Comments on: Why I Don’t Like to See Nadal At #1 http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/05/05/why-i-dont-like-to-see-nadal-at-1/ A Tennis Pro Sharing Tips And Thoughts About Tennis Instruction, Strategy and Mental Game Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:27:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: oleg http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/05/05/why-i-dont-like-to-see-nadal-at-1/comment-page-2/#comment-9202 oleg Wed, 06 Apr 2011 12:21:25 +0000 http://www.tennisthoughts.com/?p=303#comment-9202 I don't think Nadal is a pusher, he doesn't have such spectacular game as Federer, but he places the ball and opens incredible angles , where he ends up winning the point cause there is now why you can keep up with that rhythm running from when side to the other of the court. Look at the first set against Djoko in the final of Miami he just out beat him and made Djoko look like another player. Them in the second set he just could't keep up with that rhythm. I think he really deserves being where he is. Nobody can strike angles like him and he usually plays better on the important points. I don’t think Nadal is a pusher, he doesn’t have such spectacular game as Federer, but he places the ball and opens incredible angles , where he ends up winning the point cause there is now why you can keep up with that rhythm running from when side to the other of the court.
Look at the first set against Djoko in the final of Miami he just out beat him and made Djoko look like another player. Them in the second set he just could’t keep up with that rhythm.
I think he really deserves being where he is. Nobody can strike angles like him and he usually plays better on the important points.

]]> By: Kalyan http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/05/05/why-i-dont-like-to-see-nadal-at-1/comment-page-2/#comment-8975 Kalyan Sun, 30 Jan 2011 00:38:07 +0000 http://www.tennisthoughts.com/?p=303#comment-8975 Hi All, I liked the analysis though i had the same thoughts in my mind. I respect both the guys as players/athlets/mentally tough guys. But there is one thing which i would like to see in a tennis game and that is style. That is clearly missing in nadals' game. In cricket terms, it can be compared to aggressive batting or consistent batting, which style you look, u decide. You want to see a player keep hitting balls continuosly and make runs or you want a player to hit fours and sixes. I like the latter, so i like the matches of federer. Its proven from the facts, that in all matches of nadal, the key point of winning is the unforced errors of the opponent where as the key point of winning in federer's matches are his winners. And i feel a better TENNIS Player should make opponent force errors(forced errors which you get because you cant catch the ball) and not make unforced errors which you hit because you are frustrated or you want to get that extra mile in the shot. Its all above the style of play. For me style does matter. Hi All,
I liked the analysis though i had the same thoughts in my mind. I respect both the guys as players/athlets/mentally tough guys. But there is one thing which i would like to see in a tennis game and that is style. That is clearly missing in nadals’ game. In cricket terms, it can be compared to aggressive batting or consistent batting, which style you look, u decide. You want to see a player keep hitting balls continuosly and make runs or you want a player to hit fours and sixes. I like the latter, so i like the matches of federer. Its proven from the facts, that in all matches of nadal, the key point of winning is the unforced errors of the opponent where as the key point of winning in federer’s matches are his winners. And i feel a better TENNIS Player should make opponent force errors(forced errors which you get because you cant catch the ball) and not make unforced errors which you hit because you are frustrated or you want to get that extra mile in the shot. Its all above the style of play. For me style does matter.

]]> By: Tony http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/05/05/why-i-dont-like-to-see-nadal-at-1/comment-page-2/#comment-6628 Tony Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:53:55 +0000 http://www.tennisthoughts.com/?p=303#comment-6628 Tomaz, Thank you for another great analysis! To all those who expressed mild to strong disapproval of Tomaz's analysis. It's really not about Federer vs Nadal, but Federer gameplay vs Nadal gameplay. Even at the core of the Federer vs Nadal rivalry. It's really not the same as Sampras vs Agassi back in the days. The age difference between Federer and Nadal clearly gives Nadal an advantage. Finally, to answer Tomaz's question - I actually do like seeing Nadal at the No. 1 spot even though I agree that he does not outplay his opponents. I find it inspirational that through hardwork, a 'lesser' player can achieve No. 1. Tomaz,

Thank you for another great analysis!

To all those who expressed mild to strong disapproval of Tomaz’s analysis. It’s really not about Federer vs Nadal, but Federer gameplay vs Nadal gameplay.

Even at the core of the Federer vs Nadal rivalry. It’s really not the same as Sampras vs Agassi back in the days. The age difference between Federer and Nadal clearly gives Nadal an advantage.

Finally, to answer Tomaz’s question – I actually do like seeing Nadal at the No. 1 spot even though I agree that he does not outplay his opponents. I find it inspirational that through hardwork, a ‘lesser’ player can achieve No. 1.

