Day 3 French Open Predictions

I am pretty sure the balls are faster this year. We will hear it from the players soon.

Tenez wrote:I am pretty sure the balls are faster this year. We will hear it from the players soon.

yes, but what does that matter with Nadal's upset-proof draw?

Frew Macmillan said they were, as did Wilander.

I thought nadal would play on wednesday too... 


shapovalov will be a threat for nadal if they meet, if nadal continues in this erratic mode and weather keeps humid

but I think they wont meet

Shapo highlights:



Again, for me, the most impressive is the ease with which he hits those winners.
Beautiful potential there for developing and finetuning his arsenal.

bogbrush wrote:Frew Macmillan said they were, as did Wilander.

wow...glad it seems to be the case. I wasn;t sure.

Federer!!!! You should have entered!

noleisthebest wrote:Looking at the draw:

https://fft-rg-site.cdn.prismic.io/fft-rg-site%2F9584d215-d19a-4abf-9af8-ac8f468d6df1_men_s_singles_20180528.pdf

Shapo has a relatively clear path to Nadal in 2 mathches. He is better than Bolleli on all fronts and has played him on clay recently.

I did not think Shapo would have a chance vs Rafa on clay BUT:  (1) Rafa - in spite of all the results - has not looked all that good to me on clay this year, (2) Shapo has done better on clay than I expected he would, and (3) there are not many other dangerous players in Rafa's path so we may have to rely on Shapo.  It would be wonderful if Shapo could beat Rafa here, and then play Fed at Wimbledon and lose to him there.  I hope it will not end up the other way around.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:How can ROTLA can see that match and think that Nadal is not all fitness. What does he bring on the table besides running around like a rabbit?

Sweating like he is in a sauna?

Btw, I have a feeling Rotla's tried to play like Nadal, spin and all and realised how tough it is so he is now in awe of him.

It's easy to play like Nadal....for 2 points.....its doing it time after time that's killing!

I couldn't even if I was doped like him...it's soul-destroying!

Nadal is NOT all fitness. His game is top level clay court tennis and it gets elevated to a much higher level with added fitness. Nadal is not retrieving like Murray does, he gives back a hard strong difficult ball. And he does it over and over.  

This is not running like a rabbit. Running doesn't get him points, its what he does while running gets it. Understand the difference.

Plus he gets a top shot on big points. See how he saved so many BPs and SPs against Bolleli, painting the lines with a winner. He is not likely to pull the trigger first, but he does have a surprise element.


If spinning  FH of Nadal's game was easy, there would be many players doing it.  I don't see anyone. 

You need to put the exact amount of contact with the ball. Too much contact, ball doesn't spin enough but instead goes long . A bit less contact, it spins , but may not be able to go over the net.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Nadal is NOT all fitness. His game is top level clay court tennis and it gets elevated to a much higher level with added fitness. Nadal is not retrieving like Murray does, he gives back a hard strong difficult ball. And he does it over and over.  
This is not running like a rabbit. Running doesn't get him points, its what he does while running gets it. Understand the difference.
Plus he gets a top shot on big points. See how he saved so many BPs and SPs against Bolleli, painting the lines with a winner. He is not likely to pull the trigger first, but he does have a surprise element.
If spinning  FH of Nadal's game was easy, there would be many players doing it.  I don't see anyone. 
You need to put the exact amount of contact with the ball. Too much contact, ball doesn't spin enough but instead goes long . A bit less contact, it spins , but may not be able to go over the net.

Yes, but without his fitness he’d be nothing.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Nadal is NOT all fitness. His game is top level clay court tennis and it gets elevated to a much higher level with added fitness. Nadal is not retrieving like Murray does, he gives back a hard strong difficult ball. And he does it over and over. 

 I am afraid that's wrong. Yesterday Nadal was only retrieving. He only starts to be aggressive when he is ahead or when the opponent hasn't got the hurting shots (like Fed's old BH). But against Murray, Murray is actually the aggressor, watch videos, you will see!

Plus he gets a top shot on big points. See how he saved so many BPs and SPs against Bolleli, painting the lines with a winner. He is not likely to pull the trigger first, but he does have a surprise element.

That was luck. If Nadal could hit the lines at will, he would not be facing so many BPs and SPs and mostly Bolelli being nervous as of course he was taking all the risk.

