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

41 Comments on Rafael Nadal

  2. OK, I’m probably biased but ever notice how commies always talk about what players need to do to trouble/beat Rafa yet you rarely hear the same when Nole, Muzz or Fed play?

    Just pay attention to the commentary and see what I mean.

    Never heard one word on what Duckworth should try against Fed. Same for Nole’s match.

    But plenty of advice for Bernie.

    Reply

    • @hawkeye63, even the WTA coaches get in on the act. These are the tweets Eurosport sent out just before the match:

      RT: @Eurosport: “Mouratoglou “coaches” Tomic v Nadal: 4 rules: Take the ball on the rise, dictate the game, slice short you first serve, aggressive returns””

      RT @Eurosport: “P.Mouratoglou “coaches” Tomic v Nadal: “When he plays short, you have to come in and take the ball on the rise as Djokovic showed” ”

      RT @Eurosport: “The Coach! P.Mouratoglou “coaches” B.Tomic v Nadal: “You reached a final this year so you are confident in your game.” #AusOpen ”

      RT @Eurosport: “The Coach! P.Mouratoglou “coaches” Bernard Tomic v Nadal: “You’re tall and against NADAL it’s a very important point” #AusOpen ”

      RT @Eurosport: “The Coach! P.Mouratoglou “coaches” Bernard Tomic v Nadal: “You play at home with your public and people will support you””

      RT @Eurosport: “The Coach! P.Mouratoglou “coaches” Bernard Tomic: “Bernard, you have 3 advantages against Nadal” ”

      As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted. Imagine how much Eurosport paid Mouratoglou to trot out this drivel?

      Reply

    • He sure is. My question is: why is this popularity not being translated into endorsement deals? Clearly he outshines Fed (the leader in endorsement deals dollar-wise) and Rafa trails Fed substantially in commercial value, so what gives?

      Reply

  8. Hmmm, could this be what Team Nadal has in plan for Rafa? Three more Frenchies and three more Wimbies?

    “When you ask me that in five years and he has won three times more here and Wimbledon, I would say Rafael is the best,” Toni Nadal, his coach and uncle and a man not given to verbose statements, said at the French Open last summer.

    “For the moment, the greatest player is [Roger] Federer and Rod Laver, not Rafael.”

    http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/rafael-nadal-deserves-his-place-in-the-great-debate-20140117-310mv.html

    Reply

    • I read it as the way Tony usually speaks about any topic related to Rafa’s achievement. The 3 more F and 3 more W would obviously been almost impossible (I mean, realistically, given Rafa’s age, potential injuries, and opponents), so it is just a way of saying, yet again, that there is still a great distance to go before Tony would be prepared to say that Rafa is a greater player than Laver and Roger.

      Just as when he said the same thing re putting Rafa on the same level as Borg in terms of claycourt dominance / legend: he still has a long way to go. He was right then. But that was years before Rafa achieved his 8th RG.

      Reply

    • Thanks @JCKNY. I just opened the page with the intention of posting the article when I found you had already done so!

      This is the bit that made me laugh:

      “………….Toni, an unconventional character who once put his name to a book of philosophy entitled Aristotle Serves, Nadal Returns. ”

      I wonder if these stories about Uncle T are true or made up!

      #Legend

      Reply

  12. What I really love is that Uncle Toni said that Federer and Laver are the two greatest players! It bothers me to no end that Fed is considered the greatest and Laver is too often forgotten. There is no way anyone can leave Laver out of that discussion.

    I guess Uncle Toni loves to give Rafa more goals to accomplish!

    Reply

  17. Here is The Australian article:

    “THERE was a moment between games in the second set of the Australian Open final when Rafael Nadal buried his head in his hands. His shoulders seemed to hunch. The pain that had been in evidence before the match had intensified to the point where his serve had almost slowed to a standstill. The commentators anticipated an imminent default.

    “It looks like a question of when rather than if,” they said.

    Nadal didn’t default, however. He kept battling, all the way until the last point. Some have speculated that his appetite to continue was founded upon the possibility, however remote, that the pain might diminish; that he figured there was a chance Stanislas Wawrinka, his opponent, might get nervous; that by holding on, he was giving himself at least a shot at a title he craved so much.

