Rafael Nadal

A page and forum to discuss all things Rafael Nadal.

Nadal 5

Current ranking: 14

Last result: Australian Open second round (lost to Mackenzie McDonald)

Next tournament: Roland Garros

40 Comments on Rafael Nadal

  1. I love Federer’s tennis and marvelled at the quality of the rallies between Fed and Delpo in Basel. It’s incredible to watch. However, my enjoyment was tainted and limited early in his career as the competition was weak and later on because of the religion that was created and all of the fawning and preferential treatment.

    I was very disappointed when he pulled out of Montreal last summer (not as disappointed had Rafa done the same).

    • hawkeye, I feel exactly the same about Fed. He is certainly an all time great. I liked him very much, when he was still the goofy, outrageously talented kid with the pony tail. When he suddenly morphed into an invincible deity, and the GOAT cult sprang up, I was disgusted. El Jon Wertheim even made a pilgrimage to Basel during one FO. That has nothing to do with sport anymore, where every athlet has the same right to win or lose. Unfortunately, Federer eventually started to buy all the hype to a certain extend, and one can’t even blame him for that. Rafa just didn’t belong into that script. He was a game changer and drew a lot of resentment for that. Of course, like every star, Rafa has some rabid fans, too. But the hatred towards him at some Fedfansites (ruansfedererblog is the worst example) is boarderline insane. Normally I don’t read this kind of stuff, but someone asked me for an opinion, and I was shocked about the real hatred going on there. Of course, it’s mostly sad for the guys, who feel that way and poison their lives.

      • Those fans openly talk about JesusFed and GodFed, and it’s no joke to them.
        The Basel final was good stuff, btw, and Fed showed quite a bit of his old magic. And as long as he does, he should go on. People should enjoy him, while he’s still around and stop expecting miracles from him.

  2. Since we are on the subject of crowd behaviour I was surprised by the stolid Swiss crowd who sounded like a studio audience being cued in to clap and laugh.

    Every shot by Federer was greeted by an ecstatic roar of approval but they sat on their hands whenever his opponent hit a winner and quite frequently greeted his errors with clapping and whistling.

    To no avail. No amount of encouragement could carry him across the finish line.

  3. I have always found Fed as boring as watching paint dry and that was long before I knew there was anyone called Rafael Nadal. I see absolutely nothing in Federer’s game that is captivating or shows talent. They appointed him the GOAT and now try to cut the GOAT coat according to his cloth.

  4. Ed, TBH I didn’t begrudge the pro-Fed audience in Basel as it’s his hometown. It was funny though. Especially one-sided of the Swiss cheering double faults but it wasn’t OTT, just very one-sided. It was almost (not quite) as bad as a Davis Cup match. I’m sure Delpo was fine with it. Also liked the way Pospisil carried himself under the same circumstances. I think his DC experience helped him.

    • I wash’t criticising. I was simply surprised at just how animated they became so desperate were they to see him win however they were generous with the applause for Delpo and the presentation ceremony was very heartwarming.

    • I agree about the behavior of the crowd in the Basel final. They weren’t overtly disrespectful towards Delpo. It’s true that they cheered every winning point by Fed and cheered double faults by Delpo, but I didn’t sense any malice.

      It was much different than what the French have done at RG and other tournaments. The crowd was gracious to Delpo, even as they gave Fed an extended ovation when he accepted the runnerup trophy.

  5. The promotion of Federer is relentless. All week they’ve been telling us on World News that Roger Federer was playing Del Potro in the final of the Swiss Open to qualify for the 13th time for the WTF as if it was some kind of accolade. After he lost to Delpo in Basel, there has been no mention of that. They haven’t even mentioned the result of the final.

    • The more the halo dims the more they turn up the hype. The want to extract the last drop of value from the Federer brand while they still can.

  6. I agree that you can hardly blame Roger for having bought into the religion. The majority of us in the same shoes would have done so as well. I sincerely believe that this is the one major problem with his career and now with him as an individual, as a person with a certain character and personality. The one major problem that was preventable, although difficult to prevent for most of us. I sincerely believe that this problem, of having bought into the religion himself, has done him _no_ good. Nor has it done any good to any fans, ultimately. Yes, it has vastly increased viewership and the money made by organizers, television stations, product sellers etc.and if you believe that this is the main thing that counts or the only thing that counts, then that is your view and fine, but in my book all of that has not actually done anybody any good other than monetary income for those ones. Superficially, yes, it seems to have done a lot of good… inspired people, inspired people to practice tennis or practice more seriously, etc. But Roger was plenty inspiring already without the religious blanket thrown over everything.

