How strong is Nadal mentally?

@Slippy
Thanks, and yes I agree with your analysis as usual.

@Daniel
An observation: compared to your posting on 606v2, your posting on OTF now is much more unbiased and impartial. Less partisan than me, and fairer on Nadal than you were in the past. Others should take note and learn!

Of course, I still can't stick him and I make no pretenses on that front.  But we should be separating the person from the player.

Daniel wrote:Of course, I still can't stick him and I make no pretenses on that front.  But we should be separating the person from the player.

I've met him in real life and he's actually a very nice, quite shy person. Just on court he's very pumped up, so I can see why he comes across badly to those who don't have a good first impression.

Tenez wrote:I chose it cause you referred to it, in particular how he saved all those BPs. So I was just showing how it happened....nothing too gutsy in it. I mentioned in my OP that in the past Nadal had the luxury to have a slowed down Bh coming from Federer due to federer sticking to old technology....therefore that really helped Nadal who kept hammering that side...and made him look better and gutsier than he really was. 

I said about the whole match, not particularly 5th set from 1-3 on wards. And forcing your opponent into Unforced-errors is NOT easy a you making it look like.
  
Is it Nadal's problem that Fed stuck to the old stone-age racquet? And This is not just about Nadal vs Fed. The topic is about Nadal's general mental strength and not in particular against Fed. He may have been 'allowed' as you like to assume to look better than he was against Fed, but nothing such exists against other top guys ( Djokovic, Murray, Roddick etc.) and Nadal has great record against them too. 

Tenez wrote:That's the very strength of Nadal...pulling all those Unforced or forced errors. In his case there is no risk involved at all. It;s his spin who generates all those. This topspin is one of teh safest shot in the world...yet pretty tough to handle due to the energy in the ball. That is the cornerstone of his game. It's not gutsy though. 

No risk huh? Then why Fed and the rest of the entire field not doing it? Why go for riskier 'gutsier' shorts? Just to prove fans like us that they are mentally strong? Is that the aim of the game?


You think this heavy spin is free? You think anyone can generate it at will? Why has no player in entire history of tennis able to do it? There must have been looking at how successful Nadal is with that and its cheap spin after
all. See, what you are trying to say is like saying Karlovic's great serving is all about his height and nothing else . No guts or skill about it. You think anyone who is about as tall as Karlovic must be able to serve like him?

Tenez wrote:I am afraid it does. It determines your talent, mental and fitness ratio. there is no way around those simple facts. Woudl federer serve less efficiently if he could serve more efficiently? Wouldn't Nadal have liked to hit flatter and more consistently in that 5th set or even against Kyrgios. Woudl not he have liked to stand closer on Kyrgios serve and put a bit more pressure on his serve like Dimi did or federer can do? Either he has not got the talent or simply think it is too risky and prefers to use his legs and extra power to retrieve the ball from further behind. 

YES. Fed would serve less efficiently if that would win him matches. Would Federer try to reduce pace on his first serve? YES if that helps him get better placement and a weaker return. Would Fed despite being a good server not look for an outright ace but instead  go for a body serve to get a return ? YES he would, because that adds some element of surprise and  helps winning the point.

And Nadal( or anyone out there) cares nothing about hitting flatter or harder or absolutely any particular way of play. Kyrgios wouldn't care a hoot about hitting flatter if it doesn't win him points. So just because a player is not doing a certain game-play doesn't mean he is mentally weak to do it. Its just that it doesn't fit for it.

 The aim of the game is to win the point and any game-play that can get it is right. And how effectivly one is able to pull it determines mental strength. NOT the kind of game-play. If One can pull 15 slams just by lobbing the ball 20m in the air, that would be one heck of a player's mental strength to be able to do such a thing and still win.

Nadal's game-play whatever be it, he pulls it extremely well. And that shows mentally strong he is. His results show. He's 2nd only to GOAT.

Tenez wrote:because he is second to none physically....actually he is second to Djokovic. 

So what? Why are you trying to downgrade his achievements just because is a physically best out there ( lets assume it for a while though I would not agree here ).


Would you similarly downgrade Fed's success because his timing on shots is second to none?  You think great physical fitness and impeccable timing is free that having it is no big deal.

Tenez wrote:And we saw that v Djoko when he is forced to attack he is often on the losing end.

