very difficult to say.”
Hours earlier, in the ESPN booth high above Centre Court, the commentators Dick Enberg and Patrick McEnroe said they believed the conditions favoured Nadal against the big-serving, risk-taking Berdych, the challenger from the Czech Republic.
Not only had it rarely rained this tournament, drying out the grass, but wind shot through the All England Lawn Tennis Club. That, too, worked better for Nadal, whose furious, spin-cycle groundstrokes allow a greater margin for error. Beyond that, Nadal had showcased his versatility over the past two weeks. Once content with a strategy of attrition, standing far behind the baseline and grinding down opponents with groundstrokes, he now moved forward and attacked continuously.
Against the sentimental favorite Andy Murray in the semifinals, Nadal approached the net 26 times and won 23 of those points. He also ran around his backhand, delivering toxic doses of topspin from the forehand side.
Early on Sunday, Berdych went after Nadal’s backhand instead. But McEnroe said that Nadal had improved that shot, too, in recent months. He stood closer to the baseline than he had in Paris, changing his strategy to suit the surface.
Nadal broke Berdych at 4-3 and seized the first set with sharp serves and brutal backhands. By then, victory seemed certain. (Nadal now holds a 100-1 record when winning the first set at a Grand Slam.)
“Tactically, Nadal played a perfect set,” McEnroe said.
Berdych’s best opportunity came in the next game, when Nadal doubled his number of unforced errors from the first set -- with six -- and delivered uncharacteristic, shaky double faults. But Nadal held, and Berdych never again seriously threatened.
“He was really strong today,” Berdych said. “He’s showing in the last few months that he’s really the champion.”
Still, Berdych became the first Czech to advance to a Wimbledon final since Lendl in 1987. Along the way, he knocked out Federer and Novak Djokovic.
Nadal played at a higher level over the past two months, compiling a 31-1 record since mid-May, than both Federer and Djokovic, who will be ranked third and second in the world when the rankings come out this week.
Nadal cautioned those predicting Federer’s demise, saying, “Everybody says the same thing two years ago.”
After the final point against Berdych, Nadal fell backward onto the grass in celebration. He followed that with the nifty somersault, a new celebratory touch.
Nadal said afterward he would withdraw from Davis Cup competition to get treatment on his right knee back in Spain. Earlier in the tournament, he said tendinitis in the knee had bothered him, but on Sunday, he said it had not hurt in any of his last four matches. He could rest until the Rogers Cup in Toronto in early August.
On tap, Nadal listed his immediate priorities as “beach, fishing, golf, friends, party and Mallorca.” But eventually he must confront and prepare for the US Open, which begins Aug 30 and is the one Grand Slam title he has never won.
Everywhere Nadal went after Sunday’s match, he carried that trophy, his new best friend.
For as good as Nadal is on clay -- and he is perhaps the best clay-court player in the sport’s history -- he said that to win at Wimbledon, on grass, had always been his dream.
Now, for the second time, he held the championship keepsake as proof.
Link - http://www.deccanherald.com/content/...less-best.html
[quote="leosimha"]thanks leo. my pleasure :)Quote:
Originally Posted by wrap07
Link - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...-with-a-bulletQuote:
Rafael Nadal: 2010 Number One with a Bullet
By TIM RUFFIN (Featured Columnist) on February 25, 2010
Now that I'm sure that the title of this piece has garnered your attention, let's sit down and discuss the remainder of 2010.
The post mortem on Rafael Nadal's career has been by many tennis fans. While the past 12 months have certainly been trying in more ways than one for the young Spaniard, it seems rather foolish to write the final chapter of a young man's career at age 23.
Yes, 23.
My favorite NFL team, the Philadelphia Eagles, recently released one of their all-time greatest players, running back Brian Westbrook. In recent years, Westbrook had suffered a myriad of injuries and had clearly lost a step. At age 30, he was past his prime and had to be released.
So, I understand all too well that sometimes great players get injured and at some point teams and fans have to cut their losses.
But Westbrook was 30, past his physical prime; Rafael Nadal is 23, still two or three years away from his tennis prime. Without having suffered a serious tear of a major ligament, or some other freak injury which required an extensive surgical procedure and an iffy prognosis, I laugh at the attempts of the renegade who wish to begin eulogizing Nadal's brilliant career while he's still smack in the middle of it.
I am here to make a bold prediction: Rafael Nadal will end 2010 as the number one ranked male tennis player in the world.
Yes, I said it.
Yes, I believe it.
No, I'm not bluffing. Here's why:
First of all, do not think that Nadal is not aware of the growing number of critics who critique his game and predict his demise. Nadal is the single greatest competitor of his generation, bar none. In the very history of men's tennis, only Pete Sampras can rival Nadal's will.
Nadal will approach the clay court season like a hungry lion, eager for success. When Nadal gets his rhythm on the dirt, he doesn't lose. He'll find his game on it this year.
His most recent knee injury was a minor tear, a minor setback, but a blessing in disguise. Since July of last year, Nadal has played non-stop hard court tennis. Even though he was injured for much of the time, struggling with a lack of confidence that goes hand in hand with a lack of trust that his body would perform exactly the way he wanted it to.
This recent setback has kept him from competing in other meaningless post-Australian Open hard court events.
Nadal lost in the fourth round of Roland Garros last year. He missed Wimbledon all together. Yet he still finished the year at number two in the world.
Nadal's absence cleared a path for Roger Federer to do what he failed to do in 2008: Win Roland Garros and Wimbledon back-to-back. At the time things worked out perfectly for Federer.
But right now, the chickens are about to come home to roost. Federer, the current world number one, has a ridiculous amount of points to defend. Between May and the end of August, he needs to win two Grand Slams and two Master's 1000 events.
While I am aware that Roger's followers believe that he wears a cape and shoots laser beams from his eyes, deep down inside we all know that even as great a player as he is, Roger is still human.
