Nadal Is Back.....In Two Weeks!

PARIS: Spanish tennis superstar Rafael Nadal, out of action since June, will resume training in two weeks with the aim of playing in the ATP Tour Finals and the Davis Cup final, his uncle has told Fox Sports television channel.

"In 15 days, Rafa will resume training, in time for him to aim to play in the Masters and the final of the Davis Cup," said Toni Nadal, as reported by the Twitter feed of Central Fox, the Latin American branch of Fox Sports.

Nadal, the former world number one, has not played a competitive match since his shock loss to unseeded Czech Lukas Rosol in the second round at Wimbledon on June 28.

The 26-year-old Mallorcan has been suffering with Hoffa syndrome, an inflammation of the fatty tissue
situated behind the kneecap in his left knee.

He declared in late September that he would not return to the circuit until he was 100 percent fit.

Nadal missed the London Olympics and the US Open, but hopes to be fit in time for the ATP Tour Finals in London, which run fromNovember 5-12,and the Davis Cup final on November 16-18, which will see Spain defend their title against the Czech Republic in Prague.

Both events will take place on hard courts, which are more likely to aggravate existing injuries than Nadal's preferred surface, clay.

Interesting interview Nadal's PR gave to Radio 5 on the 25th of September.
Get the sick bag ready for when the interviewers begin to suck up to Barbadillo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA1V0x20cT0

Another piece of news contradicting what we heard before.

Another brilliant "dig" from S.T.
13 year old Gasquet against the 13 year old Nadal.

Spot no backside picking, no time wasting between the serves.
And the beautiful ball striking from baby Gasquet.

Amazing what another 13 years did in their careers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KzKuv4j67aw

Is that the first time you see it? We have been posting it on a few occasion. It's not so much the no-time taking I take note but the "super natural" fitness of Nadal running in the genes apparently. Strangely enough its him running out of steam here losing the last 2 sets.

Ahhh.. recently he was talking of the possibility of even missing AO 2013. And now he is looking to return for the WTF and DC final which starts in 4 weeks? How poor are his doctors and team in estimating the recovery time.

Or they must have found a magic potion to cure the injury which was earlier going to take more than 3 months but now only 4 weeks. WOW!!

Tenez wrote:Is that the first time you see it? We have been posting it on a few occasion. It's not so much the no-time taking I take note but the "super natural" fitness of Nadal running in the genes apparently. Strangely enough its him running out of steam here losing the last 2 sets.

Well.....it obviously is! When I say I watch Nadal only when I have to, I mean it

That aside, another thing from the clip is Nadal's shocking serving.

I did a little experiment last week and tried to play with my left hand, nothing fierce, just warm-up pace. I expected a lot of whiffing and at best spraying the balls, but I was really surprised to find out that I had no problem hitting the ball plus that it connected with the ball in a different way kind of raw and unrifined, but felt more force for some reason. The right arm had more feel but the left was kind of stronger. I did it just for a few points.
I then tried to serve as a leftie and it was completely impossible, I couldn't even toss the ball.

So, seeing this clip and Nadal's awful serving, got me thinking into why, being a naturally right-handed did Toni torture the poor boy into serving with his left arm.

Are you allowed to play groundstrokes as a leftie and serve as a rightie?

noleisthebest wrote:
Are you allowed to play groundstrokes as a leftie and serve as a rightie?

It's roughly the same challenge. I am convinced that at the end Toni had other plan, in essence rely on other factors than talent and skills. Didn't he say to Nadal that he will never be able to play like Gasquet and Federer and he had to find other ways to win? Well he did just that.

If anything I am surprised how close his match was Gasquet here. I remember another match they played as a jumior which was more one-sided. It simply shows that when Nadal got fitter he was able to reverse the trend. Remember the first time they played as adult on clay at MC (I think), it was very close and Gasquet was really tired after having played 3 tournaments in a row and beating Federer in the semi (or 1/4F) of MC. Had Gasquet not been that tired I woudl have fancied him winning his first adult match as well v Nadal.

But from then on Nadal became fitter and fitter while Gasquet, well he remained Gasquet.

That Toni should be locked up for the biggest fraud in tennis he was allowed to pull off

all this leftie/rightie stuff got me thinking now....

Maybe you DBHers can help!
When you hit your double-handed backhand, how much does the left hand play the part in terms of power?
I know Federer once said that when he plays Nadal it's like playing someone with two forehands.
Is it possible to hit a DH and just mask the shot as a BH with your right hand, ok not 100% but at least 75%?

Another reason to ban DBH.

How/why on earth did it get allowed in the first place

We are comparing two 12-14 years olds.