So what? We all know Nadal game is not about attacking. How does it mean that he is mentally weak. 

This is where we are on different lines. You have entirely assumed that mental strength is only required to be an attacking player. If a player is not about attack-first, he must be mental midget. And so is Nadal.

 So so wrong.

... wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

luvsports! wrote:ROTLA is a feds fan?

He is from what he has said.

Being a Feds fan doesn't mean one can't appreciate Nadal

And what os there to appreciate about Nadal?
His talent?
His fair play?
His body being pumped woth steroids and God knows what else?
Him bannong umpires for doing thheir job?
Wanting a two year protected ranking...

Nadal is the biggest fraud in the history of sport.

Yes, I'm a Fed fan but I'm not a blind Fed fan. I would NOT go on to call Nadal the biggest fraud in history of sport.


And what os there to appreciate about Nadal?


His talent?
-----
Definitely. He has the game that no else in the entire history of tennis ever showed. His game is unique and its adds to tennis viewing.


His fair play?
-----
He is open to try anything that is he allowed to by the umpires. If umpires are allowing him, its hard to bring morality in professional sports. 

His body being pumped woth steroids and God knows what else?
-----
Do I think he dopes? YES. 

Him bannong umpires for doing thheir job?
-----

I don't think he ever got any umpire banned. That was 2015 and I have seen Carlos Bernades in some of his matches. He said it in the match but I don't think such request are granted. 

Wanting a two year protected ranking...
----


Its self-serving opinion. Everyone can have whatever suits them.

ALERT: Tenez caught moving goalposts

Let's go through it sequentially:

1/

Tenez wrote:Even serving one can see the guts, talent ratio.
Nadal abuses spin there to make his serve safe...
if he were using his power and hit flat....he could outace anyone. Just that he'd lose lots of precision and would be forced to play more second serves.

Check full post on page 1, but basically Tenez talks about Nadal not hitting flat serves as evidence of him both lacking talent and lacking guts.
"If Nadal coudl serve at 125mph in the corner at a good ratio (hence have talent), he will do it"

2/ I point out that if Tenez is right that Nadal's serving ability isn't good enough to hit 125mph with a high percentage right in the corner, it's pragmatic for him to not do so, esp as his neutral rallying is so good after 115 mph first serves. I pointed out it's pragmatism not mental weakness. Unfortunately Tenez must have not seen this rebuttal since he didn't address it, even though I made the point several times. Still insisted it's both lack of serving talent and guts, which doesn't make logical sense.

3/ I speculate:
"Also, and I don't usually like making points like these without statistics, I can swear that Nadal hits MORE aces as a percentage when break point down than in normal play. The one down the T. Am I the only one with this feeling?"
Tenez doesn't refute my point despite my lack of data, because those who watch Nadal and tennis regularly will know it's quite patently true (Slippy a Murray fan also agreed later).
The percentage of times he's hit ace break point down is higher than ace per normal point. And it's more often down the T which is a higher risk serve for the left hander on Ad. side.
This doesn't prove he's suddenly a great server, but does show good mental strength. His break points saved percentage is also good overall.

4/

Tenez wrote:Again, bad example...there is a second serve ....in case the ace doesn't land....sure a bit more pressure on the second serve but it is so spinny that its a pretty good second serve.

Tenez has suddenly realised that going for a flat first serve on important points isn't actually connected to mental strength after all...
Read point number 1 and the Tenez quote there, literally a direct contradiction. Nadal being chastised for not hitting a flat first serve.   

I've seen it so many times. Make a point. Ignore the clear logical flaw. Then when it's convenient, contradict himself and move the goalposts at the same time.

DECIMA wrote:

Daniel wrote:Of course, I still can't stick him and I make no pretenses on that front.  But we should be separating the person from the player.

I've met him in real life and he's actually a very nice, quite shy person. Just on court he's very pumped up, so I can see why he comes across badly to those who don't have a good first impression.

