Why Tenez is wrong on Nadal- Detailed analysis

Page 2

I am now not just arguing that Tenez is probably wrong, I am saying that his theory simply cannot be correct.

What Truffin was saying on the other hand, can actually be true, although he did not really explain what he thinks makes Nadal so unique (to be fair to truffin I did not ask him... but perhaps I can now. Truffin, according to your theory many players could be on peds, so peds aside; what do you think makes Nadal so unique on the court... what makes him stand out?).

Back to what Tenez was saying, any reasonable theory on Nadal would have to mean that there is something special and unique about him.
In the last decade I don't think apart from Federer you can name another player who has had the success he has had, and certainly Federer does not have the same style as Nadal.
So what is it about Nadal's game and play, that makes him so tough to beat? What makes him stand out?

My theory highlighted 4 key areas:
-talent and hand-eye coordination to hit his forehand with such timing and precision, hitting 3000 rpms consistently and giving his opponent huge problems with topspin
-reflex on defence, connected to the first point in many ways, but the guy has stunning reflexes and agility that means he is a superb defensive player.
-stamina, I think he's right up there, level with Murray, Djokovic, Ferrer now
-mental strength, by this I think his focus his extraordinary so far during his career, very rarely loses his intensity

So you can see what I'm saying, and it may not be exactly right, but you can understand why the combination of these 4 factors, all of which Nadal is strong at, makes him stand out.

But if you were to read what Tenez has to say on Nadal, you cannot reach that same conclusion, as there is nothing that would make him stand-out.
He has muscles? I've seen people with bigger muscles than him, who simply go to the gym regularly
He has stamina? Well there are many legal ways, such as a strict diet and a fitness regime that can improve your fitness. Even past this, if he has peds, they are widely available even on the legal market. So many people can do this.
The ITF doping agency are tough to get past? Well Tenez hinted at this now today, but all the while has been arguing the opposite, he has been saying how incompetent the ITF are. If he's right now with this U turn, and they is really stringent testing, then Nadal fans can use the same argument to say that this means Nadal must be working within legal means.

So what do we have at the end? A theory which adds up to thousands of people who will be able to do the same thing as Nadal. As Tenez said, the 'proof is in the pudding'- it is simply not the case that so many could, or they would have done so. Any argument about Nadal being able to time the ball well is dismissed, I think the fact Tenez watched Nadal hit an incredible hot-dog lob and his first reaction he said was 'Nadal does not talent to hit that' (or something to that effect), it is clear whatever Nadal does, or whatever the evidence is, Tenez will come to the same conclusion.
The very idea that Nadal's precision and timing which enables him to generate 3000 rpms and huge topspin so consistently may help him, or that he has sensational agility and reflexes which means he has an incredible defence... Tenez is so so fearful of even admitting it.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to accept Nadal for what he is, Amri, why you have the need to make him what he is not and will never be....
You are like a blind pushy telling a teacher her average child is the best in the class, when everyone: the class, the theacher and the child know he/she's not.
You can barricade your mind into this imaginary belief, but to the outside world it looks funny, Amri.
Do hou still think we don't like Nadal because he is beating Federer?
I bet you do....

noleisthebest wrote:I don't know why it's so difficult for you to accept Nadal for what he is, why you have the need to make him what he is not and will never be able to do...
You are like a blind pushy telling a teacher her average child is the best in the class, when everyone: the class, the teacher and the child know he/she's not.

In which way is this similar?
Why is Nadal the average child in the class?

Not meant to be personal, but Tenez's theory on Nadal really is in tatters here.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I don't know why it's so difficult for you to accept Nadal for what he is, why you have the need to make him what he is not and will never be able to do...
You are like a blind pushy telling a teacher her average child is the best in the class, when everyone: the class, the teacher and the child know he/she's not.

In which way is this similar?  
Why is Nadal the average child in the class?

Of my 110000 plus post here, at least 3000 must have answered that question. You have changed at least 3 poster names here and still haven't been able to come to terms with what makes Nadal a player he is.
You either can't or don't want to know.