    But I found myself considering a different possibility. I found myself wondering if Nadal battled on not because he believed he could mount a comeback (perhaps he had already concluded that the pain in his back was too great), but because he felt a compulsion to do so that went deeper than rational calculation.

    In Rogue Male, the novel by Geoffrey Household, the unnamed protagonist recounts the moment when his tormentors attempt his murder. “They took me to the edge of a cliff and put me over, all but my hands,” he says. “I did hang on, of course; for how long I don’t know. I hadn’t a hope of living and the quicker the end the less the suffering … but I am not too civilised to be influenced by that force which makes a rabbit run when a stoat is after him. The rabbit doesn’t hope for anything, I take it. But he runs. And so I hung on until I dropped.”

    In sport, we often celebrate those who battle back from almost insurmountable odds. We think of England fighting back at Headingley in the 1981 Ashes series; of Liverpool’s Champions League final comeback against AC Milan in Istanbul in 2005; of Manchester United’s refusal to accept defeat at the Nou Camp in 1999 when the dignitaries had already left their seats to make their way to the trophy presentation. These moments have particular power. But is not there a different kind of power when sportsmen fight on when hope has well and truly vanished?

    Derek Redmond was in the form of his life coming into the Olympic Games in Barcelona in 1992. I remember chatting to him on the Team GB bus before the opening ceremony and was struck both by his easy charm and his keen professionalism. Many predicted that he would go on to win a medal as he crouched down on his blocks for the 400m semi-final. It seemed that, after a career jinxed by injury, he had finally found his moment.

    Leading after the first bend, however, Redmond heard his hamstring pop and doubled over in pain. When he got back to his feet and looked across the stadium, he could see that his opponents had already crossed the line. Four years of preparation had vanished in an instant, but he didn’t despair. Rather, he got to his feet and began to hop around the bend. His father came to his aid, pushing aside the security guards. It was one of the finest Olympic moments of my lifetime. Redmond knew he couldn’t win. He knew it was hopeless, but futility creates its own kind of beauty.

    Nadal, to my mind, has never looked more beautiful than in that second set last Sunday night. He had been jeered (cruelly and incomprehensibly) when coming back to the court after his injury time-out. The pain, according to his own testimony, was like a knife in his back. He had every reason to give up. Everyone would have understood. Yet he chased the ball, even when he knew he wouldn’t get there. He kept serving, the ball falling from his limp racquet like a burst balloon. He was clinging on to the edge of the cliff. It was mesmerising, profound and tragic.

    Wawrinka had his own set of dilemmas, of course. He was playing in his first grand slam final against an opponent in considerable discomfort. He had to find a way to sustain his concentration amid the confusion. He found his equilibrium in the fourth set after that mini-wobble in the third and closed out the match with considerable panache. He is a fine player and a decent man too. It was a wonderful victory.

    But over the past few days, my mind has been drawn more and more to the gloriously futile heroics of Nadal. He has defaulted in the past: most memorably against Andy Murray at the 2010 Australian Open and also against Nikolay Davydenko at Paris Masters in 2008, another occasion when the Spaniard was jeered. But as his career has progressed, he has come to embody an indomitability that resonates beyond tennis. His speech in the aftermath, when he thanked the crowd and congratulated his opponent, was characteristic in its grace.

    Nadal has played many unforgettable matches over the years. The final of the 2009 Australian Open, when Federer broke down in tears in the aftermath, and the epic collision with the Swiss in the dwindling light of SW19 in 2008 have particular resonance.

    But, for this observer at least, the final with Wawrinka is the equal of anything that has gone before. Nadal was battling a magnificent opponent, seeping blisters and excruciating back spasms. He was battling an unsympathetic crowd. At times, he seemed to be battling a complete absence of hope. But he kept fighting, kept striving.

    As a motif for sport, as well as life, it is difficult to think of anything more inspirational.”

    Reply

  19. Ricky and JCKNY: Re the request from the other thread to try and find another of the firewalled articles, if this is the one you’re talking about, then here it is. It’s the one entitled “Crowd’s boos add to pain for Rafael Nadal, says coach Toni.” Same thing…I just played around with it until the article popped up, then copied it.