This player played the 1998 Boys final at W against a now very famous player.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/La/I/Irakli-Labadze.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=0#

Despite all the promise, he never made it past R4 at W.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/La/I/Irakli-Labadze.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=0#

How players evolve is very different. Look at Monfils, he almost duplicated Edberg's Junior slam and where he is now.

Have you heard of Mark Kratzmann or Nicolas Pereira?

Better examples are Donald Young and Mahut and see where they are currently.

laverfan wrote:

How players evolve is very different. Look at Monfils, he almost duplicated Edberg's Junior slam and where he is now.

Have you heard of Mark Kratzmann or Nicolas Pereira?

Better examples are Donald Young and Mahut and see where they are currently.

The point is that Nadal, aged 13, we saw in that video went pro two years later.
When you look at baby Gasquet in that video, you can see it's him by his tennis, Nadal has changed big time, he kind of exploded in the muscular direction and started buzzing around the court like a man possessed. The difference is staggering.

Tenez wrote:Is that the first time you see it? We have been posting it on a few occasion.

I wouldn't mind seeing those threads, can you remember which one(s) they were?

noleisthebest wrote:
The point is that Nadal, aged 13, we saw in that video went pro two years later.
When you look at baby Gasquet in that video, you can see it's him by his tennis, Nadal has changed big time, he kind of exploded in the muscular direction and started buzzing around the court like a man possessed. The difference is staggering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DP0b5-8DWU

This is a 3 year difference. Staggering is perhaps an exaggeration.

Anecdotal, but, my son grew an inch-a-month for almost a full year to almost 6' in a teen spurt on a vegetarian diet.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Is that the first time you see it? We have been posting it on a few occasion.

I wouldn't mind seeing those threads, can you remember which one(s) they were?

No. I don't remember....well I could if I had a bit more time. I remember a big thread on V2...that's why I am surprised you did not see it.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
The point is that Nadal, aged 13, we saw in that video went pro two years later.
When you look at baby Gasquet in that video, you can see it's him by his tennis, Nadal has changed big time, he kind of exploded in the muscular direction and started buzzing around the court like a man possessed. The difference is staggering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DP0b5-8DWU

This is a 3 year difference. Staggering is perhaps an exaggeration.

Anecdotal, but, my son grew an inch-a-month for almost a full year to almost 6' in a teen spurt on a vegetarian diet.

What an analogy from LF !! Growing in height for young teen boys in their best growth years is equivalent to gain the kind of muscular mass and toned body and the never ending stamina that Nadal had. Wow!!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
The point is that Nadal, aged 13, we saw in that video went pro two years later.
When you look at baby Gasquet in that video, you can see it's him by his tennis, Nadal has changed big time, he kind of exploded in the muscular direction and started buzzing around the court like a man possessed. The difference is staggering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DP0b5-8DWU

This is a 3 year difference. Staggering is perhaps an exaggeration.

Anecdotal, but, my son grew an inch-a-month for almost a full year to almost 6' in a teen spurt on a vegetarian diet.

What an analogy from LF !! Growing in height for young teen boys in their best growth years is equivalent to gain the kind of muscular mass and toned body and the never ending stamina that Nadal had. Wow!!

Tenez wrote:
No. I don't remember....well I could if I had a bit more time. I remember a big thread on V2...that's why I am surprised you did not see it.

I thought it was on v2. The one where people had LF style metre long posts with fifty charts, tables, links what have you....I think my brain must have given up before that link popped up.
I do remember you being annoyed with me for not reading something on that thread

What's interesting in this clip versus Costa is that Nadal at 16(?) is already winning thanks to a higher level of energy than an adult player like Costa. We know today that the youngsters can't keep up with the more physical tennis of today and need, like Djoko and Murray to be in their early 20s to compete at teh very top but before Nadal's time, a 16 or 17yo coudl make a mark on the tour. However Nadal put the physical bar so high at such an early age that it completely changed the face of tennis.

Looking at Nadal at 13 versus Gasquet....who woudl have thought?

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:
No. I don't remember....well I could if I had a bit more time. I remember a big thread on V2...that's why I am surprised you did not see it.

I thought it was on v2. The one where people had LF style metre long posts with fifty charts, tables, links what have you....I think my brain must have given up before that link popped up.
I do remember you being annoyed with me for not reading something on that thread

No! I never get annoyed with you.

Tenez wrote:

No! I never get annoyed with you.

Tenez wrote:What's interesting in this clip versus Costa is that Nadal at 16(?) is already winning thanks to a higher level of energy than an adult player like Costa. We know today that the youngsters can't keep up with the more physical tennis of today and need, like Djoko and Murray to be in their early 20s to compete at teh very top but before Nadal's time, a 16 or 17yo coudl make a mark on the tour. However Nadal put the physical bar so high at such an early age that it completely changed the face of tennis.