If spinning  FH of Nadal's game was easy, there would be many players doing it.  I don't see anyone. 

What? they all do but they do it with less margins...just much more risk. Spinning the ball is dead easy with todays strings, light racquets and large frames. It's doing with that much energy time and time again which is draining....more so the running forced upon him cause cause he goes for too much margins. Why do you think he is standing that far back? So he can time the ball better as it drops in pace! If you played tennis all this would make sense to you.

You need to put the exact amount of contact with the ball. Too much contact, ball doesn't spin enough but instead goes long . A bit less contact, it spins , but may not be able to go over the net.

This is the proof you don't play the game. Hit a powerful ball flat (no spin) coming at you and you will see how much harder it is to control it....and do it while taking it early!!!
That is why all players topspin the ball but the more talented put less of it for the benefit of pace, while trying to get more precise as well. Look at how Bolelli could generate more pace yesterday and dictate while having half the arm size. He lost because he made more UEs than Nadal made winners. More UEs cause it is much harder to hit the ball flatter than with so much spin and margins!
You have been reading enough tennis here to know those basics!

Even When Nadal was dominating Murray, it was Murray looking for angles and Nadal just bringing the ball in the middle of the court. I am so surprised you see it so differently!

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Looking at the draw:

https://fft-rg-site.cdn.prismic.io/fft-rg-site%2F9584d215-d19a-4abf-9af8-ac8f468d6df1_men_s_singles_20180528.pdf

Shapo has a relatively clear path to Nadal in 2 mathches. He is better than Bolleli on all fronts and has played him on clay recently.

I did not think Shapo would have a chance vs Rafa on clay BUT:  (1) Rafa - in spite of all the results - has not looked all that good to me on clay this year, (2) Shapo has done better on clay than I expected he would, and (3) there are not many other dangerous players in Rafa's path so we may have to rely on Shapo.  It would be wonderful if Shapo could beat Rafa here, and then play Fed at Wimbledon and lose to him there.  I hope it will not end up the other way around.

Shapo beating Fed at Wimbledon would surely be the dream. It would be the perfect passing of the torch moment, with Fed then able to retire knowing that the future of the game is in good hands. Obviously, it would be an added bonus if he beat Rafa at Roland Garros though!

Slippy wrote:
Shapo beating Fed at Wimbledon would surely be the dream. It would be the perfect passing of the torch moment, with Fed then able to retire knowing that the future of the game is in good hands. Obviously, it would be an added bonus if he beat Rafa at Roland Garros though!

That would only be Sampras’ and Nadal’s fans dream...

It is already clear that Shapo will take over from Federer by his style of playing and of course the SBH.

Nothing to prove by beating Fed.

LOL Tenez

Don't be going personal against ROTLA with the 'you don't know about tennis' line when you said that 5'6 Schwartzman is a harder opponent for Nadal than Cilic. Even Andrew Castle probably has the analytical skills to accurately explain why that's not right.
And let's not forget it's well established that you reliably get 90%+ of your predictions wrong, whether it's short term (always declare a player dead for energy just because he's lost momentum mid match), or long term (Ryan Harrison future slam winner).

DECIMA wrote:LOL Tenez

Don't be going personal against ROTLA with the 'you don't know about tennis' line when you said that 5'6 Schwartzman is a harder opponent for Nadal than Cilic. Even Andrew Castle probably has the analytical skills to accurately explain why that's not right.
And let's not forget it's well established that you reliably get 90%+ of your predictions wrong, whether it's short term (always declare a player dead for energy just because he's lost momentum mid match), or long term (Ryan Harrison future slam winner).

yeah cause in terms of predictions you are better? Frankly you have to change pseudo every other week to keep some faith and cedibility.

I have actually a very good prediction rate. Unlike you I see the potential in youngsters way before you. Sure some youngsters have not delivered...there are always going to be some of them (Harisson for instance). But here you have threads about many youngsters such as Rublev and Chung way before they were know to most...and they deliver!

Your prediction is as risky as saying nadal will hit a CC FH within his next 3 Matches! And yet you have got it so wrong over the many years.

