Why Tenez is wrong on Nadal- Detailed analysis

Tenez wrote: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. .

I think we mostly agree on this.

I think even ignoring anything else, tennis conditions have changed enough compared to 30-40 years ago that the talents required to succeed now are different from what was needed then.  Not quite like 100m vs marathon, but maybe something closer to 200m vs 400m - similar talents are required, some can succeed in both, but the detail is sufficiently different to make some better in one set of conditions while others will be better in other conditions.

The issue of artificial improvement in sports - tennis or otherwise - is a separate one.  I agree that certain areas can be improved more than others that way.  Which I think would be a good argument to try to change tennis conditions to favor traditional hand-eye coordination more; if nothing else, at least it would reduce the temptation somewhat.

As I said Tenez, Rosol played an unbelievable match against Nadal.
I've watched him play matches after that, including a match against Nadal which he lost in straights, and he has never played like that.
I mean a few months before he beat Nadal, he lost to Andujar. Nadal is better than Andujar, yet with you extrapolating with small sample sizes, I could argue that Andujar causes Rosol more problems than Nadal.

noleisthebest wrote:But that's the whole point of talent, it is impossible to "produce" it with practice.

Sure, talent itself is impossible to produce with practice, that is why it is called "talent".  But it is less obvious whether performance that some produce through talent can also be produced through practice.

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:But that's the whole point of talent, it is impossible to "produce" it with practice.

Sure, talent itself is impossible to produce with practice, that is why it is called "talent".  But it is less obvious whether performance that some produce through talent can also be produced through practice.

I would like to know which player on the tour produces shot-making tennis without talent?

Sure, slow conditions, new technology, legalised and tolerated illegal doping, DBH (not exclusively, as there are a few talented DBH-ers, as well, like Nishi, Fognini, Paire, Gulbis etc) all cover up for the lack of talent.
WTA is rife with players like that atm.

Look at weaponless Ferrer - he is a classic example of what hard practice (and a few other dodgy things) can achieve.

There are so many better players on tour than him, and yet he was number three this AO!!!

You have Bolettieri's school of tennis that manufactures tour players and kills any flair in the meantime. Send the balls deep and be fit do do it as long as you need to is the formula of the new age tennis.

summerblues wrote:... if nothing else, at least it would reduce the temptation somewhat.

True but as barry said once on v2, that is likely to destroy the star system. being sure to have stars like Nadal at the business end of the tournament is something organisers work on. Sponsors and TV rights are better and many profits from that. Talent being fragile could see Stan winning a slam or losng in the 2nd round if he has a day off. No day off when fitness is what they rely upon....unless that fitness cracks as it sometimes happens (but more more rarely than talent who can suddenly be affected by wind for instance.

Federer is the one who messed that up cause he was so talented that he got to finals systematically regardless of the surface and therefore organisers took the liberty to slow things down further to allow that famous match up.

Julia Santamaria wrote:As I said Tenez, Rosol played an unbelievable match against Nadal.

As I said JS Nadal allowed Rosol to play an unbelievable match.

noleisthebest wrote:I would like to know which player on the tour produces shot-making tennis without talent?

...and this is where the discussion becomes uninteresting for me.  You may be right or you may be wrong, but I do not care which one it is.  That is what I mean when I say I do not care about talent.

I just want to note that, as predicted, Murray has come back after his injury worse than before, and is taking time to get his form back (which may not come back at all). Nadal, on the other hand, came back from his "injury" better than ever on his worst surface, and reached multiple finals IMMEDIATELY.

Injury? Sure.

Nadals better than Murray, plus Rafa didn't have surgery.

Not sure why that's even relevant though, you just felt like randomly bringing up something negative about Nadal for no reason.

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:As I said Tenez, Rosol played an unbelievable match against Nadal.

As I said JS Nadal allowed Rosol to play an unbelievable match.

If Nadal and Kohli played Rosol 20 times, Nadal would do better on aggregate.

You're basing your extrapolations on a sample size of two matches.

noleisthebest wrote:
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.

And who exactly are you to say what the plain truth is?
This is just like the evolution debate, you deny evolution and assume you are correct; while I actually have evidence.

Tenez, I'm not arguing that for Nadal, Rosol isn't a bad match up, he is.

However on any given day of the week, Rosol would prefer to play Kohli rather than Nadal, I am sure of that.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
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.

And who exactly are you to say what the plain truth is?
This is just like the evolution debate, you deny evolution and assume you are correct; while I actually have evidence.

Amri, you don't have a clue!

About what?
Evolution?

FedererKing wrote:I just want to note that, as predicted, Murray has come back after his injury worse than before, and is taking time to get his form back (which may not come back at all).  Nadal, on the other hand, came back from his "injury" better than ever on his worst surface, and reached multiple finals IMMEDIATELY.