I would never expect any player to make that sort of run. I didn't expect Nadal to do it in 2008, and if you'd asked me at this time last year I wouldn't have believed Federer could do it. It's really a one in ten thousand kind of shot. Things have to line up perfectly; they did last year, but the odds of this happening two years in a row are slim to none.
The pressure of having to win basically every important event from May until the U.S. Open will be a lot for Roger to handle.
Nadal will regain his confidence on his beloved clay. If he's fit and focused there isn't anyone who can beat him in a best of five sets match on clay.
Juan Carlos Ferrero may be around to challenge, but he would need Nadal to be a level off his game to win a best of five setter against him.
Roger could be around in the finals, or possibly meet Nadal in the semifinals. Either way, Nadal will be loading up on points, and the best Federer can hope for is to defend all his points. The gap will steadily close.
The young guys continue to demonstrate a lack of maturity. Juan Martin del Potro made a splash last year getting through to the semifinals in Paris and winning in New York.
Since then, he's been spotty at best. He's well into his sophomore slump. Clay and grass are much weaker surfaces for the giant Argentine than his beloved hard court. He hits a flat ball, which are both high risk and less effective on clay. Nadal would be favored against del Potro on anything except a hard court.
As for Djokovic, he doesn't appear to be ready to add to his Grand Slam title. Besides, it's highly doubtful that he could beat Nadal in a Grand Slam event.
Has he ever? I don't believe so.
Andy Murray has been a fashionable pick for the past few seasons, but he has yet to truly deliver. Like the rest of the top players who have had some success against Nadal recently, this success extends only to hard courts; grass and clay are Nadal's surfaces.
As for the likes of Novak Djokovic, these days I rarely include him in conversations about potential number ones. He needs to do an awful lot of growing up to convince critics otherwise.
If Nadal wins Roland Garros (and I believe he will), he will head into Wimbledon with a full head of steam. If you think that he will not remember that he wasn't even able to show up to defend his title last year, then you are mistaken.
To say that the man is hungry is an understatement. Fully expect Roger to cut through his side of the field and meet Nadal in the finals. He and Nadal are really a two man show. When these two play each other on the grass, it basically a pick'em.
But remember, these points will be 100 percent bonus for Nadal, who picked up no points at all during that time last season. Considering that the last time Federer defeated Nadal in a Grand Slam was in 2007, Nadal has to get the benefit of the doubt.
Considering the amount of points Nadal can pick up at the two middle Slams, he doesn't need to win the U.S. Open—in all likelihood he will not.
Still, look for him to put in a decent showing, perhaps to the quarters or semifinals. The fast hard courts of New York are very dangerous to navigate. The Tsongas, del Potros, and Djokovics, not to mention the Murrays and Cilics, have all shown themselves to be primarily hard court specialists. Any of those guys have the game to win the U.S. Open.
Depending on form, Federer will most likely be the prohibited favorite. However, it's not completely out of the realm of possibility for Roger to get upset by one of those younger guys. I wouldn't bet on it, but it's not impossible.
So you could have two players each with two Slams.
Nadal has constantly proven his critics wrong. First it was said that he'd never be able to win Wimbledon with his long, spin heavy strokes or weak serve.
Then, it was said that he'd never be able to bounce back from a five hour semifinal in time to win a final against a much fresher, hungrier player.
Many times Nadal has been written off; as a six-time Slam winner at age 23, there is no reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt.
After all, who would have thought that Kim Clijsters could win a major after giving birth?
Or that Andre Agassi could come back from number 141 in the world to number one?
Great champions are extraordinary; one can never count them out. So why would we count Nadal out?
Link - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...-a-bullet-pt-2Quote:
Rafael Nadal: 2010's Number One With a Bullet, Part Two
By TIM RUFFIN (Featured Columnist) on July 16, 2010
Back in February, not long after Roger Federer clinched his record-setting 16th Grand Slam singles title, I wrote an article entitled Rafael Nadal: 2010 Number One with a Bullet.
The concept seemed a bit loony at the time. Federer was fresh off an apparent re-affirmation of lordship over men's tennis. Nadal had even more questions surrounding the condition of his precarious knees, staring down that barrel at a substantial layoff for the second time in a year.
Perhaps this was amongst the darkest hours for the then 23-year-old Spanish sensation.
Oh, so many predicted doom for Nadal. The vast majority of the allegedly "educated" tennis fans were certain that his Grand Slam window had indeed slammed shut. The Spaniard's game had been figured out; his Slam total would no doubt remain static at six. The six Slam mark did indeed put Nadal in elite company: a sure fire hall-of-famer, but still a distant 10 Slams back of the man who was the measuring stick in men's tennis, Mr. Federer.
It was thought that though Nadal often dominated Federer in their head to head match-ups, the disparity in size of their respective Grand Slam cabinets would be enough to paint Nadal as a footnote to Federer.
How wrong a concept that turned out to be.
While most of the world wrote Nadal off as a "has been" at the geriatric age of 23, I laughed. The thought amused me then and still amuses me now. It's striking how fickle fans can be. Hot one minute, cold the next. A dominant world number one this year, and washed up has-been after only one loss.
I wrote an article on February 25, 2010. An article that was meant to be a bold vote of confidence in a man that I knew was the best tennis player in the world, even when losing matches to players with half his talent and a quarter of his mental fortitude. It seemed crazy to predict that Nadal (who had fallen to number three, by the way, and appeared to be trending down) would finish 2010 as the number one ranked player in the world.
Believe me, people let me know that they thought I was delusional. No hard feelings.
Five months have passed since I predicted both Nadal's rise and Federer's struggles. Funny, I haven't heard much from many of my original critics. I wonder where they've gone? Are they even tennis fans anymore?
You might know him as Rafael Nadal, the current world number one by a margin. Or perhaps the 2010 Roland Garros Champion. Maybe the title of 2010 Wimbledon Champion is more suitable. Maybe you know him as public enemy number one.