Yeah, I mean the person on the court (what I mean is the person from the play. The skill, talent, shots... from the actual behaviour of the person) - not away from it.  But, still, I'd say you learn a lot more about a person when he's losing and when he's playing than you do in a meeting.  He actually doesn't come across to me as bad outside the sport.  I've seen a few videos of him, including with Federer, where he's laughing and joking. He comes across pleasant.  I just wish a lot of the gamesmanship,  fistpumping, and arrogance wasn't there.  He's done a lot of things that for me are red flags. For example, he knew that final shot by Fed was in at the Aussie Open and challenged it regardless - hoping against hope that a valid shot would be overturned.  I just think things like that are really poor sportsmanship. If he had not done those things, I'd support him. In fact, I did used to enjoy watching him win on clay at the start of his career.

Btw, I know plenty of people who are mostly pleasant away from tennis, but will admit to calling line calls wrong in order to win.  Our "captain" in doubles instructed me not to call my own - or partners - mistakes.  I asked him why and he said "They [the other teams] don't do it".  I told him that wasn't a good enough reason to basically cheat and he told me that if I called out my own or partners serves / shots again, I'd be off the team.  So, what I do instead is deliberately miss my next shot. He doesn't know that, of course.

Daniel wrote:For example, he knew that final shot by Fed was in at the Aussie Open and challenged it regardless - hoping against hope that a valid shot would be overturned. 

Oh come on now. How can you be so sure that he knew it. Have you not seen some of the most horrible line-calls and no over-rule by chair? 

It was match-point and one has to make it absolutely sure about it. Nadal had a challenge left, why not use it.

Because it was absolutely obvious.  He was looking directly at the line - and I know how easy it is to see a shot like that from that distance (it wasn't a fast ball from Fed either. It was slow and high.).  And I suggest you look at his reaction afterwards... he even gives a quick and telling glance to Federer.  He did it simply to hope that Hawkeye got it wrong.  Desperation. The ball was PLUMB on the line.  And thanks to that it ruined what would have been a lovely moment for Federer and his fans.  Took all the joy and emotion out of the moment.  Also, he did it earlier in the match to gain some time - he was shaking his head and looking up at the sky knowing Hawkeye wasn't going to overturn it that time, as well. 

"Why not use it?"

You're as bad as he is. The challenge system isn't there to overturn genuine shots or to knock a player's rhythm.  It's there when you aren't sure that a shot was in. Nadal tried to cheat. If you know your opponents shot is in and you then use Hawkeye anyway, you are a ... SHIT HEAD. 

And, yes, the Umpire should have over-ruled.

Watch the replay again Daniel, he immediately points 'wide', so he clearly thought it was out initially. A few times I was playing on the clay and while on the move a ball can look out, I've been 100% sure the ball is out a few times but then gone and looked at the mark and realised its in and conceded the point.
People do make misjudgements, I mean Fed had a long history of poor challenges when he was younger which even he would admit (and has actually joked about), and he once pointed to the wrong mark in a crucial break point against Nadal on clay in Madrid 2010 (pointing to a ball mark which was out when hawkeye which was not being used showed it was completely the wrong mark and the ball was in), and this would have affected the outcome unlike AO'17 as there was no hawkeye in use. Not that I think Fed is a bad person, just people can make misjudgements, no one is perfect.

He looks directly at the line and is feet away from it.  There is no way he could not know it was in.  His reaction afterwards is also telling.  He is fast to call it only because it's a tournament point. In fact, him calling it that fast is evidence he was going to call it no matter what. I play enough tennis to know that he knew.

Daniel wrote:He looks directly at the line and is feet away from it.  There is no way he could not know it was in.  His reaction afterwards is also telling.  He is fast to call it only because it's a tournament point. I play enough tennis to know that he knew.

Just watch the clip, the guy literally immediately points out, he's just making himself look dumb. It's clearly instinctive. I play a lot of tennis as well, and while on the move I've made wrong calls on the spot too, and then a few second later I think carefully and suddenly have doubt. Sometimes I've initially called against myself while running and trying to call at the same time, it happens.

DECIMA wrote:

Daniel wrote:He looks directly at the line and is feet away from it.  There is no way he could not know it was in.  His reaction afterwards is also telling.  He is fast to call it only because it's a tournament point. I play enough tennis to know that he knew.

Just watch the clip, the guy literally immediately points out, he's just making himself look dumb. It's clearly instinctive. I play a lot of tennis as well, and while on the move I've made wrong calls on the spot too, and then a few second later I think carefully and suddenly have doubt. Sometimes I've initially called against myself while running and trying to call at the same time, it happens.