I am not having a go at ROTLA. I am just surprised he does doesn;t see Rafa as a retriever...when everybody does...bar you maybe!

debate in this forum has arrived to a place were nadal is talentless

and that´s ridiculous

naxroy wrote:debate in this forum has arrived to a place were nadal is talentless

and that´s ridiculous

That’s because here we know what talent is.
Playing game far from the baseline, taking the ball as late as possible, relying heavily on fitness is not talent.

naxroy wrote:debate in this forum has arrived to a place were nadal is talentless

and that´s ridiculous

It is not! If you understand "professional" sport it makes perfect sense. If you are open to understand how it works, you will come to the same conclusions.

But for that you have to admit that Nadal takes extra time between points....not because OCD but simply because he needs that extra time.

Those guys make millions by reaching the top. They earn considerably less, hardly viable in fact if they don't get into the top 50, 20 even! They would not want to let their future be decided on talent which is a very erratic parameter (form of the day). This is why those who took the physical route (Djoko, Murray and Nadal) have had extremely consistent results....as I am sure you agree neither Murray nor Djokovic will be remembered for their shotmaking/talent.

You need to drop your pre-conceived ideas to understand sport at that level.

Tenez wrote:
I have actually a very good prediction rate. Unlike you I see the potential in youngsters way before you.

Maybe you keep your good predictions to yourself, and only write the dodgy ones down on forums, because your track record is historically bad.

As for you seeing potential in youngsters, all you do is get mindlessly hysterical when anyone under the age of 25 does something moderately good for more than 10 minutes.
This is a word for word quote of your response to Nadal vs Shap @Rome. The score at the time was 2-2, Nadal hadn't dropped a point on serve, and Shap had saved 6 break points already, after Nadal made awful unforced errors on second serve returns on a few break points.

Tenez wrote:Those 2 service games from Shapo were absolutely amazing! Nadal at his very best...could not break the 19yo.

he is going to be 1o times better than Nadal on clay.

he looks like Fed at his best even though he is only 19! Unlikely to be able to sustain it at 19...but so impressive already.

You're lucky you're a Fed fan, if I had compared that mediocre start from Shap to Federer at his best, someone like Bogbrush or Trumpfan Summerblues would have torn me to shreds.

Tenez wrote:
And yet you have got it so wrong over the many years.

Really? When? Some examples, please.

Tenez wrote:

naxroy wrote:debate in this forum has arrived to a place were nadal is talentless

and that´s ridiculous

It is not! If you understand "professional" sport it makes perfect sense. If you are open to understand how it works, you will come to the same conclusions.

But for that you have to admit that Nadal takes extra time between points....not because OCD but simply because he needs that extra time.

Those guys make millions by reaching the top. They earn considerably less, hardly viable in fact if they don't get into the top 50, 20 even! They would not want to let their future be decided on talent which is a very erratic parameter (form of the day). This is why those who took the physical route (Djoko, Murray and Nadal) have had extremely consistent results....as I am sure you agree neither Murray nor Djokovic will be remembered for their shotmaking/talent.

You need to drop your pre-conceived ideas to understand sport at that level.

what can I say, It is obvious nobody can reach the top 1 in the world without a huge talent

DECIMA wrote:Maybe you keep your good predictions to yourself, and only write the dodgy ones down on forums, because your track record is historically bad.

As for you seeing potential in youngsters, all you do is get mindlessly hysterical when anyone under the age of 25 does something moderately good for more than 10 minutes.
This is a word for word quote of your response to Nadal vs Shap @Rome. The score at the time was 2-2, Nadal hadn't dropped a point on serve, and Shap had saved 6 break points already, after Nadal made awful unforced errors on second serve returns on a few break points.

 
But it doesn;t change anything. That's teh problem you have. You stick to score and results and can;t see the prowess of the player. The perfect case is that when you (and ROTLA BTW) wrote pages telling us in 2013 that Fed had suddenly declined because his results were poor in spite of him having played fantastically in 2012 and beginning of 13. I knew it was his back or else cause one doesn;t decline that rapidly! But you are blind to the game....just stick to scoring! So the fact is you don;t bring any knowledge to a forum.

You're lucky you're a Fed fan, if I had compared that mediocre start from Shap to Federer at his best, someone like Bogbrush or Trumpfan Summerblues would have torn me to shreds.

I stick to what I say. Someone like Shapo, bar injuries of course, will become 10 times better than Nadal. The fact is Nadal has not got a game who impressed Bolelli. He certainly has a fitness which impresses.

