PDA

View Full Version : Overated



Mavs<Spurs
07-06-2006, 10:19 AM
Over rated.

North Texas beats Little Sisters of the Poor by a score of 58-3 and I am now supposed to think that they can beat UT or USC? What???



Nadal is being over rated. Overrated.

Who has Nadal beaten so far that is in the top 5 or even top 10 on a fast court at a Grand Slam?
Has he beaten Roddick or Ancic or Lubijic or Nalbandian or Davydenko or Hewitt or even a promising young player (promising on grass) like Murray or Gasquet or Berdych?
Not on a fast court at a Grand Slam.

Hewitt > Nadal at Wimbledon since Hewitt has actually won Wimbledon before and best prior to this year (and Nadal has done nothing so far at Wimbledon this year) for Nadal was winning 3 matches.
But Baghdatis > Hewitt and Hewitt > Nadal implies Baghdatis > Nadal.

Baghdatis has beat the top players on fast courts in a Grand Slam. Nadal has not done this. At Australian Open he beat 3 top 5 players in the world on one of their best surfaces and took a set off of Federer.

Don't say but Nadal beat Agassi. Agassi's record for the entire year of 2006 was 0-1. He was winless the entire year prior to Wimbledon. He retires next tournament. That is why he is not a top player any more on any surface.

Some say but Nadal pounded Baghdatis in the summer. So did a lot of other people. Therefore, all of them are also much better than Baghdatis here at Wimbledon. But they aren't. Therefore, the argument proves too much.

Hewitt beat Nadal at Queens. So, by this argument, Hewitt > Nadal and Nadal > Baghdatis (since Nadal pounded Baghdatis in the summer). Hence, Hewitt should have pounded Baghdatis here at Wimbledon. But he didn't. Again, the argument proves too much.

Baghdatis beat 3 top 5 players in the world in a row and got to the Finals and this was against these players on one of their best surfaces. It was unprecedented professional success for the young man. He, therefore, enjoyed the moment and did not take the summer very seriously. He was also injured. However, the summer does not predict his performance at these Grand Slams.


Great defense is ultra important on clay. On clay, great defense is the most important aspect of a successful player's game. On clay, great defense will win matches. One cannot overstate the importance of great defense ON CLAY.

The reason is obvious. To hit a winner on clay requires 5 perfect shots in a row since the ball is so much slower and it is much easier to track down shots that would have been winners on other surfaces.

So, to win at clay, you simply have to avoid hitting many more unforced errors than you do winners. If you have about the same amount of winners as unforced errors, you are in great shape on clay.

That won't get the job done on faster surfaces at majors against great fast court players. The really good fast court players at majors will routinely hit twice as many winners as they do unforced errors.

A great shot or two on a grass court is still going fast enough that it won't be easily tracked down. So, going for a winner on grass is a high percentage play if you can hit 1 or 2 great shots in a row. On clay you must hit 5 perfect shots in a row and that is not high percentage tennis for anybody.

Nadal hit 29 winners and 26 unforced errors against Nieminen. Great, he beat Little Sisters of the poor, a pretty poor opponent. But that is classic clay court tennis and it simply won't work. You are expecting to win most of your points by waiting for your opponent to hit an unforced error. But great fast court players won't oblige you, they will hit many more winners than unforced errors and dictate play. You will be in an increasingly bad court position since you can't recover by hitting a great defensive lob (like you can on clay )and returning to neutral court situations.

3 more winners than unforced errors won't win against Federer and it isn't good enough to beat Baghdatis either.

This is a red flag that Nadal is still playing clay court tennis and is not playing tennis that will beat a top fast court player at a Major Grand Slam.

Baghdatis in 4 or 5.

People who think Nadal is great on fast courts already need to look at his consistently even amount of unforced errors to winners on grass, the fact that he has not beaten anybody really good at a major on a fast court and reconsider their position.

Overrated. Big time.

danyel
07-06-2006, 10:32 AM
Nadal isnt great in fast courts, so what? he's still pretty damn good and he is like what 20?