Whatever title you refer to Nadal by, one can never again label him a clay court specialist. 14 consecutive Wimbledon victories, four straight finals, and two titles make Nadal at the very least amongst the most successful grass court players of the modern era. Mind you, he is only 24 years old.
It's high time the establishment, the fans and the entire tennis community, realized exactly what we are watching. While Nadal goes about his business in a starkly different manner than the beloved artist Federer, he is no less effective.
If Federer is the tennis equivalent of Peter Paul Rubens, the epitome of classic beauty and perfection, then Nadal is Salvador Dali. The portrayal of the strange, sometimes brutal, but always mind-blowing genius. He is an abstract revolutionary, one whose work will be admired and studied for years.
I applauded Sports Illustrated's Jon Wertheim for stepping up and acknowledging Serena Williams as the greatest female player of all time. Wertheim took a risk, stood up to the snobs and elitists who make up the majority of the tennis community and who fail to see past the outer packaging of Serena Williams, and recognized the pure brilliance of her dominance.
Preconceived notions can easily cloud our vision. In the spirit of full disclosure and honesty sponsored by Wertheim, it's time to realize the truth of the state of men's tennis. We are living in the era of Rafael
Nadal.
To admit this truth is not treason against Roger Federer. For five consecutive years, Federer ruled the sport with an iron fist, contemptuously swatting aside competition and regularly winning multiple majors per season. Roger is who Roger is. His reign did happen. Nothing can take away from that. He was a tennis player who evolved into a legend.
But it's been apparent since early 2009 that the "Maestro" is no longer the player he once was. It's not something to mourn; it's something to accept. The unfair standard to which he is held is only a recipe for disappointment. The sun rises, and the sun sets.
The Nadal dynasty began in 2008, but was briefly interrupted in 2009 by a fact of life on the tour: injuries. A few months of struggling with poor health and the deficient confidence that always accompanies any injured player who do not fully trust their bodies relegated Nadal to the "lowly" position of three in the world. It seems funny to describe a ranking of three in the world as "lowly."
Alas, Nadal found his legs, he found his belief, and he sent a stern message to the field: Try me if you will. The Soderlings and Murrays of the world, who themselves harbored dreams of number one, were decisively brushed aside at the French Open and Wimbledon. The statistics speak for themselves. Nadal: nine sets won, Murray and Soderling: a combined one set.
As the U.S. Open peeks at us from around the bend, the most grueling and physically punishing major of them all, Nadal still feels he has something to prove. But make no mistake; he has nothing to prove to you, to me, to the "tennis establishment", his eight Slams on three surfaces already put him amongst the best players of all time. His individual head-to-head records against the top Slam contenders speak for themselves.
Nadal is only out to prove, only to himself, that he can conquer the U.S. Open. If history is any indication, anything in the tennis world which he has set his sights on has become subject to him. From Roland Garros to Wimbledon, from Olympic Gold, to the world number one ranking. Smarter scheduling and new treatment for his chronic knee inflammation may just make his U.S. Open goals a reality. After all, it's been quite a while since anyone has beaten a healthy and energized Nadal.
The first decade of the 2000's will be an interesting time in tennis. Whether you are a Federer fan or a supporter of Nadal, the truth is that history will remember this decade as one of shared dominance. There is little real debate about who the world's best player was from 2003-2007; only a fool would argue that Federer was not the man during this time. It was one of the great four-year stretches in modern sports history.
But, likewise, only a fool would argue that we are not living in Nadal's era. With already eight Slams at the ripe age of 24, Nadal has at least three more full years of top form left in him. Who knows what damage he could in the record books before 2013, a full 10 years from Federer's inaugural Grand Slam win? It's very likely that for the first time in the Open era, we will have seen two 10-plus Slam winners within a 10-year span.
In truth, with every Slam title that either man picks up, he adds even more legitimacy to the other's career. So Federer is probably pulling for Nadal in those Slam finals and Nadal for Federer. All of a sudden, a 7-14 head-to-head doesn't seem nearly as bad when you consider the fact that the only guy to have Federer's number is a living legend himself. A 7-14 head to head looks a lot worse against a guy with two or three Slams.
I won't predict the U.S. Open right now, but I will project further. I'm saying it now: Nadal will remain number one in the world for at least another 52 consecutive weeks. He's shown himself to be a different level of player than the rest of the field. Much the way Roger changed the game and forced players to come up with new weapons, Nadal will do the same. Nadal will take another two years or so before anyone will be ready to push him aside permanently. In that time, who knows how many more Slams Nadal will pick up. I'd guess that he'll be a lot closer to Federer's tally than anyone expected.
Link - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...dal.interview/Quote:
Q&A with Rafael Nadal
The eight-time Grand Slam champion talks history, Federer, existence of God
Just 24 years old, Rafael Nadal has bagged titles at the French Open (five), Wimbledon (two) and the Australian Open (one).
Shortly after he won his second Wimbledon title in June, Rafael Nadal met with a small group of reporters from international publications, including Sports Illustrated. Some outtakes from that Q&A session:
SI.com: How much does history motivate you? Do you know, for instance, whose record you tied today?
Rafael Nadal: The history is there for sure, being part of these players -- Connors, Agassi, Lendl -- it's amazing. Just an honor to be close to these players. But I am 24 years old and it's very difficult to talk about the history now, where I am. In my opinion the Grand Slams are not the only thing to value ... I don't have a lot of the information, but what Lendl did at the Masters was amazing. We have to see. We have to value different things, no? We have to see when I finish my career where I am. Right now I am very happy -- I never thought I can be here with 18 Masters 1000 and eight Grand Slams.
SI.com: Does it mean anything to you that at the same age, you're ahead of where Roger Federer was with Grand Slams?