Injury?  Sure.

So what is it you think as you don't believe he is fiddling around with chemistry?

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I would like to know which player on the tour produces shot-making tennis without talent?

...and this is where the discussion becomes uninteresting for me.  You may be right or you may be wrong, but I do not care which one it is.  That is what I mean when I say I do not care about talent.

I think you care about it but you don't wish or care talking about it, and I don't particularly enjoy talking about it either cause there is no measuring stick, though it is a very tangible quality. It's like saying I don't care whether what I eat is sweet or not but I only eat and like syrup pancakes. Wanting SHBH at the top means you care about talent....no untalented player can survive without talent at the top. you can always get away with a DBH for instance.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:As I said Tenez, Rosol played an unbelievable match against Nadal.

As I said JS Nadal allowed Rosol to play an unbelievable match.

If Nadal and Kohli played Rosol 20 times, Nadal would do better on aggregate.

You're basing your extrapolations on a sample size of two matches.

No I mentioned all the other matches where Nadal struggled on fresh green grass....like he took him 10 years and slower conds to win hat was the fastest tournament (Cincy). There are tons of evidence that he is has always struggled on surfaces that required quick hands. They had to slow everything down to see him on business end of other slams. before they did he was only winning the FO.

But guess what? You, as a fan, don't want to accept it.

"Nadalhu Akbar"!

What I was saying actually was not to do with surfaces; I was saying that the difference in Rosol's performance against Nadal and Kohli does not come down to Kohli being a better player or a harder match-up for Rosol; but simply because Rosol played a dream match against Nadal and after that win could not mentally focus for the next match against Kohli.

You say phrases like 'Rosol is Rosol', you simply can't grasp the idea that there are fluctuations in performances from one match to the next for any player.

As for Nadal doing badly on faster surfaces, I think it's clear Nadal is better suited for medium-fast pace high bouncing surfaces, which means his forehand is very difficult to deal with.
When he was younger he used to train much less on grass and hard courts, as I said when Nadal was 23 Toni moved Nadal to train more and more on hard courts, grass. When Nadal was younger, his movement on grass and hard courts was very poor, clay was his natural surface; but as he got older he learned how to move effective on those surfaces.

I have shown, and proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that your theory on Nadal Tenez is not just probably wrong, it cannot be right.
You have not actually been able to provide an answer for my OP, what is it which makes Nadal (or his team) stand out?
Even if your theory is correct, top quality peds are available on a widescale on the legal market. As I've said, you have no way of really showing how Nadal has managed to succeed with such a unique game.

What I'm saying about Nadal, irrelevant of whether I'm a Nadal fan or not, is far more convincing than anything you've had to say, simply because it can show how Nadal is so unique at the top. If there were people who could do what he does, they would.
I don't know whether Nadal is on peds or not, I am not going to pretend that I know either way.
Nevertheless I can see that it is Nadal's innate ability which means he can generate 3000rpms at high pace with incredible consistency, timing the ball with such the grip he uses (nearly totally Western... very rare among top players) is itself incredibly difficult; the only way he can defend the way he does is because of his incredible hand-eye coordination, speed, and reflexes; I mean just look at that ball he managed to get from behind him against Federer, literally hitting the ball 'blind' but yet manages, not many players can do that, and Nadal pulls of stunning shots regularly. Add to that his mental focus, and you get a clear picture of how Nadal has the best W/L ratio compared to any other player in history.

The fact you looked at a video where Nadal did a hotdog lob, and your first comment was about Nadal's lack of talent, even though that shot requires incredible handeye coordination; it exposes really how biased you are against Nadal, and what lengths you go to in order to not praise Nadal's innate ability in any sense.

Julia Santamaria wrote: I have shown, and proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that your theory on Nadal Tenez is not just probably wrong, it cannot be right.

Only to yourself, Amri. To the rest of us, again, you have only proved one thing - you are a blind Nadal fan.
Not the end of the world, of course...

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote: I have shown, and proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that your theory on Nadal Tenez is not just probably wrong, it cannot be right.

Only to yourself, Amri. To the rest of us, again, you have only proved one thing - you are a blind Nadal fan.
Not the end of the world, of course...

Again, why don't you actually attempt to debate?
My argument is made irrespective of me, I am not basing my arguments on myself in any way, so personal slants does not constitute as debating here.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote: I have shown, and proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that your theory on Nadal Tenez is not just probably wrong, it cannot be right.

Only to yourself, Amri. To the rest of us, again, you have only proved one thing - you are a blind Nadal fan.
Not the end of the world, of course...