There really is no point in trying to go in circles for the umpteenth time.

You will again go away thinking you have "won" a debate, and that will give you that warm feeling in the heart for one more evening.
But, like Nadal's tennis and wins, it will be a false one.

Julia Santamaria wrote:But really here, Tenez, this is not convincing.

What would convince a fan-atic? It's a bit like trying to convince an Al Qaeda Djihadist that God is not almighty.

Is that meant to be an argument?
I could say the same about what Im arguing, with similar analogies.

Edit: That was originally meant to be directed towards NITBs post... But it applies to what Tenez just said too.

Tenez, it is irrelevant whether I am a fan or not here. Anyone objective can see you've not really dealt with my points.
I can not say for certain the my explanation is right, but anyone objective can say for certain that your theory cannot be true... unless many people simply are nonchalantly throwing millions in the bin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOp0TD6ITRM

Look at this clip...

Roddick twice,
Rios
Federer, no margin (unlike lob), trice
McEnroe
Tipsarevic
Monfils
Agassi (Thrice)
Delpo
Santoro
Paire
Tursinov
Norman

All those guys have at least as good a passing lob as Nadal....yes even Norman!   But the fact is if we were recording all tennis matches you woudl have even more impressive shots than those.

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:But really here, Tenez, this is not convincing.

What would convince a fan-atic? It's a bit like trying to convince an Al Qaeda Djihadist that God is not almighty.

Funny actually you don't believe in God but believe nadal is god. In fact you are a bit like me...just with a much lower standard!   

I certainly don't believe that Nadal is god, but that he is a fantastic tennis player.
And nice youtube clip btw, some great shots including a few from Nadal.

Wait, is this you trying to avoid my posts? They are based on logic, it can be made by anyone objective, infact I think even most neutrals would agree with me that your theory is flawed.

Nobody is trying to avoid your posts, Amri, don't flatter yourself.
People are just being polite, and you can't even see it.

That's the final phase of your "debate closing".

This is similar to the debate me and Paul had on Nadal's serve at the AO final.

Nadal's serve slowed below 100mph on average in sets 2-4.
Paul believed that Nadal did have a back injury, but it had no influence on his service speed, and Nadal was slowing down the serve to 'lengthen rallies and keep the ball in play'.
I believed that the back injury hindered the serve, hence meaning in a GS final Nadal had to serve below 100mph on average for the first time in his career.
Yes I'm a Nadal fan. But still, my position could be held be a neutral and is more logical.

This debate actually is even more convincing... simply because it is not possible for his theory to be correct.

I am not much into talent debates mostly because I do not care for talent one way or another, but a couple of points anyway:

To some extent the question of whether a player is or is not "talented" is I think about semantics.  Some people define talent based on the set of skills that traditionally used to be needed to succeed.  Others will define talent based on the skill set that is required at any given time.  So, the term "talent" will mean different things to different people.  They can in a sense both be correct.

The first group can be correct in that the players that are currently successful may not be most talented in respect of the skill set that was traditionally needed to win matches.  At the same time, those same players may tend to be more talented in the skills that are needed to win nowadays.

The second point is that talent is not the only component required for success.  It is just one ingredient.  So, obviously, a less talented player may become more successful if he is ahead in other ingredients.

Fair point SB, can't disagree.

However is this a talent debate?

Julia Santamaria wrote:However is this a talent debate?

I was wondering myself.  But as sure as can be, I have zero interest in a debate on a "detailed analysis of whether or not a poster on a forum is or is not wrong".  I thought the discussion touched on the issue of talent here and there, so I decided to comment on that aspect.

Sure, that's fine.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Sure, that's fine.

At the risk of derailing the thread - what do you think of that Thiem guy?  Is he for real or is he one of the youngsters who will for a while look like he might become the next big thing, before he finally fades away?  Maybe you can respond on the Rotterdam thread.