Nadal: No, I think every career is different. For me, it's amazing winning here on grass, winning on hard court in Australia. I hope to do well at the U.S. Open for sure -- I've reached semifinals the last two years. For Roger, I think ... maybe it's easier than for me because I am especially [good] on clay and we have only one [clay-court Slam]. I can play very well on grass, too. But hard court players, they have more chances than the clay-court specialists. They have three. We have one. For sure I can play well on grass ... but the chances are less.
SI.com: Do you still think of yourself as a clay-court specialist, even now that you've won two Wimbledon titles?
Nadal: I don't feel like a clay-court specialist. Not now and not even when I didn't win [on other surfaces]. In 2005, I won in Montreal, very difficult. I won in Madrid [when it was an indoor event] on a very fast surface, too. I didn't play my best tennis at hardcourt or grass Grand Slams at that moment, but I was able to do it. I think I am a complete player. I can play well on all the surfaces. For me, the clay might be easiest but I am not a specialist on clay. I have five finals at Roland Garros. I have four here.
SI.com: There are people who say Roger is over the hill, that he won't come to the top again. What's your opinion?
Nadal: My opinion is that everyone said the same two years ago and after that he won in Australia, he won in Roland Garros, he won Wimbledon, he won the U.S. Open, so we will see what happens. Roger is good enough, he has enough experience. For sure it's difficult what he did the last seven, eight years, impossible to repeat for another player ... Roger is going to be there, I'm sure of it.
SI.com: You talk about your difficulties, what is not easy for you. Is it more difficult to face problems on court or in your private life? Which, in your opinion, was the biggest problem you ever faced?
Nadal: You're talking about the divorce of my parents?
SI.com: No. Everything.
Nadal: I think the tennis is only a game. You can lose. You can win. After that? In life, there are much more important things than tennis. I know that for sure ... I didn't have a lot of problems in my private life and I feel very lucky for that. But you always have things. For sure, the tennis right is an important pat of my life -- it's my work -- and I have a few health problems for the last few years, especially last year. But I feel lucky. Even then I felt, "You've won six Grand Slams, you've won a lot of titles. You're 23 years old. Be calm and be happy. What you have already is a lot."
SI.com: Do you believe in God? We see football players crossing themselves. You don't do that. Do you do praying?
Nadal: It's hard to say, "I don't believe in God." I would love to know if God exists. But it's a very difficult thing for me to believe. I don't know. It's private and I don't want to speak about it, but I say, "If God exists, you don't need [to cross yourself] or pray." If God exists, he's intelligent enough to [do] the important things, the right things.
SI.com: Can you describe glory?
Nadal: The glory is being happy. The glory is not winning here or winning there. The glory is enjoying practicing, enjoy every day, enjoying to work hard, trying to be a better player than before.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz0tsVOuueQ
:shock: This guy doesn't speak like a 24-year old.
Link - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...-greatness-pt2Quote:
Fed and Rafa: Two Different Paths to Greatness Part Two
By TIM RUFFIN (Featured Columnist) on March 29, 2010
On Nadal.
He's exciting to watch. He never gives up no matter how far down he is. He's extremely humble, oh and he say's all the right things. What more could you wish for from a tennis player? It doesn't really get a lot better than that.
I know what you're going to say: I'm biased. Yes, I enjoy watching Nadal play more than any other player. Yes, I respect his work ethic, and most of all his heart. But so what? This isn't a piece about which player is better, which player is greater. It's a piece discussing two different approaches of these two men, not in relation to anything else.
For players like Sampras, Graf, and Federer, the measure of a career is found in the end result. The number of wins, the Grand Slam titles, the weeks spent as the No. 1 player in the world, their careers are based on a singular drive toward tangible excellence. It’s an extraordinary thing.
They see a goal flung far off into the horizon and they claw towards it, slam after slam, honing their skills to a sharpened point. The results speak for themselves; Sampras, a six-time year end No. 1. Graf, 22-time Grand Slam winner and golden Slam winner. Federer, 16-time Grand Slam titlist and career slam holder. Those names will forever be synonymous with greatness, and rightfully so.
But for as much as hard core dedication and singular focus are traits to be admired in a tennis player, there are other champions who have opted to take the road less traveled, and chart their own course to tennis immortality.
There have been a precious few who have gone in the face of convention and been so radically different, so breathtaking that we had no choice but to watch. Rafa Nadal is one such champion.
Nadal is to Federer, exactly what Federer is to Nadal. A rival, a measuring stick, and the ultimate validation.
They needed each other in order to attain the levels of success that they have. There couldn’t be more of a difference between these two twenty-somethings (though Federer is five years older) in their approach to tennis and their careers.
Federer has staked his claim on physical tokens, namely Grand Slam singles trophies. His drive is centered on his need to have his name and achievements remembered, and recorded in history.
Federer is the ultimate man of substance, preferring arguments (namely about the intriguing G.O.A.T. debate) be based in hard fact.
Nadal’s approach is far different. With the long hair, the youthful fist pumps, the soft personality, one gets the impression that Nadal is less interested in racking up hordes of records (though I’m sure he’ll take them if they come) and being No. 1, as he is in the journey to reach No. 1.
Success came so early for Nadal. His game was so unusual, outfitted with heavily top spun shots, alarming foot speed, and an aptitude for tennis that has perhaps never been rivaled. So expressive on the court, but so timid off it, Nadal was the perfect solution to the one man show that tennis was in danger of slipping into.
The strong, athletic Nadal brought a new infusion of youth into the sport. He created a media sensation reminiscent of that created by a young Borg, or pubescent Andre Agassi. He was so different from the sleek and classically refined Federer, that the clash of styles and games became the centerpiece of tennis. No matter how you slice it, rivalries are immensely important to any sport.
Tennis is no exception.