Really? When? Some examples, please.

So many. Nadal declined in 2011 according to you! Federer in 2007 or 8, but can find tons of others if I go through...whereas you can check the prediction thread....I have done quite well.

naxroy wrote:

Tenez wrote:

naxroy wrote:debate in this forum has arrived to a place were nadal is talentless

and that´s ridiculous

It is not! If you understand "professional" sport it makes perfect sense. If you are open to understand how it works, you will come to the same conclusions.

But for that you have to admit that Nadal takes extra time between points....not because OCD but simply because he needs that extra time.

Those guys make millions by reaching the top. They earn considerably less, hardly viable in fact if they don't get into the top 50, 20 even! They would not want to let their future be decided on talent which is a very erratic parameter (form of the day). This is why those who took the physical route (Djoko, Murray and Nadal) have had extremely consistent results....as I am sure you agree neither Murray nor Djokovic will be remembered for their shotmaking/talent.

You need to drop your pre-conceived ideas to understand sport at that level.

what can I say, It is obvious nobody can reach the top 1 in the world without a huge talent

Another preconceived idea. Anyone who knows about cycling will tell you that Lance was not particularly known for his cycling talent when young.

You don;t argue...you come with statements. Unfounded ones as well.

Now Nadal has talent....like Gasquet is extremely fit. But of course we are talking in absolute terms here but when making judgement of a tennis players it is in comparison with their peers. And in that case the initial statement is wrong.

Tenez wrote:
I stick to what I say. Someone like Shapo, bar injuries of course, will become 10 times better than Nadal.

Of course he will. Not just that, you said he will become 10 times better than Nadal on clay specifically. And in those games he looked like Fed at his best. It's like I'm at an all you can eat buffet of nonsensical statements.

Tenez wrote:
So many. Nadal declined in 2011 according to you! Federer in 2007 or 8, but can find tons of others if I go through...whereas you can check the prediction thread....I have done quite well.

I said Nadal declined in 2011? Can't recall this at all.

Nadal at the age of 8 was winning tournaments against kids aged 12

naxroy wrote:Nadal at the age of 8 was winning tournaments against kids aged 12

Is that your argument? In my club the club champion is 14 and beat everybody there from 18 to 68!

it is not an argument, but you were talking about armstrong not being known for his cycling talent when he was young, and Nadal was indeed known for his huge talent since he was quite young

all of us in spain were hearing stories from a new tennis idol in 2003 when he was barely 16

and it was not due to his physical supremacy that I tell you

Tenez wrote:I am pretty sure the balls are faster this year. We will hear it from the players soon.

nadal said yesterday balls were more "alive" in the sense of more bouncy, but he also said that was good for him

he was more worried about the state of the court, saying it was very slippery

DECIMA wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I have actually a very good prediction rate. Unlike you I see the potential in youngsters way before you.

Maybe you keep your good predictions to yourself, and only write the dodgy ones down on forums, because your track record is historically bad.

As for you seeing potential in youngsters, all you do is get mindlessly hysterical when anyone under the age of 25 does something moderately good for more than 10 minutes.
This is a word for word quote of your response to Nadal vs Shap @Rome. The score at the time was 2-2, Nadal hadn't dropped a point on serve, and Shap had saved 6 break points already, after Nadal made awful unforced errors on second serve returns on a few break points.  

Tenez wrote:Those 2 service games from Shapo were absolutely amazing! Nadal at his very best...could not break the 19yo.

he is going to be 1o times better than Nadal on clay.

he looks like Fed at his best even though he is only 19! Unlikely to be able to sustain it at 19...but so impressive already.

You're lucky you're a Fed fan, if I had compared that mediocre start from Shap to Federer at his best, someone like Bogbrush or Trumpfan Summerblues would have torn me to shreds.

Tenez wrote:
And yet you have got it so wrong over the many years.

Really? When? Some examples, please.