Nadal has a veru good eye, so he probably saw the ball was good.

But you can't blam him for trying to push his luck one more time.
That's Nadal in a nutshell - fight to the bitter end.

On the one hand it was an epic point, championship point win with a great FH...which Nadal spoilt a bit by halting Fed's celebration...which did come out beautifully...eventually!

On he other hand, Naral's challenge kept the suspense for another unbearably long minute...and that was just his kind of stamp...you virtually have to wrestle the match from him, kind of win it twice.

All in all a beautiful match. Both players dod well under their aged circumstances.

... wrote:
Nadal has a veru good eye, so he probably saw the ball was good.

He clearly doesn't:
https://youtu.be/Hp9JzkMHbF8?t=12s

And proof it happens to the best of us (ignore the stupid inflammatory youtube title):
https://youtu.be/XPBwjZwpOKw?t=56s

We are going to have to agree to disagree, because he's a few feet away and staring right at the slow high descending ball.  Most people would have to be blind not to see that it hit dead on the line, but we're talking about someone with hand eye coordination / vision / concentration far in excess of normal. Again, I play tennis enough to know that you can tell easily when it's half ball.  This was full ball.  He's a rotten cheat.   

Which of the two videos were you referring to? The one where being wrong would affect the outcome or the one where it didn't?

Kidding

All this talk of balls being in or out and disrupted my favourite game.

@Tenez- look at my post at 1:02am UK time earlier today. You were called OUT due to your usual tricks of contradicting yourself and moving goalposts. You have 1 challenge remaining.

Tenez wrote:

Slippy wrote:..Whilst Rafa's style of play is ugly, ....

You are actually worse than me. I find his style ok, almost good actually, he has a created a brand of tennis....unlike the other RRunners.

I find Rafa's game horribly ugly but what makes it more bearable is its uniqueness.  Everything else being equal, I see Nole's and Andy's games as quite a bit more watchable.  But there are plenty of players who play game which is - more or less - similar to their games.  That ultimately makes them more boring - you just see that same game again and again and again.  Whereas with Rafa, it is only him.

However, if there were 20 players playing like Rafa and only one playing like Nole, there is no question I would prefer watching Nole's game by a large margin.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Yes, I'm a Fed fan but I'm not a blind Fed fan. I would NOT go on to call Nadal the biggest fraud in history of sport.

How am I a fan, let alone a  BLIND fan?
I was only ever a crazy fan of Nole once.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

And what os there to appreciate about Nadal?
His talent?
-----
Definitely. He has the game that no else in the entire history of tennis ever showed. His game is unique and its adds to tennis viewing.

I agree with all you say here, but what's that got to do with talent?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
His fair play?
-----
He is open to try anything that is he allowed to by the umpires. If umpires are allowing him, its hard to bring morality in professional sports. 

I think it's easy...if you are a moral person. Even in professional sport.
Just look at Gasquet or Tsonga for example.

Playing ugly (Murray) and cheating (Nadal) are not to be confused, either. Nadal started abusing 20/25 seconds rule regularly.
That is not playing within rules.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Him bannong umpires for doing thheir job?
-----

I don't think he ever got any umpire banned. That was 2015 and I have seen Carlos Bernades in some of his matches. He said it in the match but I don't think such request are granted. 

He did ban Bernardes and he actually threatened him in public he'd ban him. (during a match)
Bernardes returned to his matches a year later...meek as a lamb, never "upsetting" Nadal again.

Toni and Nadal have often commented on umpires, how they are useless and unneccessary in matches.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Slippy wrote:..Whilst Rafa's style of play is ugly, ....

You are actually worse than me. I find his style ok, almost good actually, he has a created a brand of tennis....unlike the other RRunners.

I find Rafa's game horribly ugly but what makes it more bearable is its uniqueness.  Everything else being equal, I see Nole's and Andy's games as quite a bit more watchable.  But there are plenty of players who play game which is - more or less - similar to their games.  That ultimately makes them more boring - you just see that same game again and again and again.  Whereas with Rafa, it is only him.

However, if there were 20 players playing like Rafa and only one playing like Nole, there is no question I would prefer watching Nole's game by a large margin.

With me and Nadal...it's been like north and south pole kind of magnetic attraction...

I instantly strongly disliked him from the first time I saw him.