So the chase began, and provided the sport with the kind of theater that hadn’t been seen since the mid 1990s. Nadal got off to a running start and proved not to fear the mighty Federer at all. Though despite some classic encounters and a healthy head-to-head lead, Nadal was still considered to be the second best player in the world to Federer.
2008 seemed to be a major changing of the guard.
I still happen to believe that it was, but has simply been put on hold a bit. In short, Nadal played at an unbelievable level. About halfway through the year something happened. The forehand started to penetrate closer to the baseline. The high topspin backhand gave way to a wicked flat point-ending two hander. The serve edged closer to the lines and picked up 8-10 mph. Nadal got better in every aspect of the game.
Early on it seemed that Novak Djokovic was gearing up to pass Rafa as the second best player in the world. Not, so quickly. Nadal found out that he had an extra gear, one he hadn't used before. Djokovic quickly became an afterthought.
After blitzing through the clay court season (as usual) Nadal ran through the French Open (as usual). The surprise was the ease with which he disposed of the No. 1 seed (really a joke that anyone would be seeded higher than he), Roger Federer. It was the most dominating performance over a top flight opponent we've seen since John McEnroe dismantled Jimmy Connors at Wimbledon in 1984.
The kid called Rafa went through the grass court season undefeated racking up wins over Djokovic, Roddick, and Federer again, as he finally captured the elusive Wimbledon crown he sought after for years. Nadal backed up his claim as the new "best in the business" by dismissing Federer again in a Grand Slam final in Australia. For the third time in the slam finals, on three surfaces he had bested the former undisputed number one. There really was no debate, no real argument. Nadal was now the new king of clay, grass, and hard courts.
Just shy of 52 straight weeks at the number one spot, the dam broke. Everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong. Nadal's chronic knee problems caught up to him. He finally played a bad match on clay, while his opponent played a nearly perfect match at the same time. The result was shocking loss in the fourth round of his beloved French Open to a guy who had never shown himself to be any real threat on clay prior to then.
The knees got worse and Nadal skipped Wimbledon. Unable to defend his title, he watched at home as the man he'd worked so hard to surpass picked up his trophies. First in Paris, then at Wimbledon. Nadal watched his rival walk away with both his trophies, and his No. 1 ranking.
The rest of 2009 was downhill from there. Though the Spaniard never lost earlier than the Quarterfinals at any event, he failed to win any either. His best result was a semifinal run at the U.S. Open; remarkable considering that an abdominal injury kept his biggest serves under 100 mph.
His game seemed to have taken steps backwards. Gone were the flat, penetrating forehands he'd stormed to the No. 1 ranking with. The backhand cross-court, which had become one of the very best in the world, was now nothing more than a heavily spun rally shot.
Nadal reverted back to his 2006 style of play. Perhaps he was concerned with protecting his knees, afraid to run at full speed. Perhaps he just wasn't confident at all. Whatever it was, his style of play was getting him waxed at the hands of guys he used to own like, del Potro, Djokovic, Davydenko, even young Marin Cilic got in on the fun. It was payback time for a lot of players who had taken a lot of beatings at the hands of the six-time major champion.
Once again, the fickle had their say, just as they did when Federer was struggling. There were the almost gleeful predictions that the Spaniard had worn his body out at the age of 23. He'd never be the player he was in 2008 again. He’s never winning a major again. He'd never beat a top 10 player again.
The fact is that it's hard to argue with facts. Nadal hasn't won a major since the 2009 Australian Open. He hasn't been to the finals of one. He hasn't won a tournament in nearly a year. So there is reason to doubt, valid reasons. So this is your chance to get off of the Nadal bandwagon for good. If there was ever a reason to jump ship, this is it.
While you guys climb into the life rafts, I'm going to keep my seat. I'm going to trust Captain Nadal to repair the damage to the ship and continue on successfully to his intended destination. Call me crazy, if nothing else, I'm loyal.
But I'm not merely hanging on to a wing and a prayer here. First, 23 is way too young to give up on a career. I don't want to hear about his body aging faster than a normal tennis player. It's true, but not to the extent that some would have you think. Nadal is a thick, strong guy. His body can handle more than the average tennis player, let alone human being. At 23, he can still bounce back. Show me a torn ACL. Show me a sciatica problem. Nadal's chronic tendinitis is extremely painful (I speak from experience), it will always be an issue for him, and yes it will ultimately end his career. Just not now. I can't see Nadal playing much past the age of 28. Still, that's more than four years away. Plenty of time to do damage.
At Indian Wells I saw a different version of Rafa. This one more reminiscent of the 2008 Nadal. Though he lost in the semifinals to a red hot, and huge serving Ivan Ljubicic, Nadal managed to make quite the impression.
First, the myth of his inability to beat tall, powerful, flat ball hitters on a hard court was just that, a myth.
Very few players have been as hot as the 6'9" American John Isner this year. Isner could very well have the best serve in the world right now. He's developed a huge forehand, vastly improved net play, and fitness. He's been collecting some big time scalps lately too. Roddick, Querrey, and Monfils to name a few.
This guy has been very confident and was playing in front of an American crowd when he squared off against Nadal. Most of the money was on Isner. After all Nadal, was just coming off a six week injury break.
This was a season turning type of match for Nadal. He did not disappoint. He put together a masterful match in turning away the young American. Then he went on to best his old nemesis, the 6'5" Tomas Berdych. This was the match where the Nadal speed finally seemed to be back. The Spaniard got to the ball sooner and hit it more aggressively.
When Nadal plays his game, and is confidently penetrating the court no one can beat him. They should put a line on the court halfway between the baseline and the service box. Then track the percentage of points Nadal wins when the tennis ball lands past that line versus inside it.
The Murrays, Djokovics, del Potros, and especially the Soderlings have been and will be in deep trouble if Nadal keeps the ball deep. When he's aggressive, the speedier guys fall back behind the baseline. The power hitters, like Soderling are put on the run where they are far less effective. When Nadal is on top of things Federer is the only player in his zip code, and vice versa.