Ah Amrit, I would never be like that with you  

I'm a fan of The Donald too by the way. At least I love what he does to the people I really dislike. Plus I think he's going to show how international negotiation is really done.

naxroy wrote:

Tenez wrote:I am pretty sure the balls are faster this year. We will hear it from the players soon.

nadal said yesterday balls were more "alive" in the sense of more bouncy, but he also said that was good for him

he was more worried about the state of the court, saying it was very slippery

Oh he loves the bouncy balls. He'd love nothing more than to get it up to 8-9 feet onto a backhand.

bogbrush wrote:Ah Amrit, I would never be like that with you  

I'm a fan of The Donald too by the way. At least I love what he does to the people I really dislike. Plus I think he's going to show how international negotiation is really done.

Actually from what I gather, it just shows that he has no more power than his predecessors. All his good intentions of prior his elections have got down the drain when he got to power and realised how bad the economical situation was.

So the only good things left about him are those funny non PC tweets....pretty sad really when you think about it.

Slippy wrote:Shapo beating Fed at Wimbledon would surely be the dream.

Dream, nightmare, what's the difference?

Seriously though, yes, if someone has to beat Fed, then Shapo would be as good a choice as any.  But it would be much nicer if Fed beat him.  As good as Shapo is - and may become - he has nowhere near the Fed's flair, so I would rather see Fed winning for as long as possible.

Tenez wrote: But against Murray, Murray is actually the aggressor, watch videos, you will see!

We will do the video analysis later and in detail. There are a lot of Murray-Nadal videos to see.  Provide the instance of the point to elaborate.

Tenez wrote:That was luck. If Nadal could hit the lines at will, he would not be facing so many BPs and SPs and mostly Bolelli being nervous as of course he was taking all the risk.

Wasn't it? Luck. Its all luck ever.

Tenez wrote:What? they all do but they do it with less margins...just much more risk. Spinning the ball is dead easy with todays strings, light racquets and large frames. It's doing with that much energy time and time again which is draining....more so the running forced upon him cause cause he goes for too much margins. Why do you think he is standing that far back? So he can time the ball better as it drops in pace! If you played tennis all this would make sense to you. 

Bring me anyone who can generate as much or more RPMs in a tour match. We are not talking 2rpm spin here, lets be clear on that. Nadal generates FH spin at over 4000rpms, some close to 5000. Now get someone who can do this and still control the ball? there are NONE.

I asked you why no is doing it, given the sucess it brings to Nadal since 2005? Coz its not easy.

Hitting flat is easier. Way easier.  Risky yes, but what else is the option if one lacks skill to generate spin and pace together. 

Thats why all beginners, amateurs and even women at pro level keep hitting flat. See their RPMs and compare. Flatter with power adjustment to keep control is easier.

Tenez wrote:This is the proof you don't play the game. Hit a powerful ball flat (no spin) coming at you and you will see how much harder it is to control it....and do it while taking it early!!!

We are not here to bring personal playing credentials. And you didn't my point. I was talking about making a shot, flat vs spin.. You are elaborating about receiving...

And even in receiving, dealing with a flat ball is easier if one reaches in position. With a spinny ball, even if one reaches in position, the weight of the spin makes it too difficult to control.


I don't play tennis, played only 2-3 times, its my my playing sport. But I'm a top-level player in table-tennis ( At work, club level). And I understand the dynamics of both sports.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Bring me anyone who can generate as much or more RPMs in a tour match. We are not talking 2rpm spin here, lets be clear on that. Nadal generates FH spin at over 4000rpms, some close to 5000. Now get someone who can do this and still control the ball? there are NONE.

And do you really think those big musles Nadal have have nothing to do with RPM? What precision? Look at that clip I showed you or any other for that matter. It's high over the net and mostly in the middle of the court. You are here trying to deny the obvious. And quite a few other players can spin the ball harder....but it's physically demanding hence don;t do it as often but what they do is spin with much more risk than Nadal...and not moonballing. If he is that good at precision....why can't he moonball to victory on faster surfaces? Why 75% of his wins come on clay????? the rest on slow grass or hard?

I asked you why no is doing it, given the sucess it brings to Nadal since 2005? Coz its not easy.

As I said it's not easy to do it time and time again, cause it is physically demanding. In spite of having the best doctors, Nadal is the player who has been most injured or "silently banned" which ever you prefer. To do what Nadal does you need to burn lots of Oxygene that is why he takes that extra time between points. To allow his red cells to refill with O2 hence energy.
There is nothing wrong being a fan of Nadal....as long as one recognises what really makes him tough to beat on clay.

Hitting flat is easier. Way easier.  Risky yes, but what else is the option if one lacks skill to generate spin and pace together. 

