Toughtest tennis player to beat... ever

Nadal a top 50 player?
Truffin... that's far too generous for Nadal... smh

He's top 150 at best.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Nadal a top 50 player?
Truffin... that's far too generous for Nadal... smh

He's top 150 at best.

oh good.. u've seen the light.. I was trying to be nice

Unfortunately, gauging where Nadal stands or where any player stands in absolute terms is impossible because the surfaces and equipment were not standardized.  I find it completely unacceptable that a sport like this would not do that but that's the reality. Once upon a time, small players could become greats, now they haven't a chance.

The only thing we can go on is all round play, fitness, movement, accuracy, ability and what we perceive to be "genius".  Federer, Laver, Borg and a few others enter the criteria of great.  Nadal does not. The reason he doesn't is because his success is based entirely around the beneficial conditions, and power/speed more than what tennis is ultimately about (or was designed to be about) : ability.

The reason I am against putting too much stock on slam totals is because this criteria alone is not a good gauge of how good players actually are. Nadal having 13 slams is probably the most inflated stat of them all.  In today's conditions you can consider Nadal a great, but in conditions tennis was designed to be played in, he is nowhere close.

That's the issue here... tennis today simply ISN'T what tennis was designed to be.  It's "Tennis: this era".  And in the future, the surfaces will speed up again, racquets might be standardized and if that ever happens, people will look back on this era as "the one where it was all about power and speed".  Imagine someone in the future, where the racquets are smaller, and the surfaces are faster, watching a match with Nadal in it.  You can pretty much guarantee they will laugh at it.

Tennis is evolving, who are you to say how it should be or how it shouldn't?
Slow surfaces and fast surfaces all count, the only reason you hate slower surfaces is because the player you hate Nadal has done well on them.

Julia Santamaria wrote:Tennis is evolving, who are you to say how it should be or how it shouldn't?
Slow surfaces and fast surfaces all count, the only reason you hate slower surfaces is because the player you hate Nadal has done well on them.

You seem to have had an emotional response to my post because it has hit a nerve. Tennis is evolving, you are right, but in the WRONG direction because tennis was made to test ABILITY.  That was its main purpose, and today it isn't doing that anywhere near what it should be.  I don't mind slow surfaces as long as you have fast surfaces.  Clay is clay, but today, grass is like green clay.  That isn't how it should be.  Nadal should never have won Wimbledon, and he wouldn't have done in the 80s.  Is that fair to Federer or to others who aren't winning it thanks to homogenization?

You need to get over your love of Nadal and see the bigger picture.

FedererKing wrote:You seem to have had an emotional response to my post because it has hit a nerve. Tennis is evolving, you are right, but in the WRONG direction

That's your opinion. Posting it in capital letters doesn't make it more valid.

Nadal should never have won Wimbledon, and he wouldn't have done in the 80s.

 
The first clause from the statement coming from you is not surprising, considering you hate Nadal and called him the c-word in capital letters.
The second clause is irrelevant, players in the 80's may not have won now either.

FedererKing wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:Tennis is evolving, who are you to say how it should be or how it shouldn't?
Slow surfaces and fast surfaces all count, the only reason you hate slower surfaces is because the player you hate Nadal has done well on them.

You seem to have had an emotional response to my post because it has hit a nerve.

If anyone is getting emotional it's you, I responded logically, meanwhile you are getting infuriated and are raging.

You seem to be arguing that tennis was designed to be what it is today, and it wasn't.  That's the problem you have. You are happy with the conditions all being homogenized, and all players being reduced to the courts that favour your one dimensional idol.  I, on the other hand, want tennis to be played as it was originally designed to be.  Smaller racquets, different courts and conditions, so that every part of a player is tested, and not just how fast they can run.

In short, you prefer a dumbed down sport, and I, and the older generation who made tennis a sport, do not.  Nobody in the future is going to respect this era.  You have Federer, Djokovich, Murray AND Nadal all dominating the Masters series, where one upon a time clay and hard and grass were so different that you had to be an amazing all round player to win on all surfaces (like Federer and Borg).  All today is doing is taking away true competition and spoiling the game.

It comes down to one thing.  Either you like a sport to be about ability and an all round challenge, or you don't.  You don't.  You are like Nadal and Toni- you want anything that can get Nadal to be successful, regardless of how that hurts others.  Because of your childish and selfish attitude Roddick was never a Wimbledon champion, Del Potro is on one Slam, Tsonga has never won a Slam, and countless other injustices have been allowed to happen.  Instead, we have ridiculous defence triumphing over ability on every single surface. 

That's why I don't like your position on things.  It is selfish, short sighted, and bores me to tears.

This is an irrational argument from you, to put it nicely.

You seem to be arguing that tennis was designed to be what it is today, and it wasn't.

No. No, I haven't.
Infact I said exactly the opposite, that I recognise that tennis is evolving.

I, on the other hand, want tennis to be played as it was originally designed to be.

Are you aware of the implications of this?
By originially designed, are you saying we should go back to how tennis was played in the 1940's? 1950's?
Technology has changed since the 1940's, so is any result between 1940 and 2013 valid? If the rackets were exactly the same as in the 1940's, and the courts were the same; the whole  top 2000 may be different, it may not be- you can't know for sure.

In short, you prefer a dumbed down sport,

Once again, you've taken your opinion and assumed it to be a fact.
What is 'dumbed down'?
Some fans like watching certain conditions, some fans like watching tennis in different conditions. The viewewship in tennis at the moment seems to be high, hence the large levels of sponsorship.

You are happy with the conditions all being homogenized,

I haven't actually said this. I've argued before that we should have two slower slams on clay, and two faster slams on hard court and grass, for variety. 5050 split between fast and slow seems a fair option.

It is selfish, short sighted, and bores me to tears.

No, no.
There are millions of Federer fans around the world. Most are positive about him, and even respect his biggest rival Nadal- infact they see it has even driven Federer on to become a better player in many ways.
However some Federer fans are so angry at certain painful defeats Nadal has inflicted on Federer, that they choose to spend their lives spewing vitirolic hatred at him on internet forums. I follow tennis for positivity, I like Nadal and even respect his rivals.
To be fair I have seen people who hate Nadal even more than you go, Julius being one example who hates him considerably more, but I think you should let it go.
Anger and frustration coming to fruition via irrational arguments seems to be your current way of working.