Looking at Nadal at 13 versus Gasquet....who woudl have thought?

The only young early bloomer I can think of was Becker, but he looked fully formed from day one. Nadal only seems to have had thick almost footballer's legs but the upper body looked normal against Costa.
He looked a bit full of himself from a very young age. How on earth they managed to market him as a "humble bull" I'll never know...

Wht did he say that made him seem 'full of himself at a young age.'

His body language spoke volumes.

noleisthebest wrote:His body language spoke volumes.

Well, don't judge a book by its cover.

Many people also see Djokovic and draw conclusions, doesn't make it right.

Amritia3ee wrote:

Many people also see Djokovic and draw conclusions, doesn't make it right.

I have no problem people drawing whichever conclusions they like about Djokovic.

Not surprised tbh, confirms my theory

Amritia3ee wrote:Not surprised tbh, confirms my theory

So now you are burning to tell us which theory that is. Well, keep burning...

No, I don't want to say that, not on here anyway

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:What an analogy from LF !! Growing in height for young teen boys in their best growth years is equivalent to gain the kind of muscular mass and toned body and the never ending stamina that Nadal had. Wow!!

I took height as an example and I did state that different players mature at a different ages. I would suggest Chang and Becker as examples.

One of the things Tenez constantly refers to is the Miami 2004 match as a 'watershed'. There was no endless stamina and he was almost 18+. You and Tenez can have the 'endless' stamina debate.

laverfan wrote:
I took height as an example and I did state that different players mature at a different ages. I would suggest Chang and Becker as examples.

One of the things Tenez constantly refers to is the Miami 2004 match as a 'watershed'. There was no endless stamina and he was almost 18+. You and Tenez can have the 'endless' stamina debate.

It was a terrible example to give. Growing in height is not the same as growing muscular mass and stamina or maturing as you say. What's the point of bringing the Miami 2004 match here? You probably will have your 'endless' irrelevant stats, won't you?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:
I took height as an example and I did state that different players mature at a different ages. I would suggest Chang and Becker as examples.

One of the things Tenez constantly refers to is the Miami 2004 match as a 'watershed'. There was no endless stamina and he was almost 18+. You and Tenez can have the 'endless' stamina debate.

It was a terrible example to give. Growing in height is not the same as growing muscular mass and stamina or maturing as you say. What's the point of bringing the Miami 2004 match here? You probably will have your 'endless' irrelevant stats, won't you?

The point of Miami 2004 match is the 'exhaustion' which posters refer to.

Regarding endless stamina, Djokovic played two matches of ~5 hours at AO 2012 with Murray (290 minutes) and Nadal (353). It is interesting that Nadal is still in his own league, but Djokovic is not, and USO 2012 final (294 minutes) should include Murray as well.

BTW, Federer-Del Potro Olympics match was 4 hours 26 minutes and has been shown to be the equivalent of a 5-set match from the number of games played.

Anyone recall Rome 2006 Federer-Nadal at 305 minutes.

Here are some endless statistics

AO...

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day19/1701ms.html

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day17/1601ms.html

USO...

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html

PS: All statistics are irrelevant.

ROTLA... do you know who is/was Horst Skoff?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_tennis_match_records#Matches_longer_than_five_hours

LF, you are mixing up things again. 5 hours of SVing with many TBs and deuces cannot be compared with someone who keep running for 5 hours at max speed.

And Rotla and I never had endless stamina debates cause we both understand tennis and what it takes to play long rallies. You on the other end keep mixing everything up when you don't mix up threads...and obviously now mixing up posters.

Have a nap!

Tenez wrote:LF, you are mixing up things again. 5 hours of SVing with many TBs and deuces cannot be compared with someone who keep running for 5 hours at max speed.

AO 2012 SF and F was an S&V? Rome 2006 was S&V. USO 2012 was S&V. What else do you have up your sleeve!

Tenez wrote:And Rotla and I never had endless stamina debates cause we both understand tennis and what it takes to play long rallies. You on the other end keep mixing everything up when you don't mix up threads...and obviously now mixing up posters.

You should have one and discuss Miami 2004 and perhaps Miami 2005. It was your claim Nadal played too fast and ran out breath in fifth set, was it not?

Here is a reminder of one journalistic viewpoint...

Federer then went on to capture the fourth set playing at his best as Nadal continued to fade, broken three times in the fifth and final set. ...

At times Nadal’s aggressive and unrelenting play threw Federer back into his impatient, inconsistent past and caused him to freeze, not making the best decisions. Some might deem that as “choking.”

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/369308-rewind-2004-miami-masters-birthplace-of-the-federer-vs-nadal-rivalry

I know this does not fit with world-view in this forum...