Will post on the Rotterdam thread

summerblues wrote:I am not much into talent debates mostly because I do not care for talent one way or another, but a couple of points anyway:

To some extent the question of whether a player is or is not "talented" is I think about semantics.  Some people define talent based on the set of skills that traditionally used to be needed to succeed.  Others will define talent based on the skill set that is required at any given time.  So, the term "talent" will mean different things to different people.  They can in a sense both be correct.

The first group can be correct in that the players that are currently successful may not be most talented in respect of the skill set that was traditionally needed to win matches.  At the same time, those same players may tend to be more talented in the skills that are needed to win nowadays.

The second point is that talent is not the only component required for success.  It is just one ingredient.  So, obviously, a less talented player may become more successful if he is ahead in other ingredients.

I thought talent could be defined in simpler terms and means essentially one thing: innate skills. In tennis those could be eye/hand coordination, timing, footwork, etc...The debate here is essentially about debating whether Nadal has relative innate skills (compared to rest of the field). He has a good footwork but his inability to take the ball early ...consistently....does not put him very high on the list of talented players. His constant inability to handle powerful players (requiring eye/hand coordination), despite having the best fitness and physic supports that view. For instance, how come Kholi can handle Rosol's pace on grass and Nadal was seriously troubled. How come Nadal could never beat a seeded player at teh USO when the USO was relatively faster....again, despite being the fastest mover and able to run for ever?

When considering Toni's strategy and plan, it's not surprising at all. For Toni's plan to work, Nadal needs to have enough time (therefore slow pace) to inject enough spin safely and for that slower conds are essential. Imo Toni never dreamt at first winning wimbledon....it's only when the balls became big and soft that they realised they coudl win on it too.

Rosol played a perfect match against Nadal, but against Kohli he was much worse, a bit like Ivanovic his hear beating Serena and then losing to Cibulkova in the AO.
It doesn't mean Serena is better than Cibulkova, in tennis after a big win for an underdog, it sometimes happens they can't keep that level of play up in the next match.

Nadal has a better H2H than Kohli vs every type of player: attacking, volleyers, defensive. Taking the example of one match, and then extrapolating it is hugely flawed. So poor to use it in that fashion in a debate.

As for why he did poorly in hard courts earlier on in his career, I don't know about surfaces, but certainly I know his footwork improved hugely on hard courts when he was around 23, after Toni switched Nadals training to only hard courts for a while. The footwork needed on clay and HC are different, sliding compared to little steps mainly.

Julia Santamaria wrote:This is similar to the debate me and Paul had on Nadal's serve at the AO final.

Nadal's serve slowed below 100mph on average in sets 2-4.
Paul believed that Nadal did have a back injury, but it had no influence on his service speed, and Nadal was slowing down the serve to 'lengthen rallies and keep the ball in play'.
I believed that the back injury hindered the serve, hence meaning in a GS final Nadal had to serve below 100mph on average for the first time in his career.
Yes I'm a Nadal fan. But still, my position could be held be a neutral and is more logical.

This debate actually is even more convincing... simply because it is not possible for his theory to be correct.

Hey stop writing lies, you are getting more skewed in your lying,  I wrote about Nadal theater that he just wanted to keep the ball in the game (by his slown down serve speed) and with no real intention to shorten rallies , but THE INTENTION WAS CLEAR, just to do everything how to disrupt Stan from his concentration.

I did not write nothing about lengthen rallies, you are just crippled mind.

No, no, you are totally blind by your idol, without any real tennis game knowledge, using cripple argumentation , all in all just typical Nadal's club stuff.

No intention to shorten rallies is very similar to wanting to 'lengthen rallies'.
And keeping the 'ball in play' is very similar to keeping the 'ball in game' as you said.
So both are synonymous, although not word for word exactly what you said.

'Crippled mind' etc. typical stuff, simply resort to this as you have nowhere else to go. Why debate when you can just get out of it with insulting in bold, hey?