    In fact, and this is the point of it all to me, this massively-shared view, shared by millions, has just gone to reinforce all kinds of unhealthy views of life. Including the unquestioning cult worship of the personality of a man with (now) some important character flaws but simultaneously the black and white view it brings along…black and white view of Roger and Rafa, and of Roger fans (good people) and Rafa fans (bad people). Along with this there is also an underlying message in the modern commercial culture: the richer you are the more right you are, regardless of your actual actions, words and character.

    Imagine instead that Roger had been more unusual. That in addition to his outsized talent, drive, and hard work which made him so good a tennis player he would also have enough strength of character and common sense to not buy at all into the religion. And thus had conducted himself like a normal human being, forever deflecting any pretensions of religion thrown at him by journalists and others. Over and over, no matter how tiresome, deflected these with a little humour and a little common sense and so on. You _do_ see some very famous people in other fields do so… it is part of their responsibility ever since they become famous. You see Rafa do this time and again, year after year, without swaying. Imagine the influence that Roger’s example would then have on the many millions of fans!

  7. Very eloquent post Chloro – full of wisdom and insights. Rafa is the ultimate role model for the younger generation coming into tennis. One of the things which impressed me so much from the beginning was how grounded he was and his common sense approach to fame. One of the things which riles real Rafans the most are the accusations of false modesty/humility.

    But lets face it, the internet has spawned a new kind of fandom: sadly one that is not based on a love of the game and straightforward hero worship for its stars.

  8. Yes chloro, extremely well put. I have trouble even accepting that Roger is an exceptionally talented player. I just don’t see it in his game so I have trouble buying into any of the hype. They tried for years to tone down Rafa’s quality as a player and many are irritated that Roger’s talent does not shine through up against him so the more desperate Fedfans conduct an adverse propaganda of character assassination against Rafa
    labelling him a cheat accusing him of all sorts.

    I checked wiki recently, and Rafa has set more records than Federer. Federer’s real records are his number of slams and weeks at number 1. All the others listed as records revolve around his slam wins and most held jointly with Sampras and others. I don’t know how many times you can skin a cat. I thought a record should only be held by one person.Yes chloro, extremely well put. I have trouble even accepting that Roger is an exceptionally talented player. I just don’t see it in his game so I have trouble buying into any of the hype. They tried for years to tone down Rafa’s quality as a player and many are irritated that Roger’s talent does not shine through up against him so the more desperate Fedfans conduct an adverse propaganda of character assasination against Rafa
    labelling him a cheat accusing him of all sorts.

    I checked wiki recently, and Rafa has set more records than Federer. Federer’s real records are his number of slams and weeks at number 1. All the others listed as records revolve around his slam wins and most held jointly with Sampras and others. I don’t know how many times you can skin a cat. I thought a record should only be held by one person.

  9. I’m also one who found Federer utterly boring from the start. I tried to watch him and couldn’t maintain my interest. That’s long before I became a Rafa fan.

    IIRC, TV ratings were way down, at least in the U.S., when Agasi was aging and Fed started dominating. The matches were not competitive. The results were predicable. And Fed isn’t American. I think the myth of Fed as a GOAT was created by desperate TV executives, tennis hunchos and Nike to attract interest. “You’ll miss seeing the GOAT if you don’t turn in!!!” “Who cares the competition is weak? He’s the GOAT!!!” Ironically, the match that got the highest rating during the Fed era was the one he got real competition and got beaten: 2008 Wimbledon.

    I think most of fans who follow Fed not because of his tennis, but because they like a winner. They get the reflected glory if he’s the GOAT. It proves they have good taste and know tennis better than everyone else. Now he’s not winning and his GOAT crown is slipping. Let’s see how long they’ll stick with him. Some seem to have moved onto Djoker.

    • did you all watch Federer in his prime? if not, have you at least seen videos?

      the guy was absolutely unbelievable. Federer’s best in his prime would simply annihilate everyone else other than Rafa’s best in their prime. And Federer’s best in his prime would beat Rafa’s best (albeit with difficulty) on anything other than clay. The only reason why Rafa’s best would make it close was the matchup is a terrible one for Federer.