Dude is awesome, unbeatable on clay.

Duncan21
07-06-2006, 10:50 AM
:lol Nadel is not overrated :wtf

WalterBenitez
07-06-2006, 11:24 AM
Over rated. ...Nadal is being over rated. Overrated. ...

You don't like Nadal ... am I right? me neither but don't see he's over rated ... two Roland Garros' Champ, Broke the record in clay .... :rolleyes

Mavs<Spurs
07-06-2006, 09:38 PM
You don't like Nadal ... am I right? me neither but don't see he's over rated ... two Roland Garros' Champ, Broke the record in clay .... :rolleyes

Maybe I wasn't clear (I certainly was not concise):
Nadal is the best on clay.
Nadal is very good on fast courts.
But I think that at a Grand Slam on a fast court (Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open), there are about 6 or 7 players who are better than him.
I think that he is 6th or 7th best fast court player in the world at Grand Slam tournaments other than the French Open (where he is best).

When he is seeded #2 at Wimbledon and Brad Gilbert says that at Wimbledon Nadal is better than Federer from the backcourt and Ted Robinson says that on all surfaces Nadal is better than Federer, I think this is overstating the case and in that sense is over rated.

He is not the second best fast court player in the world. One over rates him when one says that he is.

That is all.

Sense
07-06-2006, 10:07 PM
I think this was a stupid thread... k thx

GrandeDavid
07-07-2006, 07:20 AM
I would say Rafael Nadal is anything but overrated. Look at what he's accomplished at 20 freaking years old!! Dude, he's even taken out Roger Federer a few times, albeit on clay. Still, how in the hell can anyone say that Nadal is overrated!?

Plus the guy is humble as a pie and a pro's pro, especially in consideration of his age. He's only gonna get better on grass and hard courts.

WalterBenitez
07-07-2006, 10:43 AM
Maybe I wasn't clear (I certainly was not concise):
Nadal is the best on clay.
Nadal is very good on fast courts.
But I think that at a Grand Slam on a fast court (Wimbledon, US Open and Australian Open), there are about 6 or 7 players who are better than him.
I think that he is 6th or 7th best fast court player in the world at Grand Slam tournaments other than the French Open (where he is best).
When he is seeded #2 at Wimbledon and Brad Gilbert says that at Wimbledon Nadal is better than Federer from the backcourt and Ted Robinson says that on all surfaces Nadal is better than Federer, I think this is overstating the case and in that sense is over rated.
He is not the second best fast court player in the world. One over rates him when one says that he is.
That is all.

I see your point, In my modest opinion Nadal personifies what strong mentality means; definitely the Spanish is a warrior, don’t ask me why I don’t like his attitude, but even that...he’s amazing

danyel
07-07-2006, 05:34 PM
Nadal beats Baghdatis and this thread gets more useless

zech
07-08-2006, 06:48 AM
wait til sunday when he wins his first wimbledon and you'll start another thread that federer is overrated,point is if you watch tennis you'll be smart enough to know that when somebody says nadal is the second best tennis player he/she is damn right,the guy is a real fighter,he is the only one player who can do to federer the things that federer does to other players(i think he scares the hell out of him)

kingsfan
07-08-2006, 08:44 AM
I don't see how Nadal is overrated. He's the second best tennis player in the world right now and that could change tomorrow. He's improved greatly just since the French. His serve is much better, he's actually been to the net more than Federer and has been fairly successful. Grass court play does not come naturally to him and I respect the fact that he wants to win Wimbledon and has been making a conscious effort to do so. I don't think tomorrow's going to be an easy match for Rog. If he doesn't play his best he won't win. There's Rog and Rafa and they're miles away from anyone else right now. it's going to be hard to overtake either of them, they're both so dominant and Rafa has beaten Rog 6-1 and not all of those wins were on clay. Before this tournament I would say he was a clay court specialist but not anymore and I love it.http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smielephant.gif

GrandeDavid
07-08-2006, 11:10 AM
I'd say that nobody, I mean NOBODY, is in the class of Federer or Nadal.

