Two words you will never associate with Nadal

I like Nadal's banana shots and think he took those a level beyond Federer. I remember that backhand followed by that flat forehand against Murray but that was when he was already 2 sets down with nothing to lose. He almost never hits flat like that except for some forehands against Novak in USO 2010 final.

Not sure if you can measure/judge how exciting a player is from the highlight reel. There are a lot of great shots from Nadal in those videos but I find it tedious to watch him play and only do so if he's playing someone good. 

The consensus seems to be that the US open did slow down their courts and regardless of their reason, it does make me reflect harder on the nature of the achievement. US open is going down in my estimation where in my mind before I had it second to Wimbledon.

With Nadal the rule breaking with time between points is a big deal for me. As tenez said once if the ball is out by a mm you lose the point and running around for extra shots, it's natural your accuracy is supposed to diminish. The time rule, for me, has always been one of those simple "don't be a dick head" rules that is hard to put accurately in writing but is obvious how to follow and when someone is violating it. To me Nadal has just ignored it and is using the lack of proper implementation as an excuse because it never needed to be implemented before him.

More recently I've heard him talking again about what is good for the "show" as if he arrogantly assumes his tennis is what everyone wants to see. I never marveled at his passing shots from 5m behind the baseline as much as I did the opponents shot that preceded it and honestly I got bored listening to commentators cream themselves over it. Fair enough a good percentage of people like it, my biggest surprise after joining tennis forums, but to assume everyone does and try to recreate that everywhere is bollocks. Fighting for every point is also stupid imo, you have a limited amount of stamina in a match and you're supposed to choose your battles.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:
Not sure if you can measure/judge how exciting a player is from the highlight reel. There are a lot of great shots from Nadal in those videos

You get these shots all the time, you don't need a highlight reel! Thinking he's about to lose a point and then he finishes the point in one shot, it's exhilarating. I can enjoy it when both Federer and Nadal hit a great shot, the fact I'm a Nadal fan doesn't stop be admiring shots from other players!

NITB, look, these kids are being brainwashed into supporting moonballs!

break_in_the_fifth wrote:I like Nadal's banana shots and think he took those a level beyond Federer. I remember that backhand followed by that flat forehand against Murray but that was when he was already 2 sets down with nothing to lose. He almost never hits flat like that except for some forehands against Novak in USO 2010 final.

Not sure if you can measure/judge how exciting a player is from the highlight reel. There are a lot of great shots from Nadal in those videos but I find it tedious to watch him play and only do so if he's playing someone good. 

The consensus seems to be that the US open did slow down their courts and regardless of their reason, it does make me reflect harder on the nature of the achievement. US open is going down in my estimation where in my mind before I had it second to Wimbledon.

With Nadal the rule breaking with time between points is a big deal for me. As tenez said once if the ball is out by a mm you lose the point and running around for extra shots, it's natural your accuracy is supposed to diminish. The time rule, for me, has always been one of those simple "don't be a dick head" rules that is hard to put accurately in writing but is obvious how to follow and when someone is violating it. To me Nadal has just ignored it and is using the lack of proper implementation as an excuse because it never needed to be implemented before him.

More recently I've heard him talking again about what is good for the "show" as if he arrogantly assumes his tennis is what everyone wants to see. I never marveled at his passing shots from 5m behind the baseline as much as I did the opponents shot that preceded it and honestly I got bored listening to commentators cream themselves over it. Fair enough a good percentage of people like it, my biggest surprise after joining tennis forums, but to assume everyone does and try to recreate that everywhere is bollocks. Fighting for every point is also stupid imo, you have a limited amount of stamina in a match and you're supposed to choose your battles.

Excellent point!

It's more mental than physical, it's about the will to win every single point in your head, keeping focus.

Completely agree bitf. (For some reasons I thought you were a Rafa or Murray fan).

Naxroy, Also way before your time here, I showed how Nadal had absolutely no OCDs before Miami05 final and was often playing within 17s. Then suddenly from Spring 2005 he adds this routine allowing him to grab a minimum of 15s per point and actually often more as he takes so much time between 1st and 2nd serve.

And why did he suddenly add 15s per point after Miami05? Cause he had lost the last 6 games of the 5th set....running completely out of steam.

So sure we do not have the smoking gun when it comes to doping but we know for a fact that those extra red cells benefit a lot from longer oxygenation. It provides the fuel for those long and gruelling rallies which were unseen (probably not possible before) as Nadal's matches set new records for longest 3 and 5 setters by extending a normal set by a minimum 20 extra mn.

Check for yourself about that Miami 05 final...No pulling socks, short pinching, etc...yet watch any match after that...

about fighting all points:

usopen semifinal: delpotro nadal

Nadal has lost first set, he wasnt playing bad, but delpo was great, second set starts and nadal gets an early break, Delpo decides not to fight for that set once he find himself 3-0 behind

wise move if you think your fitness is in danger, but that gave nadal a great confidence, in the end I think delpo would have fought deeper into the match had he not chose when to fight, and instead had decided go for all even in the second set when it felt impossible.

nadal would have never given up a set like that, and most times we saw that paid him good results.