At the end of both the storied careers of Federer and Nadal, no matter what happens between now and then, both these two geniuses will be forever linked.
The name Federer will not be able to be mentioned without the name Nadal soon after, and vice versa. We will remember Roger as the overachieving, straight A student. The man who had always had one eye on the tennis ball and one eye on the record books. A goal-oriented man.
For his part, Nadal will most likely be remembered more so as the anomaly, the player who played with his heart and for himself. A lover of the game, and a player more in love with the moment than the result. I believe that the second tennis is no longer enjoyable for Nadal, he will walk away from the sport with absolutely no regrets. He lives to compete, Federer lives to win. Two very different, yet very effective approaches to a career.
True champions, as boxing legend Muhammad Ali once said, are those whose will is stronger than their skill.
Link - http://espn.go.com/sports/tennis/blo...ic-euro-doubleQuote:
Rafa defies logic with Euro double
Rafael Nadal won the French Open and Wimbledon back-to-back for the second time Sunday in London, and he put it in perspective better than anyone else could when he said, "It didn't happen since Borg, so now last three years it happen twice. So how crazy is the life."
Not as crazy as it might seem, although I have no desire to minimize the nature of the achievement, established as a benchmark for greatness by Bjorn Borg, who completed the third of his three Channel Slams in 1980.
After all, the only great players in the Open era to turn the feat were Rod Laver, Borg, Roger Federer and Nadal. And only two have done it twice. (To boot, Laver put up two calendar-year Grand Slams, but his first Channel Slam was before the transition to the Open game.)
Still, up until Nadal won both events in 2008, the conventional logic held that the Euro double demanded a death march no player could endure in this era of great competition, strength, fitness and stamina. The clay and grass surfaces were just too different and demanded such different skills that it wouldn't happen again. So how could it?
The most convenient answer is that the grass courts of Wimbledon slowed down enough to make the feat possible. There's some truth in that, but not nearly enough to explain three Channel Slams in three years. One of the things Wimbledon demonstrated this year is that even though the turf is friendlier to the baseline game, it still rewards the outstanding serve disproportionately. Not as much as in the past, perhaps, but the potency of the serve is still greater on grass than on any other surface.
The less geeky but more realistic answer is that we've been blessed with two extraordinary players in Federer and Nadal. Sometimes, the obvious or simple answer is also the correct one.
Federer has amply demonstrated that he has the skill set to win Roland Garros, at least in any year when he doesn't have to face Nadal. You don't get to four consecutive finals at Roland Garros on credit. In this, Nadal fans can argue that Federer got a gift from the gods in 2009 when Robin Soderling put an ailing Nadal out of the French -- clearing the way for Federer to bag his only red-clay major.
And Nadal has demonstrated that he has the ability to win Wimbledon, whether or not Federer is in his way. That's because the gods -- Mercury, to be precise -- gave him the gift that's critical to winning both events. Great movement and quickness.
Nadal acknowledge that Sunday, saying, "I think I have very good thing to play here, on grass. It's the movement. I move well on this court, and that's very important part of the game."
If you have any doubts, you can check with Borg. His movement also was superb. And Federer would say "ditto," as well.
Let's be frank about this. Federer was extremely lucky that Nadal lost before the final at Roland Garros last year. The record is there to prove it. That's not a knock on Federer; it still took an amazing effort to close the deal once Nadal was out of the way because of the inherent pressure.
Luck played a huge role in Federer's run through the Channel Slam last year, which helps explain how the feat could be accomplished for three years in a row. It's fun to analyze it, but most appropriate to just celebrate it.
Link - http://espn.go.com/sports/tennis/blo...urish-flushingQuote:
Nadal set to finally flourish at Flushing
By Tom Perrotta, TENNIS.com
The U.S. Open Series began this week in Atlanta, where Andy Roddick is making a surprise visit. As the summer hard-court season gets into full swing, here's what's on my mind.
Rafa's best shot
First things first: Rafael Nadal can win in Flushing, N.Y., and this is his best chance to capture the U.S. Open. He was playing well enough to take the title in 2008, but the added burden of the Olympics (he won the gold medal in Beijing) wore him down. I don't put too much stock in the other barriers often discussed: The courts are too fast for him and the surface is too hard on his body. Nonsense, I say -- he can win on anything. Nadal hasn't won the U.S. Open because of its place at the end of the tennis calendar. This year, he should be in good health, as he won't have to worry about the Olympics, and he has a better understanding of his knee tendinitis and how to treat it. He'll also have weaker competition: Juan Martin del Potro, the defending champion, isn't going to play and Roger Federer hasn't played well since the Australian Open (though I wouldn't count him out, either). If Nadal is healthy when he arrives in Flushing, he'll be the favorite.
The Czechs are for real
Here's one reason Nadal might not win the U.S. Open this September: Tomas Berdych. Berdych couldn't even salvage a set against Nadal in the Wimbledon final, and he has lost seven consecutive matches to the Spaniard (without winning a set). Streaks like that have to end eventually, and Berdych has the firepower to end it on a big stage. If del Potro can win the U.S. Open, so can Berdych -- he's that talented.
Link - http://www.telegraphindia.com/110072...y_12720415.jspQuote:
Nadal looking unbeatable
Serve & Volley
Naresh Kumar
With the Wimbledon fortnight during the World Cup 2010, it has been one of the greatest and most enjoyable of sporting summers. Spain with a revival of the buccaneering spirit of the conquistadors captured the world soccer title and Rafael Nadal with victories at Wimbledon and Roland Garros became the undisputed monarch of world tennis.
Two occurrences, however, struck a sad note in sporting hearts. First, the defeat of the Brazil with their mesmerising ‘Joga Bonito’ style of play, and secondly, the end of the reign of the greatest player of all time the 28-year old Swiss Roger Federer, the lone ‘Joga Bonito’ of the tennis world.