These are the exact quotes:

Firstly you talking about why he slowed down serve:
Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:30 pm

Paul wrote:His game plan  was to keep the ball in rallies and not shortening of the rallies.

What I said was:

lengthen rallies and keep the ball in play

No huge difference, is there? Infact they're very very similar, virtually synonymous.

Anyway this debate is on the wrong thread, if you want to reply Paul, we can continue the same discussion on the other thread. Calling someone crippled isn't really a legitimate response by the way.

Julia Santamaria wrote:No intention to shorten rallies is very similar to wanting to 'lengthen rallies'.
And keeping the 'ball in play' is very similar to keeping the 'ball in game' as you said.
So both are synonymous, although not word for word exactly what you said.

'Crippled mind' etc. typical stuff, simply resort to this as you have nowhere else to go. Why debate when you can just get out of it with insulting in bold, hey?

Even if your crippled mind is really very bad, that stupid sentence made me laugh  

You are just something  

My earlier post for Tenez:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Rosol played a perfect match against Nadal, but against Kohli he was much worse, a bit like Ivanovic his hear beating Serena and then losing to Cibulkova in the AO.
It doesn't mean Serena is better than Cibulkova, in tennis after a big win for an underdog, it sometimes happens they can't keep that level of play up in the next match.

Nadal has a better H2H than Kohli vs every type of player: attacking, volleyers, defensive. Taking the example of one match, and then extrapolating it is hugely flawed. So poor to use it in that fashion in a debate.

As for why he did poorly in hard courts earlier on in his career, I don't know about surfaces, but certainly I know his footwork improved hugely on hard courts when he was around 23, after Toni switched Nadals training to only hard courts for a while. The footwork needed on clay and HC are different, sliding compared to little steps mainly.

Look Tenez, this debate is all well and good, but as I've explained your theory simply doesn't hold water. Why would Nadal, or Toni, be able to do something that millions others can't? According to what you're saying, as i've explained, there is no way Nadal would be so unique in his style of play and success.

paulcz wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:No intention to shorten rallies is very similar to wanting to 'lengthen rallies'.
And keeping the 'ball in play' is very similar to keeping the 'ball in game' as you said.
So both are synonymous, although not word for word exactly what you said.

'Crippled mind' etc. typical stuff, simply resort to this as you have nowhere else to go. Why debate when you can just get out of it with insulting in bold, hey?

Even if your crippled mind is really very bad, that stupid sentence made me laugh  

You are just something  

No need for insults, but surely you can see they are pretty similar?

If Nadal was serving fast, and then slows down the serve, i.e. makes a change, and it's because he wants to 'not shorten rallies'- is that not synonymous with wanting to 'lengthen rallies'. The only way you could argue I'm wrong is by saying that he wanted to keep them the same length, but this contradicts your whole point... if he wanted to keep rallies the same length why would he change his serve?
So thus 'not shortening rallies' and 'lengthening rallies' is basically synonymous, if it bugs you so much I will edit my post and write 'not shortening rallies' instead.

summerblues wrote:I am not much into talent debates mostly because I do not care for talent one way or another

Then why is Federer your favourite player and not Granolers?

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:I am not much into talent debates mostly because I do not care for talent one way or another

Then why is Federer your favourite player and not Granolers?

Maybe I should have expressed myself better.  I probably am attracted to tennis that is associated with talent - Federer and McEnroe have been my two all-time favorites, most of my other favorites over the years would have also been high on the traditional talent list.  So yes, by and large I will probably prefer "talented" players.

But I do not care about talent per se.  For example, if a player lacking talent found a way to produce similar tennis through long hours of practice alone, they would be just as likely as his talented counterparts to become my favorite.  And that makes it less interesting for me to discuss whether or not a specific player is talented.

Tenez wrote:I thought talent could be defined in simpler terms and means essentially one thing: innate skills.

That is how I think of talent too.  But even then, different conditions will favor different blends of talents.  So a player who has most talent to succeed in one set of conditions may not be the same as the player with most talent to succeed in different conditions.