DECIMA wrote:It's more mental than physical, it's about the will to win every single point in your head, keeping focus.

Mental? So how come we don't see him compete when not 110%? Why does he pull out every time he has a niggle? How come federer plays with a bad back and still makes the score descent but Nadal simply does not enter?

Without his big muscles, he has actually a weak mental. He has the mental strength of a heavyweight playing a featherweight...but when Djoko started to jump in the same ring as him, his mental melted.

naxroy wrote:about fighting all points:

usopen semifinal: delpotro nadal

Nadal has lost first set, he wasnt playing bad, but delpo was great, second set starts and nadal gets an early break, Delpo decides not to fight for that set once he find himself 3-0 behind

wise move if you think your fitness is in danger, but that gave nadal a great confidence, in the end I think delpo would have fought deeper into the match had he not chose when to fight, and instead had decided go for all even in the second set when it felt impossible.

nadal would have never given up a set like that, and most times we saw that paid him good results.

Because he knows he's fitter than his opponant 99 out of 100 times. It's his job to make it a physical battle. Nadal fans think that's mental strength but to have the conviction you're the fittest is not mental strength, it's mentally liberating.
In your words: Nadal's fitness is never in danger.

Del Potro had had a harder route to that point and may have been more fatigued. Tactically letting a whole set go is different to individual points but nevertheless if he did just let it go then to me that says more about his stamina and that it was more he had to do that.

In that clip I counted 20 seconds for the first break back point federer gets so yeah maybe he is playing consistently within the time limit. I didn't know federer had blisters that match:o

It's like the never ending fight in a Life of Brian.

The general consensus is never going to shift either side.

legendkillar wrote:It's like the never ending fight in a Life of Brian.

The general consensus is never going to shift either side.

I have many times in my life. The players I used to admire are not the same now....but I agree it takes time and also it's harder to dislike a player when you have admired him.

The only easy shift for me were Connors and Becker....loved them very much at first...then hated them to guts.

Tenez wrote:

The only easy shift for me were Connors and Becker....loved them very much at first...then hated them to guts.

thats what I dont understand right there

changing ones mind, of course, it happens a lot.

but hating a tennis player?????? I see a lot of that in this forum and I have to say it really amazes me

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:It's like the never ending fight in a Life of Brian.

The general consensus is never going to shift either side.

I have many times in my life. The players I used to admire are not the same now....but I agree it takes time and also it's harder to dislike a player when you have admired him.

The only easy shift for me were Connors and Becker....loved them very much at first...then hated them to guts.

Is that changed based on what happened once they left the game or is it their game you now grew to hate?

See Becker for me, entertaining to watch on court, similarly with McEnroe. Off the court, both are total melts. However, I don't loathe as per se. New tastes and appetites develop over time as sport does evolve.

There are so many athletes I would pay to watch, but I wouldn't sit down with them and buy them a beer, that's for sure.

It's rare I find athletes who's personality mirrors their talent/style.

LK, how many players would you pay £6.99 to watch just because they were in a big final?

Truth is I wouldn't pay £6.99.

Let me explain how my mind works. I pay a TV Licence. I pay a monthly Sky bill. Already I feel I pay too much for TV. So even if it's a match I really want to see, if it's not covered under those 2 bills I currently pay or not on a free live stream, then I won't pay another penny to watch them as I may as well go to the event myself and watch live if I am going to pay a penny beyond that TV outlay.

Sometimes even LK's friends are generous enough offer viewing rights to events that LK won't pay for out of principle

legendkillar wrote:Truth is I wouldn't pay £6.99.

So you're not as dedicated to NITB is to Nadal, cool

But doesn't the £6.99 cover a month? So essentially she watches many players and other sports, and not just shelling out £6.99 to watch the final

I can imagine curiosity is a big part why some tune into events concerning players they loathe. Even if in your mind it's 99% that the outcome is a victory for that player, there is often a 1% chance it might not be and it's worth it to those if that 1% likelihood is an outcome.

No she bought the day pass for £6.99.
Could have got the tournament pass for £9.99, but that wouldn't be showing specific dedication to Nadal you see.

Are you sure? I thought she got it for the month under the £6.99 gig. I could be wrong.

I'd have paid £20 to watch Nadal lose!

You are more committed to hate than I expected Ten!

It's on par with you betting on Nadal to win

Tenez wrote:I'd have paid £20 to watch Nadal lose!

My best ever "spend to see Nadal lose" was RG '14 QF. I think I decided 24h before the match. Originally had the ticket for Lenglen only.

Nole cleaned him in straight sets.
It was worth every penny...

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:I'd have paid £20 to watch Nadal lose!

My best ever "spend to see Nadal lose" was RG '14 QF. I think I decided 24h before the match. Originally had the ticket for Lenglen only.