Tenez wrote:Have a nap!

... like you did during the AO2012 Djokovic matches.

Are you trying to say that Nadal does not run like rabbit and as a result has wrecked knees?
Because if you don't agree with that then he's undergoing a silent ban.

So which one is it?

Even better,
What contribution has Nadal brought to tennis?
What is his legacy going to be?
What is he going to be remembered by?

Scinitillating tennis skills?
Great forehand?
Great backhand?
Fabulous net-play?

or

His photos in underpants?
The wrong size of them?
Facebook following?
Continual moaning, rule-bending and self-serving inclinations?

One look at his hottest fan's website answers those questions very clearly.

I'll remember him for his tennis, as will the majority of the public.

You hate him so will probably remember him as some sort of devil.
So what?

I'll remember him as the death of tennis.
I'll also remember him by his fans and my inability to understand their need of defending him like it's a matter of life and death.

noleisthebest wrote:I'll remember him as the death of tennis.
I'll also remember him by his fans and my inability to understand their need of defending him like it's a matter of life and death.

So???

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I'll remember him as the death of tennis.
I'll also remember him by his fans and my inability to understand their need of defending him like it's a matter of life and death.

So???

you mean: No???

laverfan wrote:It was your claim Nadal played too fast and ran out breath in fifth set, was it not?

Here is a reminder of one journalistic viewpoint...

Federer then went on to capture the fourth set playing at his best as Nadal continued to fade, broken three times in the fifth and final set. ...

Comical LF, have you just woken up from your nap? It was not a view point but a fact that Nadal ran out of steam in that final, losing the last 6 games!!!. It was not only my observation but also Federer's who said that Nadal ran out of steam. Federer,I am sure you will agree, was certainly in a better position to comment on the match than your comical journalist.

So now go and get your irrelevant facts and bring this thread to new unchartered paths[/quote]

noleisthebest wrote:

Amritia3ee wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I'll remember him as the death of tennis.
I'll also remember him by his fans and my inability to understand their need of defending him like it's a matter of life and death.

So???

you mean: No???

I said what I meant.

Amri,
what do you think of Toni's engineering of Nadal and turning him into an artificial lefty.
Why did he do it?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:...and the never ending stamina that Nadal had. Wow!!

Tenez wrote:It was not a view point but a fact that Nadal ran out of steam in that final, losing the last 6 games!!!. It was not only my observation but also Federer's who said that Nadal ran out of steam.

Is never ending stamina == ran out of steam in that final? Or did perhaps Djokovic showed in AO 2012 what it takes to beat Nadal.

You need to be at least consistent in bashing a player, bring in PEDs/EPO/doping, etc..

Tenez wrote:Federer,I am sure you will agree, was certainly in a better position to comment on the match than your comical journalist.

... as was Federer in a better position, in making this famous statement ...

On clay you don’t need a volley or a serve. You just need legs, an incredible forehand and backhand, and to run after every ball. I’m not trying to take anything from Rafa: he has been successful in other surfaces as well. But on clay you can get away, you can be competitive even with a very incomplete game.

http://gototennis.com/2010/05/10/roger-federer-interview-rafa-would-crush-my-dreams/#ixzz28TAcWkD2

So Djokovic, Kuerten, Soderling, Horna, Corretja and Arazi must have an incomplete clay game, correct?

And what is the definition of completeness, inability to chase every ball like Soderling?

noleisthebest wrote:what do you think of Toni's engineering of Nadal and turning him into an artificial lefty.
Why did he do it?

For 11 grand slams and 50 titles and numerous other records.

Toni is a genius who could use a talentless moonballing game to beat an other-worldly talent.

Talent is over-valued these days.

LF you are looking to wum now.

laverfan wrote:
Is never ending stamina == ran out of steam in that final? Or did perhaps Djokovic showed in AO 2012 what it takes to beat Nadal.

1. No, Rosol showed how to beat Nadal
2. Oh And I wish you understood what we meant. But that's never your purpose.

laverfan wrote:You need to be at least consistent in bashing a player, bring in PEDs/EPO/doping, etc..

You are certainly consistent in your wumming. Good going.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:LF you are looking to wum now.

I did not realise stating facts like 11 slam and 50 titles was wumming. Is it?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:1. No, Rosol showed how to beat Nadal

Are you suggesting Rosol take up coaching talented players to fight death of tennis? Even the uber-talented Karlovic could not achieve what Rosol did. As I suggested, Rosol should be anointed, as well as be rewarded the Nobel Prize.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:2. Oh And I wish you understood what we meant. But that's never your purpose.

Oh, I wish you understood what I meant, not we. Vive le tribalism.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:You are certainly consistent in your wumming. Good going.

I am consistent, unlike Rosol the GOAT.