    AFTER midnight, when the lights were turned out and Rod Laver Arena was empty, when the requirement no longer existed for Rafael Nadal to demonstrate the brave face, it became apparent to his camp how wounding the hostile crowd reception had been during his Australian Open defeat to Stan Wawrinka.

    Nadal’s coach and uncle, Toni, told The Australian in the early hours of yesterday morning that Nadal refused to retire at Melbourne Park because he wanted to give the capacity crowd its money’s worth and allow Wawrinka the honour of being triumphant in a properly completed final of a major championship.

    “Just my opinion, but I don’t think the crowd should be doing this,” Toni Nadal said.

    “Rafael has always given his best at this tournament, all tournaments. He tries to treat all of the people with respect.

    “He had to continue. He knows that people have paid money for tickets to be here for the match, the grand slam final. He knows a lot of people are seeing the television. He does not want them to have, how do I say, the stopped show.

    “Whatever happens to his body, he will finish for them. The crowd here had always been very good for him and Rafael will not complain about no thing, ever.

    “But he is disappointed, of course. I wish it had not been like this for him. He wanted to play for the crowd and if he was not going to win, he wanted Wawrinka to be winning a match point. Not shaking hands when a match is stopped. This is important.”

    Nadal’s back injury occurred during the warm-up. Wawrinka sped to a two-sets lead. Nerves and indecision gripped him as Nadal – returning to about 60 per cent of his capabilities thanks to the power of painkillers – won the third set.

    Wawrinka steadied just enough to land his first major and leap to third on the world rankings. Post-match, Nadal was publicly gracious, but there was no masking the despondency. Speaking to the media, his cap was pulled over his eyes. Leaving Melbourne Park, he offered rueful and embarrassed shrugs. A wholly deflated, despondent sight.

    “The crowd was great with me in the whole weeks, no?” Nadal said. Well, not entirely.

    “Sometimes it’s tough for the crowd to understand,” he continued. “The crowd, only thing wants to do is enjoy great match. They paid for tickets to watch best match possible.

    “I was not able to offer them that for moments. I wanted to try my best until the end. But I can understand, very well, the reaction. I was trying all that I can try, on the court, with the situation. the crowd was great with me during both weeks.

    “Support has been enormous, more than ever. I feel very, very proud about how they treat and support me here. You never will hear me talk badly about the crowd here.”

    Wawrinka said: “I think it was not that nice (of the crowd), especially for Rafa. We all know that he’s a great guy, great player. He’s always a really fair player. He always tries his best. He’s always fighting.

    “The problem for me was not that he’s taking a physio, that he left the court. I just wanted to know why, what was the problem, just to know for the rest of the match. It was quite strange that the crowd started to boo him.”

    On his agitated discussion with the umpire, Wawrinka said: “Normally when the physio is coming on the court, the umpire always tell the opponent why he’s coming. He didn’t want to tell me, so I get pissed (off). And I think that’s my right.”

    Nadal’s inconvenience was minimal in the first set; Wawrinka was at his superb, bullish best. The Spaniard refused to speak poorly of an Australia Day crowd that had treated him so ruthlessly, but Toni was irked by the negativity that was clearly in response to Nadal’s reputation for time-wasting throughout the tournament.

    Wawrinka was furious when Nadal left the court, making a point of sprinting to his baseline before Nadal had reappeared, jumping on the spot, ready to go.

    “He does this every match,” Wawrinka barked at the umpire, Carlos Ramos. When it became clear that Nadal could barely serve or run, initially at least, silence fell over Rod Laver Arena for a good 25 minutes.

    There was a vibe of shock at the seriousness of the injury. Regret about the initial response from the bleachers? Nadal was given a rousing reception at the presentation ceremony but talking outside the locker rooms, Toni was still struggling to fathom the mid-match boos and hisses.

    Nadal has been complicit in two of the tournament’s most unforgettable moments: his defeat of Roger Federer in the 2009 final before the Swiss cried on his shoulder; and the six-hour marathon against Novak Djokovic in the championship match of 2012.