Of course, I agree that even apart from that, there are other factors that will contribute to a player's success - i.e., success is not related to talent alone.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Rosol played a perfect match against Nadal, but against Kohli he was much worse.

Complete non-sense. Rosol is Rosol. Kholi is a proper talent. Able to block the return back without having to stand 5m behind the baseline. Nadal allowed Rosol to play the perfect game, Kholi did not give him a chance. That's what talent is about.

summerblues wrote:

Tenez wrote:I thought talent could be defined in simpler terms and means essentially one thing: innate skills.

That is how I think of talent too.  But even then, different conditions will favor different blends of talents.  So a player who has most talent to succeed in one set of conditions may not be the same as the player with most talent to succeed in different conditions.

Of course, I agree that even apart from that, there are other factors that will contribute to a player's success - i.e., success is not related to talent alone.

I'd say that the case for different sports like the talent to win a 100m is not the same as winning in marathon but not so much within one sport...though I agree clay should favour footwork and stamina talent while fast grass shoudl favour those with a talent in eye/hand coordination.

The problem I have with that is nowadays with diets the footwork and stamina talent can be greatly improved to the point that talent is almost irrelevant whereas the eye/hand coordination talent is almost impossible to improve....though meth can help a bit too, drugs will never give you a water tight proof technique. .

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Rosol played a perfect match against Nadal, but against Kohli he was much worse.

Complete non-sense. Rosol is Rosol.

No. See this is one thing you can't get your head round: performance fluctuations.

I watched Kohli vs. Rosol, and it was nowhere near his Nadal performance, he didn't make many first serves and was error strewn.

Honestly you're doing this, ignoring the fact players form may fluctuate, and then extrapolating from there.

There is no player that on average would do better against Nadal than Kohli.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Rosol played a perfect match against Nadal, but against Kohli he was much worse.

Complete non-sense. Rosol is Rosol.

No. See this is one thing you can't get your head round: performance fluctuations.
I watched Kohli vs. Rosol, and it was nowhere near his Nadal performance, he didn't make many first serves and was error strewn.
Honestly you're doing this, ignoring the fact players form may fluctuate, and then extrapolating from there.
There is no player that on average would do better against Nadal than Kohli.

Coooo Amri, where do you pull all these excuses all out of, you are right up there with Rafito!

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Rosol played a perfect match against Nadal, but against Kohli he was much worse.

Complete non-sense. Rosol is Rosol.

No. See this is one thing you can't get your head round: performance fluctuations.

I watched Kohli vs. Rosol, and it was nowhere near his Nadal performance, he didn't make many first serves and was error strewn.

Honestly you're doing this, ignoring the fact players form may fluctuate, and then extrapolating from there.

There is no player that on average would do better against Nadal than Kohli.

Unlike you I can make the difference between performance fluctuation and simply match ups. Nadal has always struggled against powerful players on fast and even slower surfaces but certainly more on fast surfaces. Nadal has constantly struggled in the first week of Wimbledon. He says it himself. This also explains why his MTOs are taken during that first week: Delpo, Youzhny, Petzschner, and I am sure others as he struggled v Querrey, Haase, Youzhny twice, etc...only winning in the 5th thanks simply to better stamina.

I knew and said it before the ecounter that Rosol would lose v Kholi. Anyone with a bit of match up knowledge would know those things.

It's not an excuse.
Rosols performance against Nadal was better than against Kohli, he was clearly still elated from his big victory when he played Kohli and played poorly.

Federer beat Sampras when he was young at Wimby, but then lost next round when he was young.
Performance fluctuations.

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Rosol played a perfect match against Nadal, but against Kohli he was much worse.

Complete non-sense. Rosol is Rosol.

No. See this is one thing you can't get your head round: performance fluctuations.
I watched Kohli vs. Rosol, and it was nowhere near his Nadal performance, he didn't make many first serves and was error strewn.
Honestly you're doing this, ignoring the fact players form may fluctuate, and then extrapolating from there.
There is no player that on average would do better against Nadal than Kohli.