]]> By: Markus http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/05/05/why-i-dont-like-to-see-nadal-at-1/comment-page-2/#comment-2320 Markus Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:28:11 +0000 http://www.tennisthoughts.com/?p=303#comment-2320 Tomaz, Nadal has outplayed those three many times from baseline, especially Federer in Wimbledon 2007 + Murray in Wimbledon 2008. We've seen him play aggressive and hit more winners now and then (not counting the serve) against those three guys. Tomaz,

Nadal has outplayed those three many times from baseline, especially Federer in Wimbledon 2007 + Murray in Wimbledon 2008. We’ve seen him play aggressive and hit more winners now and then (not counting the serve) against those three guys.

]]> By: Angel http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/05/05/why-i-dont-like-to-see-nadal-at-1/comment-page-2/#comment-2309 Angel Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:16:29 +0000 http://www.tennisthoughts.com/?p=303#comment-2309 Hey Tomaz, Thanks for your reply! I know it's completely off the point, but it has so much to do with mental issues that I can't help but say it: upon explaining what being wrong means you did get wrong - about Sampras' GST count. Note it's nothing but the digit right before "That's wrong!". Isn't it so ironic? I know it's just a typo yet after reading your manual I figure it has so much in common with some errors we make in the game and in life, doesn't it? :-) Hey Tomaz,

Thanks for your reply!

I know it’s completely off the point, but it has so much to do with mental issues that I can’t help but say it: upon explaining what being wrong means you did get wrong – about Sampras’ GST count. Note it’s nothing but the digit right before “That’s wrong!”. Isn’t it so ironic?
I know it’s just a typo yet after reading your manual I figure it has so much in common with some errors we make in the game and in life, doesn’t it? :-)

]]> By: Tomaz http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/05/05/why-i-dont-like-to-see-nadal-at-1/comment-page-2/#comment-2305 Tomaz Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:11:48 +0000 http://www.tennisthoughts.com/?p=303#comment-2305 Hey Angel, The ranking system is just my personal idea of how I would try to compare Federer and Sampras. And I am always interested in hearing other people's opinions and their views on the topic - hence the commenting is allowed and encouraged. There is of course a huge difference in saying: - I disagree with your system because ... - You are wrong! The second always baffles me because how can I be wrong if I just share my own opinion? ;) I can be wrong stating a fact - like saying that Sampras won 10 Grand Slams when in fact he has won 12. That's wrong. But you can scroll up and check the comments here and you'll find dozens of people telling me that my opinion or my ranking system is wrong. That's arrogance. An opinion is just an opinion. I just came up with the system one day when I was trying to compare Federer and Sampras. It IS PERFECTLY LOGICAL to me and that's how I SEE things. That's why explicitly used "I" in the title of the post to remind the people that this is just an opinion of course and that there is no point arguing against it. But the arrogant ego (I am so smart and you're dumb) keeps coming out of people and it's just plain sad. I still approve many of these comments and also share a thought or two like I do right now so that people can learn to JUST DISAGREE with someone and LET THEM have their own opinion and NOT attack with the "you're wrong" argument. Some will learn from this, some will not... Hey Angel,

The ranking system is just my personal idea of how I would try to compare Federer and Sampras.

And I am always interested in hearing other people’s opinions and their views on the topic – hence the commenting is allowed and encouraged.

There is of course a huge difference in saying:
- I disagree with your system because …
- You are wrong!

The second always baffles me because how can I be wrong if I just share my own opinion? ;)

I can be wrong stating a fact – like saying that Sampras won 10 Grand Slams when in fact he has won 12. That’s wrong.

But you can scroll up and check the comments here and you’ll find dozens of people telling me that my opinion or my ranking system is wrong. That’s arrogance.

An opinion is just an opinion. I just came up with the system one day when I was trying to compare Federer and Sampras. It IS PERFECTLY LOGICAL to me and that’s how I SEE things.

That’s why explicitly used “I” in the title of the post to remind the people that this is just an opinion of course and that there is no point arguing against it.

But the arrogant ego (I am so smart and you’re dumb) keeps coming out of people and it’s just plain sad.

I still approve many of these comments and also share a thought or two like I do right now so that people can learn to JUST DISAGREE with someone and LET THEM have their own opinion and NOT attack with the “you’re wrong” argument.

Some will learn from this, some will not…

]]> By: Angel http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/05/05/why-i-dont-like-to-see-nadal-at-1/comment-page-2/#comment-2303 Angel Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:36:14 +0000 http://www.tennisthoughts.com/?p=303#comment-2303 Tomaz, Sorry if I failed to make it clear. With all respect and gratitude for your amazing work (have also bought your books and they are awesome) I still think there is a reason why "so many before" have "debated the wrong argument" and it's not just misunderstanding your post. Yes, it does present a personal opinion which I find as clear and strong as the rest of your work, however you end with a quiz that opens to wider interpretation. This is actually great, but the reference to the ranking system allows for some confusion. To avoid it I tried to point out the difference between personal preferences and impartial objectivity so that we are all aware what exactly we are beating about I hoped it was helpful and never meant to disagree with your personal opinion... Tomaz,