Again, why don't you actually attempt to debate?
My argument is made irrespective of me, I am not basing my arguments on myself in any way, so personal slants does not constitute as debating here.

Because you think you are debating? I have stopped reading your so called reasoning....it's endless and I have guests for diner ...so I'll ask them what they think about it all....I am sure they will be very interested.

I didn't ask you to ask your guests anything.

Look, the reason you aren't addressing my posts is because you realise what I'm saying is right.
What I'm saying is simple logic, it can be argued by both people who hate Nadal and like him.

Julia Santamaria wrote:I didn't ask you to ask your guests anything.

Look, the reason you aren't addressing my posts is because you realise what I'm saying is right.
What I'm saying is simple logic, it can be argued by both people who hate Nadal and like him.

Of course Amri...of course. "Nadal Akbar!!"

Ok Tenez, I'm off for my 8:05pm daily Nadal prayers, after that I'll just finish planning to visit Mallorca for my pilgrimage during the clay season.
And then diet for the first week of Wimbledon, eating nothing but grass, Nadalan must be observed till the day Prophet Toni turns Wimbledon clay.


Oh ok.
Look, this isn't relevant. My points aren't actually Nadal worshipping, they are legitimate points that probably most neutrals share.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Amazing reflexes against Federer:

 
I was watching this shot from Federer when I remembered what you called a reflex shot (above)
 
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Media/Videos/Uploaded/2014/3/7/Indian-Wells-2014-Friday-Hot-Shot-Federer.aspx#ooid=xpNzgybDoC9l982wTuMhiHc627qO1ae9
 
Here Federer plays 2 volleys in less than a second, about 800ms!!!. It's great but all those unknown double players playing the double tour do it day in day out. you think this FH dtl is a reflex shot? you really have little sense of what reflex or even tennis is about.
 
This shot from nadal is still pretty amazing cause not many could have pulled it, I agree. First cause he does it after having scrapped right and left for most of the point, so exhausted, but essentially because he has no time to prepare or position himself (that his having his body in position which would take much more time that an arm reflex shot) and therefore has simply no dynamic and power to send the ball back but Nadal can still do it with the shortest move, not even a well timed wrist flick like Federer can do, but simply throwing his big arm and whack the ball back. amazing arm power. however here we notice that Nadal can hardly spin the shot so it is hit flatter and it shows that though a bt riskier how pacy nadal's shot would be if did not put as much spin.
 
This shot JS showed proves how much power Nadal has compared to his peers.

I have seen Nadal play a "normal" non-lasso FH from the baseline (not the usual 4m behind) 2-3 times last year during the American hard court season. He was able to generate phenomenal pace and power, sending unreturnable CC projectiles.
He was balanced on those shots and of course still had tons of control spin, the ball trajectory had less net clearance than his standard moonballs.
They were not the shot-making, risky FHs, but his usual, safe "winners", still, they revealed how deadly he COULD be if he was able to take the ball early and play full-on attacking tennis due to that ridiculous left bicep.

Tenez wrote:you think this FH dtl is a reflex shot? you really have little sense of what reflex or even tennis is about.

I called it a reflex shot because I felt the shot needed superb reflexes, I'm not saying all forehand down the lines are reflex shots.

Tenez wrote:not even a well timed wrist flick like Federer can do, but simply throwing his big arm and whack the ball back.

But he does not whack the ball, does he? It is clear Federer hits the ball with a lot of pace, and Nadal has to get the timing spot on to direct the ball and use the pace the way he does. If he had timed that just a few milliseconds later or earlier, the ball would have been gone.

Tenez wrote:amazing arm power. however here we notice

Look, we both know it is irrelevant what actually happened during the point. You make your analysis (mentally) first simply depending on which player it is. If that was Federer you would be talking about the superb timing that took, but it's Nadal so you will say timing is irrelevant.
I remember showing you the incredible banana shot Nadal hit which spun one way and then another and kissed the inside of the line; you first said it was the same shot as his normal cross court forehand in terms of trajectory (which is simply false), and then you said big muscles help with banana shots... another theory you just derive from nowhere which conveniently matches your pre-held views.

So after today's performance do you still think Federer has lost his footwork? his eyesight, slow reflexes? Should he order a white stick? maybe a blind dog?

Age is irreversible....injury is!

Tenez wrote:So after today's performance do you still think Federer has lost his footwork? his eyesight, slow reflexes? Should he order a white stick? maybe a blind dog?

Age is irreversible....injury is!

 
This is the wrong thread, There is a thread on this topic.

you right wrong thread but right response!

Also notice with that video above that Nadal retrieves a shot he shouldn't be able to, by sliding like he is on clay.