Coooo Amri, where do you pull all these excuses all out of, you are right up there with Rafito!

It's so bizarre how Rafa fans are systematically the worst tennis analysts. everybody sees that Nadal's strength is his power and stamina but they all want to believe it's his clean ball striking. The ball striking is not that bad but he needs more time to read teh ball and needs the ball to slow down hence why he takes it so late. Go and explain that to them...a waste of time.

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

summerblues wrote:I am not much into talent debates mostly because I do not care for talent one way or another

Then why is Federer your favourite player and not Granolers?

Maybe I should have expressed myself better.  I probably am attracted to tennis that is associated with talent - Federer and McEnroe have been my two all-time favorites, most of my other favorites over the years would have also been high on the traditional talent list.  So yes, by and large I will probably prefer "talented" players.
But I do not care about talent per se.  For example, if a player lacking talent found a way to produce similar tennis through long hours of practice alone, they would be just as likely as his talented counterparts to become my favorite.  And that makes it less interesting for me to discuss whether or not a specific player is talented.

But that's the whole point of talent, it is impossible to "produce" it with practice.
You play tennis either instinctively and go for your shots (which is what talented players usually do), or you stay back and rally waiting for the opening in the court to go for a safe "winner".
Of course, there is nothing wrong with it, and a lot of players, like Nole, make up for the lack of shot-making (which he did not always used to be like, unfortunately) with fighting spirit, fire and grit.
I loved watching Nole demolish Nadal during 2011, he played his game and it was very attractive to watch.

Others may prefer Nadal, who has much less tennis talent than Nole, although, to be honest, I'll never understand why.

I guess Federer has spoilt us all. The way he can produce any shot from any inch of the court with such poise and beauty is really special.

Tenez wrote:I knew and said it before the ecounter that Rosol would lose v Kholi. Anyone with a bit of match up knowledge would know those things.

I also guessed Rosol would lose to Kohli.

Honestly Tenez, if it was a match-up, then compare the H2H record of Nadal and Kohli against players similar to Rosol.
Match-up would hint a continuity, a repeated pattern; what happened with Rosol is that Lukas played a sensational match, hitting huge serves and aces and smashing every return right back at Nadal's feet.

Julia Santamaria wrote:It's not an excuse.
Rosols performance against Nadal was better than against Kohli, he was clearly still elated from his big victory when he played Kohli and played poorly.

So I cannot see the fluctuation in forms but for some reasons matchups are also irrelevant right? To be able to block Rosol's serve back into his feet quicker doesn't quite matter? The fact that Rosol is tall enough not to be bothered by that high bouncing ball is irrelevant? The fact that this short high bouncing ball actually helped Rosol by allowing him to whack it past Nadal has nothing to do with giving Rosol that extra confidence? The fact that Rosol could see the ball coming from 5m behind the baseline did not help him his powerful shots?

Waste of time again.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:I knew and said it before the ecounter that Rosol would lose v Kholi. Anyone with a bit of match up knowledge would know those things.

I also guessed Rosol would lose to Kohli.

Honestly Tenez, if it was a match-up, then compare the H2H record of Nadal and Kohli against players similar to Rosol.
Match-up would hint a continuity, a repeated pattern; what happened with Rosol is that Lukas played a sensational match, hitting huge serves and aces and smashing every return right back at Nadal's feet.

What's that got to do with anything?
Rosol demolished Nadal, Kholi demolished Rosol. Kholi is a more complete player than Nadal. Imagine Nadal playing with a SBH and you get the picture...

Tenez, compare the H2H for Nadal and Kohli against players like Rosol.... Nadal is far ahead.

Rosol played a dream match against Nadal.

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:I knew and said it before the ecounter that Rosol would lose v Kholi. Anyone with a bit of match up knowledge would know those things.

I also guessed Rosol would lose to Kohli.