Nole cleaned him in straight sets.
It was worth every penny...

Really well spent money, because watching Nadal lose at RG is quite a unique event

There's nothing wrong with paying to see any tennis match live, that's understandable for any top player. What is much more curious is paying to watch a match online (when one could just stream for free...)

legendkillar wrote:Are you sure? I thought she got it for the month under the £6.99 gig. I could be wrong.

It was £6.99 on the day, check the final match thread. Also the tournament price was £9.99, so couldn't have been the month.

There's a reason even his haters spend huge amounts of money to watch Nadal matches- they are very fun to watch!
Most points in a tennis match are more or less decided by serve, either an unreturnable serve or 1-2 punch; and when a point is dropped on serve it may be because the server just missed an easy put away.
Nadal changes the whole dynamic up, his serving is terrible and his return of save brings ball back into play- suddenly every point is in the balance, every point is there to be won.
And definitely Tenez and NITB get pleasure when he hits one of his ridiculous trademark curling spinning passing shots, then that pleasure turns to guilt and anger when they see Nadal saying 'Vamos'. Oh no, how could I have enjoyed that?! Why do I spend so much time and money watching him, they cry to themselves. Get even angrier and start spewing hate against him on forums to try and compensate, like the loud unnecessary noise of a BMW from a not very well endowed driver.

DECIMA wrote:There's nothing wrong with paying to see any tennis match live, that's understandable for any top player. What is much more curious is paying to watch a match online (when one could just stream for free...)

legendkillar wrote:Are you sure? I thought she got it for the month under the £6.99 gig. I could be wrong.

It was £6.99 on the day, check the final match thread. Also the tournament price was £9.99, so couldn't have been the month.

OK...let me get you out of your misery!

The day before the final I arrived in France on holiday so I couldn't watch it for free on bet365 (doesn't work here) and for some reason my annual subscription on eurosport didn't work as the site had log-in issues (I suspect bastards wanted to squeeze more money out of people for the last slam as they miraculously sent me a temporary password as soon as I bought the £6.99 monthly supscription).

And of course it was to see Nadal lose, to be here with likeminded tennis souls and share fun & hope.

DECIMA wrote:There's a reason even his haters spend huge amounts of money to watch Nadal matches- they are very fun to watch!
Most points in a tennis match are more or less decided by serve, either an unreturnable serve or 1-2 punch; and when a point is dropped on serve it may be because the server just missed an easy put away.
Nadal changes the whole dynamic up, his serving is terrible and his return of save brings ball back into play- suddenly every point is in the balance, every point is there to be won.
And definitely Tenez and NITB get pleasure when he hits one of his ridiculous trademark curling spinning passing shots, then that pleasure turns to guilt and anger when they see Nadal saying 'Vamos'. Oh no, how could I have enjoyed that?! Why do I spend so much time and money watching him, they cry to themselves. Get even angrier and start spewing hate against him on forums to try and compensate, like the loud unnecessary noise of a BMW from a not very well endowed driver.

Well thank the lucky stars tennis isn't a PPV sport!

Look how many fans in their droves go and watch Mayweather!

It's not PPV, but some still find a way to pay in PPV fashion for Nadal- wow!

And NITB, you know what's even better- I just realised this:
All your conspiracies are true, and you're integral in making it happen.
Eurosport will get a big profit from their US Open coverage, and they'll even note that some fans paid for the final separately even though they had a yearly subscription. (like you). Of course they know Anderson doesn't have many fans, so they will give all the credit to Nadal.
That viewing figures data will be accessible to US Open, and they'll then up their price, and Eurosport will happily pay as people like you will have proved it's worth the investment.
This money is needed by the US Open. And you know why? It's very expensive to fund the weighted plastic balls they use during the draw- you think rigging comes cheap? You think the sand they drop on by bucketload onto Arthur Ashe before any Nadal match comes cheap? They need the money, and you are providing both the cash reserves and the incentives for them to do it.

noleisthebest wrote:

DECIMA wrote:There's nothing wrong with paying to see any tennis match live, that's understandable for any top player. What is much more curious is paying to watch a match online (when one could just stream for free...)

legendkillar wrote:Are you sure? I thought she got it for the month under the £6.99 gig. I could be wrong.

It was £6.99 on the day, check the final match thread. Also the tournament price was £9.99, so couldn't have been the month.

OK...let me get you out of your misery!

The day before the final I arrived in France on holiday so I couldn't watch it for free on bet365 (doesn't work here) and for some reason my annual subscription on eurosport didn't work as the site had log-in issues (I suspect bastards wanted to squeeze more money out of people for the last slam as they miraculously sent me a temporary password as soon as I bought the £6.99 monthly supscription).

And of course it was to see Nadal lose, to be here with likeminded tennis souls and share fun & hope.

My UK Eurosport subs doesn't work in France either. I called and they said it was 2 different accounts!