      • I watched Fed BEFORE his prime and found him boring to watch. I found Sampras boring too. My taste in tennis players has nothing to do with how good they are. It’s the style they play, the competitiveness, the heart. I don’t like watching cool perfection annihilating people. My taste is a very subjective and selective (or elective) thing. 😀

      • Ricky, You are right, Fed in his prime was absolutely unbelivable. People tend to forget that these days.
        I disagree though with the notion, that Fed’s best would beat Rafa’s best on any surface other than clay. Don’t forget, Rafa started beating Roger right from the start on clay AND har court. He got some wins on all surfaces, and Roger was in his prime then, but Rafa hadn’t even reached his prime.
        While Fed undeniably used to be Mr. Perfect, he never was my cup of tea (though I loved Sampras… it’s not perfection per se, I object to ). But that’s just me.

      • Ricky Dimon@October 30, 2013 at 4:51 am
        — Federer’s best in his prime would simply annihilate everyone else other than Rafa’s best in their prime. And Federer’s best in his prime would beat Rafa’s best—-

        When was Fed’s prime?
        List of all matches Rafa vs Federer before 2010.
        No. / Year /Tournament/ Surface/ Round -Winner – H2H (Rafa:Fed):
        1. 2004 Miami Hard R32 – Nadal – 1:0
        2. 2005 Miami Hard Final – Federer – 1:1
        3. 2005 French Open Clay Semi-final – Nadal – 2:1
        4. 2006 Dubai Hard Final – Nadal – 3:1
        5. 2006 Monte Carlo Clay Final – Nadal – 4:1
        6. 2006 Rome Clay Final – Nadal – 5:1
        7. 2006 French Open Clay Final – Nadal – 6:1
        8. 2006 Wimbledon Grass Final – Federer – 6:2
        9. 2006 Shanghai Hard Semi-final – Federer – 6:3
        10. 2007 Monte Carlo Clay Final – Nadal – 7:3
        11. 2007 Hamburg Clay Final – Federer – 7:4
        12. 2007 French Open Clay Final – Nadal – 8:5
        13. 2007 Wimbledon Grass Final – Federer – 8:5
        14. 2007 Shanghai Hard Semi-final – Federer – 8:6
        15. 2008 Monte Carlo Clay Final – Nadal – 9:6
        16. 2008 Hamburg Clay Final – Nadal – 10:6
        17. 2008 French Open Clay Final – Nadal – 11:6
        18. 2008 Wimbledon Grass Final – Nadal – 12:6
        19. 2009 Australian Open Hard Final – Nadal – 13:6
        20. 2009 Madrid Clay Final – Federer – 13:7

      • augusta, thanks for the list. If we say, Fed’s prime was between 2003 and 2007, then Rafa was 2:1 on outdoor hard courts against Fed; and the one loss in the Miami final 2005 was close. He was 0:2 on grass against Fed, and again, the Wimby final 2007 was close. Rafa could have won that, too. Only on indoor hard court Fed had, and maybe still has an edge (will be interesting, how it goes, should they meet in London). So, Fed in his prime was NOT dominating Rafa on other courts than clay, and Rafa wasn’t even in his prime then. Rafa’s prime started 2008, when he managed to get the better of Roger on grass as well.

      • 2008/2009, when Rafa’s prime years started, Fed was still close to his prime ( he was just not that dominating anymore, because some more competition in form of Novak and Andy had finally shown up). By then, Rafa was beating Roger on all surfaces (they didn’t meet on indoor hc in those years, but Rog would’ve probably won there).

  10. I watched Fed in his prime. That is what drove me to stop watching tennis. Not him along, the lack of competition in the sport. I didn’t enjoy Fed dominating so completely that there was no suspense or enjoyment.

    I didn’t love his game, but I could appreciate it. There is no question about the greatness of his game, but I didn’t feel the passion and the emotion. He was like a machine just blowing everyone off the court.

    I think Rafa coming along and being the only one to challenge Fed, saved tennis from terminal boredom. The rivalry between them excited the fans and created a great deal of interest. As a bonus, they gave us some truly memorable matches with some of the best tennis ever played. I think the 2008 Wimbledon final got everyone’s attention. Two players at their best. But my favorite slam win over Fed is the 2009 AO. That was just one of those moments that you don’t see in this sport very often. On paper there is no way Rafa wins that match. But despite having everything against him, he pulled it off.

    That was one of the greatest feats I have seen in this sport. I still don’t know how he did it.

    • For full on drama the AO tops it for me too. It was such an unexpected win whereas it was clear Rafa would one day get the better of Federer at Wimby sooner or later.