Honestly Tenez, if it was a match-up, then compare the H2H record of Nadal and Kohli against players similar to Rosol.
Match-up would hint a continuity, a repeated pattern; what happened with Rosol is that Lukas played a sensational match, hitting huge serves and aces and smashing every return right back at Nadal's feet.

What's that got to do with anything?
Rosol demolished Nadal, Kholi demolished Rosol. Kholi is a  more complete player than Nadal. Imagine Nadal playing with a SBH and you get the picture...

In which way is beating someone in 5 sets demolishing them? That is nonsense, and you know it.

What does the H2H have to do with anything? Look if Tenez is right, and players like Rosol match up better to Nadal than Kohli, then show me the stats.
2 matches is a very small sample size, we can't extrapolate from that.

The reason I am saying you can't make generalisations or extrapolate from 2 matches is simply because it's not a big sample size.

When you have a small sample size, it is unreliable to gain conclusions from it, due to fluctuations in form. That is the case here, Rosol played a dream match against Nadal; and then played poorly against Kohli, he did not look focused (as can happen... just after pulling off such a big shock, it would be difficult for Rosol to mentally press the reset button).

Tenez wrote: It's so bizarre how Rafa fans are systematically the worst tennis analysts. everybody sees that Nadal's strength is his power and stamina but they all want to believe it's his clean ball striking. The ball striking is not that bad but he needs more time to read teh ball and needs the ball to slow down hence why he takes it so late. Go and explain that to them...a waste of time.

It's bizarre but also disappointing to see the lack of will to take the blinkers off, or head out of sand and i hale some fresh air!
I think Amri is a part of some Nadal community somewhere and sees "defending" Nadal here as some kind of conquest, I reckon Blueclay and a few others came from the same group.
But, on the other hand, it's good that Amri is trying things out through tennis at David Lloyd, maybe the penny WILL drop one day...when Nadal retires, of course

Julia Santamaria wrote:Tenez, compare the H2H for Nadal and Kohli against players like Rosol.... Nadal is far ahead.

Rosol played a dream match against Nadal.

What do you mean by players "like" Rosol? Who are those players like Rosol? then the comparison needs to be on grass. What I know is that even Isner troubled Nadal on clay. Delpo troubles nadal on all surfaces. Haase troubled nadal on green grass despite slow balls. Even the injured belge last summer troubled Nadal on green slippery grass. Wasn't Kholi who beat Nadal in Halle last summer?

nadal was good enough to beat anybody on clay but suddenly faster surface and he is out....those details need to be disregarded cause they don't suit you. I believe need to check but Nadal may not have won a single Wimbledon if the first week were in best of 3 and certainly woul dhave lost many other times early. meaning he only managed to pass that first week thanks to stamina.

noleisthebest wrote:
I think Amri is a part of some Nadal community somewhere and sees "defending" Nadal here as some kind of conquest, I reckon Blueclay and a few others came from the same group.
But, on the other hand, it's good that Amri is trying things out through tennis at David Lloyd, maybe the penny WILL drop one day...when Nadal retires, of course

Please, we don't need this patronising talk, you are entitled to your view just as I am, the only difference is I can defend my view with evidence.

Tenez, Nadal reached 5 Wimbledon finals in a row.

And there is no real preparation on grass apart from Queens or Halle, so Nadal comes to Wimbledon normally quite short of match practice on the surface. So yes, he finds it difficult in the first few rounds.

Julia Santamaria wrote:, the only difference is I can defend my view with evidence.

We must be all blind here then.....unless you are the blind one of course. The evidence is that Nadal could not handle Rosol's pace...not something unheard of Nadal in that first week, is it?

Julia Santamaria wrote:
Please, we don't need this patronising talk, you are entitled to your view just as I am, the only difference is I can defend my view with evidence.

Amri, what you call "evidence" are just constructed and contrived pursuits which have nothing to do with reality.
You view things from a very narrow perspective called Rafael Nadal and are not able to see the big picture.
That's not patronising, just plain truth, you view it as patronising because that's your defensive mechanism against the truth.