Wow! I am afraid but you are contradicting yourself here. Cannot be easier and riskier at the same time. Doesn't make sense when the aim in tennis is scoring more points than the opponent...in particular important points.
And secondly it's certainly not easier for the same reasons. ff you wish to hot the ball deep with pace consistently while taking the ball early is 3 times harder than topspinning cause the ball stays a third of the time in your racket, hence much more difficult to control.

Thats why all beginners, amateurs and even women at pro level keep hitting flat. See their RPMs and compare. Flatter with power adjustment to keep control is easier.

You are talking of beginners who scoop the ball up? They are doing what Nadal does in fact....except that nadal does it with spin. The pro women who hit flat are still spinning the ball. It contradicts again what you say before....it's riskier. It cannot be risky and easy in professional tennis. I am afraid it does not make sense!!!

We are not here to bring personal playing credentials. And you didn't my point. I was talking about making a shot, flat vs spin.. You are elaborating about receiving...

It's important to have experience to have knowledge. All kids are taught to spin the ball cause it is much safer than hitting flat. Google all the articles in the world about spinning and hitting flat they will tell you the same thing.

And even in receiving, dealing with a flat ball is easier if one reaches in position. With a spinny ball, even if one reaches in position, the weight of the spin makes it too difficult to control.

Depends. If you stand 5 m behind the baseline a la Nadal, then topspining (moonballing) is actually safer than blocking the ball flat from closer the baseline. You cannot block the ball back from 5m behind the baseline cause then you are going to send a soft ball back which is going to be easy to volley or put away. Hitting a return close to the BL flat requires better anticipation skills. Standing 5m behind requires better mouvement and more energy.....once again.

I don't play tennis, played only 2-3 times, its my my playing sport. But I'm a top-level player in table-tennis ( At work, club level). And I understand the dynamics of both sports.

Table tennis was also my first sport and I use it a lot to make comparison, especially now that tennis has a lot more spinning thanks to the new strings.

I am afraid you need to try again to see the difference between flat hitting and topspinning. As I said all pros topspins, only the better (more talented) ones can hit flatt-er especially if hitting DTL SHBH.....a la Stan, Shapo or Federer for instance.  

Imagine Nadal with a SHBH! Do you think he would want to extend rallies?

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Hitting flat is easier. Way easier.  Risky yes, but what else is the option if one lacks skill to generate spin and pace together. 

Wow! I am afraid but you are contradicting yourself here. Cannot be easier and riskier at the same time. Doesn't make sense when the aim in tennis is scoring more points than the opponent...in particular important points.
And secondly it's certainly not easier for the same reasons. ff you wish to hot the ball deep with pace consistently while taking the ball early is 3 times harder than topspinning cause the ball stays a third of the time in your racket, hence much more difficult to control.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Thats why all beginners, amateurs and even women at pro level keep hitting flat. See their RPMs and compare. Flatter with power adjustment to keep control is easier.

You are talking of beginners who scoop the ball up? They are doing what Nadal does in fact....except that nadal does it with spin. The pro women who hit flat are still spinning the ball. It contradicts again what you say before....it's riskier. It cannot be risky and easy in professional tennis. I am afraid it does not make sense!!!

No, rotla.
The ONLY reason why we hit flat is because we physically can't sustain spinning the ball. It's that simple.
It is extremely exhausting.
One Nadal's FH is probably worth 5 Nishi's in terms of energy.

And it's so much more difficult to be consistent with flat hitting as only your talent is keeping the ball in, not the spin.

One flat FHDTL winner under pressure is 100 times more difficult to pull off than Nadal's spinny moonball down the middle or well within the lines which is his bread and butter, probably 95-99% of shots...those shots have made Nadal "king of clay", that is the only reason why I am not in the least impressed.

I see every winner of his as a moonball full of hard work and sweat, and only appreciate his footwork and movement.

And to answer your next question "how come nobody else plays like Nadal if it's that easy", my theory is that Toni made work Nadal much harder than a standard coach would have the liberty to. It stayed in the family, kind of thing.

Toni even said stg to the effect that he could not make another player like that as kids these days are too pampered.

We will discuss this further in another thread during the non-slam dull periods. I'm avoiding it, certainly not. Will continue from here.