    • NNY, agree with everything you wrote. I felt the same.
      I want to add, though, that we can’t hold Fed’s perfection against him. Even, if we feel, he’s not our cup of tea, what was he supposed to do? Stop winning? Play uglier? It wasn’t his fault, that the competition was sorely lacking, until Rafa, and then Novak and Andy came along.

      • littlefoot,

        Yes, now looking back I do believe that it’s kind of unfair to hold it against him for being so much better than everyone else at the time. That isn’t his fault.

        I remember when Andy Roddick won the USO in 2003. It seemed that American had its next great men’s champion. But it was not to be. Roddick just could not beat Fed to save his life. I had to stop watching his matches with Fed because it was just so bad. He never seemed to have the belief that he could beat Fed.

        I really wish that I had not stopped watching tennis, because then I would have seen the rise of Rafa. I didn’t know that there was a young Spanish teenager who was starting to get a lot of attention. I have been able to see some of his great early matches and it was wonderful. But not watching tennis from 2005 up to the 2007 Wimbledon, cost me the chance to see Rafa starting to make a name for himself. But I kept hearing so much about this young Nadal, that curiosity got the better of me and I decided to watch the 2007 Wimbledon. I was hooked!

      • Well, NNY, that’s, why the world wide web and youtube are great for us die hard sports fans. We can relive the great moments at the expense of a mouse click. I was reduced to follow the Greatest Match Ever Played at the score board, because Germany doesn’t show Wimby live, ever since Boris, Michael and Steffi retired. They used to show 2 hours of highlights, but that’s just not adequate. And my computer at the time wasn’t good enough for streaming. I’m not even sure, if there were stable streams available back then. The final of Wimby 08 is the only tennis match, I own on dvd.

      • ^^^^the voice of reason.

        Rafa’s first ever win against the 23 yr old Federer was at the tender age of 17 and to boot it was a hard court Masters. And it was no fluke because a year later he took him to five sets in the final. Both Andy and Nole were also able to beat him while still in their teens.

        Those were the days.

  11. For a variety of reasons (workload, family commitments etc.) I wasn’t able to watch much tennis from around late 70s to mid 90s so there are some gaps in my knowledge. Now full retirement plus satellite TV and computer technology allows me to indulge my passion to my heart’s content. Once Rafa came on the scene I was hooked. There are very few of his matches I have not watched or caught up with since 2005.

  12. Ricky, I did watch Fed in his prime right from when he started and was never that impressed so all the fanfare about how great he was just baffled me. All the players that Fed used to dominate are only retiring now so those players where around for many years of the Big 4. Those same players were regularly beaten by Rafa, Nole and Murray. Many of them, like Ferrer and others in their 30s like Haas etc. are still playing and are all dominated by Rafa, Nole and Murray to a certain extent..

  13. Rafa exposed the shortcomings in Federer’s game. It’s easy to look sublime when you are not being challenged and you can afford to look effortless and elegant. The elegance has never cut any ice with me. Federer never looks effortless against Nadal.

  14. Fed in his prime couldn’t beat Rafa nor Muzz with any consistency and if you rule out indoor results, is simply not impressive.

    Also, 2011 Nole 2.0 would beat Fed’s best on a H/C and quite possibly grass.

    Don’t get me wrong. Phenomenal player to watch. However, he looked so good in 2003-07 because the weak field let him look so good. Fed was still “in his prime” from 2008-12 in the early rounds of tournaments when weaker lower ranked players again let him look so good. Commies and media would fall into the awe trap saying he was back to his best but then when faced with another Top 4 he coincidentally didn’t look so prime. Strange, no?

    Ricky, your statement is simply laughable and typical of Federazzi dogma.

    Hilarious.

    • Examples other than Rafa on clay where Fed was “in hs prime” in the earlier rounds: 2008 AO vs a 20 yr old Nole,
      2008 Wimby vs a 22 yr old Rafa
      2009 AO vs a 22 yr. old Rafa
      2009 USO vs a 20 yr old Delpo
      2010 Wimby vs Berdych
      2010 USO vs 23 yr. old Nole

      He also frequently looked “in his prime” mode in later majors only to fail against Tsonga, Rafa at AO hardcourt again, Nole and Muzz.

  15. hawkeye63 says:
    October 30, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    He also looked quite elegant beating an undefeated Nole 2.0 handing him his first loss of the year.

    Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Stefan Edberg is elegant, Federer is not, in my eyes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.