    His recovery from career-threatening knee surgery last year was one of the more mighty comebacks in all of sport. For all of his faffing around between points, and for all of the borderline gamesmanship attached, faking an injury has never been part of the Nadal make-up.

    “The crowd did not know what was happening,” Toni said. “I see this. But I think if you do not know something for sure, why say anything?

    “Rafael enjoys this tournament, he enjoys this crowd, he loves Rod Laver court. There are good memories here. But I wish people knew what Rafael was trying to do.

    “The crowd goes here and there with what they think. They go up and down. Sometimes the crowd don’t think, maybe. They are allowed to be whatever they want, but they should know that Rafael played for them. He knows that if he cannot win, he must finish for the crowd.

    “I think they should think about this. He had spirit, I would say, to finish.”

    Reply

    • THANK YOU! Yes, this is the article I referred to. I didn’t grab it when it first appeared free to me. Then I was blocked by paywall.

      Reply

    • What did Wawa mean by, “he does this every match”. Did he mean Rafa does this every match? How does this gel with his professed ignorance of why the crowd booed Rafa?

      Sorry, Wawa is in my black book going forward. The man is a nasty piece of work.

      Reply

      • I agree, RITB and JCKNY. Stan’s behavior incited the crowd. Stan is supposedly Rafa’s friend. Did he really think Rafa was faking an injury? It’s one thing to complain about line calls or court conditions or any of a hundred things that players may gripe about during a match, but Stan’s comment was a personal insult to Rafa’s integrity.

        Reply

      • Well, puts I to context what is important to both men. During WTF 2013 Wawa complained that uncle Toni was coaching Rafa from this sidelines with his constant Vamos. Rafa pointedly asked his camp to tone down the vamosses. After the match, Rafa said he got uncle Toni and Stan together to smooth out any misunderstandings because for him! having a good relationship with Stan, or anybody else’s, was more important than winning a tennis match. Fast forward to AO 2014, Stan obviously made the calculation that he wanted to win the Slam, relationship with Rafa be damned. What is sad is Stan would have won the match anyway without histrionics given Rafa’s incapacitation. But as they say, under pressure, his true self revealed itself. This is the man who, after all, abandoned his wife and infant child for tennis. In this context, his betrayal of Rafa is hardly surprising. Can you imagine Rafa walking out on his family to focus on his BH?

        Stan Wawrinkatennis does not have friends, nor family it appears, only interests.

        Reply

  20. Jpacnw,

    Thank you so much for posting this! It’s the first time that I have heard Uncle Toni’s comments about what happened on the court, in its entirety. I absolutely agree with him. I do think it hurt Rafa a lot to hear those boos.

    For me it’s puzzling because we know that this isn’t the first time Rafa has had to leave the court to get treatment for an injury. I said in an earlier post that it happened in the 2011 AO in the quarterfinals against Ferrer when he hurt his hamstring. It happened in the 2011 Wimbledon when he hurt his foot in the fourth round against Delpo.

    I am glad that Uncle Toni spoke up for Rafa. Having an injury and being deprived of the opportunity to really play his best to earn the win, was bad enough. But the way the crowd turned on Rafa, was just heartless.

    Reply

    • To JCKNY and Jpacnw,

      I said this on another thread where we were discussing the final. I absolutely believe that Stan yelling and screaming is what incited the crowd. We have to remember that they couldn’t hear what he was saying. They didn’t know he was going on about wanting to know what was wrong with Rafa. I think that they assumed that Stan was angry because he believed that Rafa was faking the injury. That is what set them off.

      I am even more sure about it after remembering that it was at this same AO in 2011 when Rafa injured his hamstring in the quarterfinal match with Ferrer, that he had to go off court. I don’t remember anyone booing. I also remember Ferrer just waiting patiently and not making a fuss. Ferrer would of course know that something must have happened for Rafa to go off court. I also reminded everyone about the 2011 Wimbledon when Rafa hurt his foot in that fourth round match with Delpo. He went off court for treatment at that time, too. The crowd didn’t boo him then.

      So the crowd’s behavior in assuming the worst about Rafa made no sense. It only makes sense when you put it in context with Stan’s behavior.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




Copyright © 2024 | MH Magazine WordPress Theme by MH Themes