Everything about him irritated me: his looks, game..but above all his demeanor, what came out of his eyes.

And that is a one-off for me ...and I have followed a lot of sport all my life.

Having said the above, watching Nadal getting beaten provided some extatic and sublime moments!

So his contribution to "sport" in that way is priceless.

DECIMA wrote:All this talk of balls being in or out and disrupted my favourite game.

@Tenez- look at my post at 1:02am UK time earlier today. You were called OUT due to your usual tricks of contradicting yourself and moving goalposts. You have 1 challenge remaining.

I read it but besides the fact you put 1 2 3 and 4 in the right order, I did not read any other logic.

I told you many times.....you are a poor sophist. I am surprised some see you as reasonable and fair. Gentle maybe but certainly not "reasonable" as I don;t read reason. .

Don't worry! I'm about to make it even simpler.

1. You said Nadal not serving flat at 125 mph on first serves was because of lack of courage.

2. You then said Nadal didn't have the ability to serve at 125mph at a high percentage. Ironic as it fatally weakened your first point, making clear Nadal's decision to not go for huge first serves is based on pragmatism.
(moreover he does well in neutral rallies from 115mph serves).

3. I speculated with no data, that on break points Nadal is more likely to hit an ace than a normal point. in particular the lower percentage serve down the T on Ad Side. If true, would show not that he's a great server, but good mental strength.

4. Despite the fact I provided no data, you didn't refute it, as obviously true to those who watch Nadal. Instead you decided that going for flat first serves is not brave after all, as one can hit a spinny second serve.
In isolation that point is reasonable but the fact you contradicted your earlier point (where you thought by bashing Nadal's first serve you would prove he's gutless), I illustrated how you changed the goalposts 180° when it suits you, as you always seem to do at an alarming rate. Some would call it 'Intellectually Dishonest'.

1 - False. I said talent and/or guts. My point is essentially he has not got the talent (and/or gut) to hit consistently flat and placed.....otherwise he would.

2 - Fact, he doesn't serve flat and placed.

3 - unsubstantiated. I have seen him DFing quite a few times too. In that AO 5th set while a break up he df at 0/30, clearly about nerves. But admitting he does, what does prove?

4 - that's your typical non sense...based on false facts, here your point 1 and unsubstanciated 3. added to very poor reasoning on point 4. Casue if like you say he is gutsy and often serves aces on BP...why doesn't he do so in all his serves? what pragmatism is that not to serve aces when clearly he could do it before getting to BP?

In short what you call "pragmatism" I call it talentless or gutless. Of course a player plays with his strength and not against. Therefore all players are pragmatic. Don;t forget they are all professional, hence there in the first place to win and make money. Saying Nadal is pragmatic is pointless.  

I am explaining what are his strengths (fitness essentially) but as a typical poor sophist you try to hide this simple fact and use any other glorifying traits. Pilpul!

No point reasoning with Amri, who is a fan in love...

Tenez wrote:1 - False. I said talent and/or guts.

No you didn't. Unfortunately for you this isn't a spoken conversation, which means we have a record of things you've written.
You talked about guts and talent, and used a comma. Basic english, that doesn't mean and/or. Unless you were talking about the ratio interplay between them, which would have needed a colon, and actually backs my point up further as well.

And even then, and/or doesn't make sense. I can't see why you don't grasp this simple concept. If someone lacks the ability to serve at a certain pace with accuracy to benefit them, and they do it anyway, that's just delusional. It's not courage. Opposite is pragmatism.

Tenez wrote:
Casue if like you say he is gutsy and often serves aces on BP...why doesn't he do so in all his serves? what pragmatism is that not to serve aces when clearly he could do it before getting to BP?

You could also apply that question to the fact Nadal wins higher percentages break point down throughout his career than a normal service point. Why? Interesting to go into the reasons for that, but 'bad mental strength' won't be featuring in your answer.

Honestly this is getting embarrassing Tenez, saying something, completely contradicting it a few hours later because it doesn't suit your argument, and now making up quotes you've never said to cover up. Just admit you were caught out and apologise.

How strong is Nadal mentally?

Strong enough to win 16 slams, 30 masters, 4 davis cups and olimpic gold in his time, with the cirumstances given and with federer, djokovic and murray around.

no more, no less