The Brazilians will come back with their magic and the Samba drums, but who will replace Federer now waltzing into the last pages of his illustrious career. There will never be another like him.
I first saw the decline in Federer’s game at the French Open. The hallmark of Federer’s game, which set him apart from the pack, was his ability to fearlessly hit winners and go for service aces on important points.
In Paris, I noticed that on more than one crucial occasion Federer tended to hold back and play safe rather than go flat out when an opening was there. Many, many years ago, I remember Jack Kramer telling me that at the highest level it was futile to put the ball back on pivotal points and hope that your opponent will make an error — they won’t. Federer’s inability to close out matches is time’s foot in the door saying “enough”. Indeed, it is enough.
With a career spanning 900 matches, a record breaking 16 Grand Slams, Federer has smashed almost every record in tennis history. He must be rated as the greatest of all time. The only blemish, and who doesn’t have one, is that in a head to head with Nadal, Federer trails by 7 matches to 14 ! Nadal’s spectacular victories on the slow clay courts of Roland Garros and on the fast grass at Wimbledon highlight the versatility of his game and signals the dawn of the Nadal era.
The whirling dervish-like swing of his topspin forehand, the viciously sliced backhand, Beckham-like swerve on passing shots and a flat coup de grace forehand, with a powerfully accurate serve have overwhelmed the opposition. Nadal is described by his support team as one “who mixes the pace of 200 metre runner with the resistance of a marathon runner.” They further add, “we know he is Nadal and that he will overcome everything”.
In politics time unravels it, but in tennis, for Nadal spin has brought control, consistency, direction and deception. Woven together and strung in Nadal’s steel frame it now rules the tennis world. Nadal has taken the game to an unbelievable level of accuracy, consistency and endurance. The challenge to Nadal will come from the well over 6-feet giants lurking in the top echelons of the game.
Their height leverages more power and a sharper angle on the service can open up a large vulnerable gap on the receiver’s court.
But will the challengers be able to measure up to the level of consistency demanded by Nadal’s game?
For the moment, Nadal’s standards seem unbeatable, provided he stays free of injury.
Link - http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20...he_backs_NadalQuote:
McEnroe states the obvious as he backs Nadal
7/23/10 6:23 PM | Johan Lindahl
John McEnroe just can't keep a thought to himself, with the mega-mouth of the tennis world joining the Rafael Nadal bandwagon and tipping the world No. 1 for more future success.
Mac, not known for taking a chance with his predictions, says the Spaniard will claim another six or seven additional Grand Slam titles to add to his current total of eight.
With an opinion never far from his lips, the 51-year-old former ace claims Nadal has taken over from Federer in the current game, all but writing off the 16-time Swiss Grand Slam champion, whose twin girls turned one year old this week with a birthday party at home south of Zurich.
"Roger is not going to dominate the way he did, he knows it," said Mac after picking up some small appearance fee change at an American summer league event. "He (Federer) loves to play still. I think he'll win a couple more majors."
But, warned the talkative American: "The upside for Nadal is greater. He could win six, seven more. I think Federer could win one, two more."
"That's my opinion. Maybe he'll prove me wrong. He's already got 16, so it's not like he hasn't broken every record already. Maybe give someone else a chance."
nadal wins 1st round after a fight:
Rafael Nadal ESP Def Teymuraz Gabashvili RUS 7(7)-6(4), 7(7)-6(4), 6-3
vadi chellam vadi vadi :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by MADDY
Nadal has made tremendous improvement on his serve (serving in 130s'), which should augur well for this surface. It was a very stiff match for the first 2 sets with no breaks. Gabashvill played one heck of a match, but as expected couldn't sustain for long. Either way, it was a perfect match to shrug off all the rust.
Nadal definitely looks well rested & very well prepared :clap:
The great thing about Nadal is his desire to win. He improved in lot of areas to suit all courts. Amazing player indeed.
more than the desire...it is the WILL to WIN... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tamizharasan
I hope he does well and goes on to hold the US Open Championship Trophy..... :)
But it is going to be a very hard fight...he has to be very quick on this surface....
Link - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4...tennis-historyQuote:
Rafael Nadal Is The Greatest Competitor in Tennis History?
By Whitaker W H Chambers III(Correspondent) on September 4, 2010
NEW YORK - SEPTEMBER 03: Rafael Nadal of Spain celebrates a point against Denis Istomin of Uzbekistan (not pictured) during day five of the 2010 U.S. Open at the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center on September 3, 2010 in the Flushing neighborhood of the Queens borough of New York City. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images) "The Look"
Andrew Burton/Getty Images
John McEnroe called it the one of the best played points in US Open history. Dennis Istomin played an amazing set leading to this point against the No.1 player in the world to go up 5-1 in the tiebreak. It earned him a standing ovation from the 20,000 people at center court.
It lasted a minute or two and Istomin took it in.
Across the net, Rafael Nadal's face had changed. People who have a taste for enjoying tennis, are very familiar with this. His eyes contorted like arrows, his eyebrows became cliff edges on each side and his pupils became shadows. He was already back on the baseline ready to play the next point.
People, who have been watching tennis since 2005, recognized a look on Nadal's face, and anticipated what followed.
Istomin would not win another point.
Mental edge
Think of the greatest competitors from any sport. The sportsmen who could repeatedly summon an extreme focus in big moments that determined whether they win or lose. An extreme focus combined with a "fighting to win every point" mentality that overwhelmed their competitors to the point of exhaustion and then, defeat.
Michael Jordan comes to mind. Tiger Woods, when on the golf course and before the car crashed, comes to mind. Tim Tebow, Ian Thorpe,Andres Iniesta
, all of them could achieve a state of extreme focus and come through, repeatedly. It seems their mental edge, rather than skill, is the difference between them and their competitors.Quote:
Who is the best competitor in tennis history?