Sorry if I failed to make it clear.
With all respect and gratitude for your amazing work (have also bought your books and they are awesome) I still think there is a reason why “so many before” have “debated the wrong argument” and it’s not just misunderstanding your post.
Yes, it does present a personal opinion which I find as clear and strong as the rest of your work, however you end with a quiz that opens to wider interpretation. This is actually great, but the reference to the ranking system allows for some confusion. To avoid it I tried to point out the difference between personal preferences and impartial objectivity so that we are all aware what exactly we are beating about I hoped it was helpful and never meant to disagree with your personal opinion…

]]> By: Tomaz http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/05/05/why-i-dont-like-to-see-nadal-at-1/comment-page-2/#comment-2279 Tomaz Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:40:54 +0000 http://www.tennisthoughts.com/?p=303#comment-2279 Angel, As so many before, you are debating the wrong argument which is obvious from the first sentence you wrote. My post was just my personal opinion why I don't like to see Nadal at #1 and NOT why Nadal should not be at #1. English is not my first language but I don't think it's possible to state it more clearly than I did. Of course, feel free to share your thoughts why Nadal "should" be #1 but that's not what the post is about. It's just my personal preference of what kind of player I prefer to see at #1. Angel,

As so many before, you are debating the wrong argument which is obvious from the first sentence you wrote. My post was just my personal opinion why I don’t like to see Nadal at #1 and NOT why Nadal should not be at #1.

English is not my first language but I don’t think it’s possible to state it more clearly than I did.

Of course, feel free to share your thoughts why Nadal “should” be #1 but that’s not what the post is about. It’s just my personal preference of what kind of player I prefer to see at #1.

]]> By: Angel http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/05/05/why-i-dont-like-to-see-nadal-at-1/comment-page-2/#comment-2275 Angel Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:49:09 +0000 http://www.tennisthoughts.com/?p=303#comment-2275 ATP World N1 means best tournament performer. Like it or not, it could even be s.o like Karlovich. So to avoid the speculation Tomaz's quiz must be redefined as "What is world N1". By the way the same applies to all sports, so a good point from Mario (May 9th, 2009 at 7:17 am) Apart from this I think Federer is the greatest phenomenon in sports ever. Yet I love to see Nadal as world N1 as he was the only one to consistently break Roger on all of surfaces, right in his apogee. This is a phenomenon of a matching caliber, like it or not. Nadal's way is no easier than anybody else's, so hats down and respect to both! ATP World N1 means best tournament performer. Like it or not, it could even be s.o like Karlovich. So to avoid the speculation Tomaz’s quiz must be redefined as “What is world N1″. By the way the same applies to all sports, so a good point from Mario (May 9th, 2009 at 7:17 am)
Apart from this I think Federer is the greatest phenomenon in sports ever. Yet I love to see Nadal as world N1 as he was the only one to consistently break Roger on all of surfaces, right in his apogee. This is a phenomenon of a matching caliber, like it or not. Nadal’s way is no easier than anybody else’s, so hats down and respect to both!

]]> By: Parker http://www.tennisthoughts.com/2009/05/05/why-i-dont-like-to-see-nadal-at-1/comment-page-2/#comment-2150 Parker Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:02:21 +0000 http://www.tennisthoughts.com/?p=303#comment-2150 I think there is no correct way to play tennis. I am glad that nadal was number 1 for a while, and i think he will be there again. Defensive tennis isn't at all a bad style of play. I do agree that a number 1 must have some sort of aggressiveness, though. What I think got Nadal to the n1 is his development of his backhand. He became able to smack a really flat, penetrating ball with his backhand and he uses this to hit a lot of winners. He also developed his serve a lot while he was n2, and before the australian open win he was working on flattening out his forehand a little. So I agree and I disagree with you I guess. You need to be versatile, which all number 1s, including Nadal, have been. The main difference I see between n1s and everyone else is all mental. They all come up big when it counts. Their style of play doesn't matter. It's how a player handles intense situations on a match to match basis that separates a n1 from the rest. I think there is no correct way to play tennis. I am glad that nadal was number 1 for a while, and i think he will be there again. Defensive tennis isn’t at all a bad style of play. I do agree that a number 1 must have some sort of aggressiveness, though. What I think got Nadal to the n1 is his development of his backhand. He became able to smack a really flat, penetrating ball with his backhand and he uses this to hit a lot of winners. He also developed his serve a lot while he was n2, and before the australian open win he was working on flattening out his forehand a little.
So I agree and I disagree with you I guess. You need to be versatile, which all number 1s, including Nadal, have been.
The main difference I see between n1s and everyone else is all mental. They all come up big when it counts. Their style of play doesn’t matter. It’s how a player handles intense situations on a match to match basis that separates a n1 from the rest.

]]>