# Roger Federer 25.0%
# Bjorn Borg 1.4%
# Pete Sampras 1.4%
# Jimmy Connors 10.0%
# Rafael Nadal 62.1%
Total votes: 631
All of them, in big matches, in big moments have the same look. It is a look that combines and screams determination, resolve, immovability, will. They realize it is a competition and are thinking that nothing will stop them from winning. It almost seems like they are willing to put their life on the line to win
This same look can be seen during every big match involving Rafael Nadal.
Roger Federer
Let's make one thing clear. Roger Federer is the best player in tennis history. He is an innovator who has changed tennis in uncountable ways. He made the powerful shots intelligent and the intelligent shots powerful. He broke all the records, and set countless unbreakable ones. He did it with style, grace and with artistic flair.
He, as the leading man, brought tennis from the bland power era in 2002, after things looked bleak to arguably its most golden global era, where tennis leads ESPN Sportscenter and is one of the fastest rising sports in the world.
Federer was the first player in history to have no weaknesses. He mastered every single facet of the game. Sampras wasn't the best base-liner, Agassi didn't have the serve or the volley, most great players had multiple weaknesses. Federer was an evolutionary flash-point in tennis players. The first to stand upright.
81854138_crop_358x243 The Greatest Match ever
Julian Finney/Getty Images
Federer/Nadal
There is only one thing that Federer's game cannot contend with. Rafael Nadal's competitiveness. His competitive spirit would not allow him to lose, including many times that he should have.
In the 2007 French Open final, Federer had 18 break point chances. In most 3 or 4 set matches, 18 break point chances, signifies a completely dominant match, in which, one player repeatedly created opportunities on the other player's serve. Federer broke only once. Nadal jumped up a level, every time, to save himself and in the end, won the championship.
In the 2008 Wimbledon final, after being taken down the first two sets, Federer jumped a level in the 4th set tiebreak and stayed at it in the 5th. Nadal would not let himself lose and ended up winning in the dark.
Therein lies the difference between two of the greatest players in history. Federer has won 16 grand slams by outclassing the competition. Nadal has won 8, by competing every point and winning every big point.
Does competitive spirit matter?
The 2009 Madrid semifinal is one of the most incredible displays of competitive spirit and willpower in tennis and any sport. Nadal had tendinitis in both knees and was in pain. Novak Djokovic was playing extremely well. It was the final tiebreak and Djokovic was playing the better of the two. Djokovic played great shots to gain match point after match point. Point after point, Nadal played incredible shots to save himself and eventually left Djokovic an exhausted man and in the end won the match.
2009 Madrid
Novak Djokovic is as talented a tennis player there is. There is a noticeable difference in the way he thinks about tennis and the way Nadal thinks about tennis. Djokovic's main ambitions are to do impersonations and be a tennis star, loved by New York and the world. Nadal's main ambition is to be able to compete point after point in big points and in big tournaments at his full potential. They are the same age. Nadal has eight grand slams and counting and Djokovic has one.
Greatest competitor ever?
Wimbledon 08, the three French Opens against Federer, Rome against Federer, Madrid against Djokovic, Australian Open against Verdasco then Federer. Nadal has been in a hell of a lot of classic 5 set and 3 set matches in his short career. The most amazing thing is that he has won just about all of them
Nadal is the fiercest competitor, in tennis, from the past twenty years. There are two other players that come close to matching his spirit, Jimmy Connors and Guillermo Vilas, but Nadal has a greater skill level. But it seems like a question of semantics.
Your life depends on having one match, set, point. On any surface hard, grass, clay, clouds. You can choose any tennis player ever. Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, etc.
I would be happy with Nadal against any of them.
Nadal's best opportunity to win US Open, with Murray is out from his half. He is almost assured to reach final now.
watching the match between Nadal and Lopez - on this surface, Nadal is not getting the time for his shots nor he is getting the angles and top spin.......it is indeed a very tough stage for nadal and anything more QF is a bonus for him(&us)
nadal has improved mightily on serve - serving aces and playing a bit of serve&volley as well :shock: :lol: .....but lopez is giving him a good fight - its not going to be easy for Nadal against quality players
Nadal through to QF, to face verdasco....only advantage is that verdasco will be tired after a 5 setter win over ferrer
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/sports/tennis/08nadal.html?ref=tennis
:thumbsup:Quote:
He has not been broken yet in the tournament.
“Seriously, seriously, I don’t know,” Nadal said. “I think it is a matter of confidence.”
nadal to face another 5 setter opponent :D idha payan paduthhikanum - djokovic is a awesome player and can derail nadal's dreams
All time Greatest Nadal to confirm it by winning the US open in 2010.
Nesstu target for Nadal - calendar grandslam. Just missu this year!
paravillaye plum chatterji ippa ungalukku nalla workout aaguthu pola :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by MADDY
Djokovic mothama oru settukku thevayaana games jeyappaarunnu paarppom...........
Also time to change to the title of this thread.....
Not yet-ji. Dijikovic rasigar mandrathin saarbil idhai vanmaiyaaga kandikkiren.Quote:
Originally Posted by omega
But honestly, looks like Nadal's time has come to be crowned Career Grand Slam champion.
rain neutralises any advantage that Nadal had or rather disadvantage that Djokovic had.....its even now with Djokovic with his hardcourt expertise as upper hand
kanneere kanneere, sandhosha kanneere
they told he cant play on grass - he won 2 wimbledon
they told he cant play on hard court - he won US open
he is a career gramdslam champion
God's own child Nadal
Adhu :D
Youngest man to collect 'career Grandslam'
Nadal is the best, rest are all opinions
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanjeevi
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanjeevi
semis varadhe kashtam-nnu pottaru, adhayum thedanum Nerd :x
Nadal :thumbsup: :clap: :clap:
Great determination & true champion.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MADDY
:clap: (Hope that includes Pistol also)