Mavs<Spurs
07-09-2006, 11:44 AM
Nadal beats Baghdatis and this thread gets more useless

Baghdatis is an up and coming player, like Andrew Murray. He plays great matches but he had a letdown.

Thread speaks the truth. First set 6-0 Federer, fourth set 6-3 Federer. the first and fourth sets were not really close.
The only set Nadal won, he won in a tie breaker.


People took the previously 6-1 (now 6-2) record that Nadal had against Federer to mean that Nadal was better than (or at least equal to) Roger Federer on all surfaces. Many of the matches Roger was close to winning (e.g. he had a match point). Nadal's wins came on clay court or slower courts. Roger has won 8 grand slams and Nadal 2 and both of Nadal's were on clay. Nadal has never beaten Roger at a Grand Slam other than the French on clay.

That was my point. It was true yesterday before you posted your ignorant junk.

If you had actually read my post, you would know that I was simply saying that

when people say Nadal > Federer on all surfaces, they are wrong.
Nadal > Federer on clay but Federer > Nadal on all other surfaces.

That was the point. Go back and read the post.

Mavs<Spurs
07-09-2006, 11:52 AM
wait til sunday when he wins his first wimbledon and you'll start another thread that federer is overrated,point is if you watch tennis you'll be smart enough to know that when somebody says nadal is the second best tennis player he/she is damn right,the guy is a real fighter,he is the only one player who can do to federer the things that federer does to other players(i think he scares the hell out of him)


Wait until when? When Hell freezes over?

First set 6-0, fourth set 6-3. He broke Nadal 5 times in those 2 sets. 88 mph second serve won't get it done.

In a fast court Grand Slam, when has Nadal ever beaten Roger Federer?
Answer: Never.
On fast court Grand Slams, how many titles does Nadal have?
Answer: Zero.
On fast court Grand Slams, how many titles does Lleyton Hewitt have?
Answer: two
On fast court Grand Slams, how many finals has Nadal been to?
Answer: 1
On fast court Grand Slams, how many finals has Roddick been to?
Answer: at least 3.

13/17 tournaments Nadal has won have been on clay. (about 2/3).
The other 4 were relatively slow for non clay courts. Nadal has never beaten Roger on a really fast court. He has beaten him on relatively slow non clay courts and on clay courts.

In a fast court Grand Slam, how often has Nadal even been to the quarterfinals?
Answer: once.

If Nadal were the second best player in the world on fast courts, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that he would have been to the quarterfinals of a fast court Grand Slam more than once?

If you can't figure this one out, I can't help you.

On clay, Nadal is the best in the world.
On other surfaces, he has not yet shown that he is the second best player in the world.

He'll have to win a Grand Slam on a fast court and a lot more fast court tournaments before he proves that is true.

Mavs<Spurs
07-09-2006, 11:57 AM
I don't see how Nadal is overrated. He's the second best tennis player in the world right now and that could change tomorrow. He's improved greatly just since the French. His serve is much better, he's actually been to the net more than Federer and has been fairly successful. Grass court play does not come naturally to him and I respect the fact that he wants to win Wimbledon and has been making a conscious effort to do so. I don't think tomorrow's going to be an easy match for Rog. If he doesn't play his best he won't win. There's Rog and Rafa and they're miles away from anyone else right now. it's going to be hard to overtake either of them, they're both so dominant and Rafa has beaten Rog 6-1 and not all of those wins were on clay. Before this tournament I would say he was a clay court specialist but not anymore and I love it.http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smielephant.gif

I only say that Nadal is being over rated by a person if they say that Nadal is the second best player in the world on fast courts (his record does not show this at this point) or if they conclude from the head to head win loss record Nadal > or = to Roger on all surfaces.

If they don't say these two things, then I don't think they are overrating Nadal.

I agree that he can no longer be viewed as strictly a clay court specialist. Can he keep this up? How will he do in the US Open? How will he do at the Australian?

If he plays like this consistently and gets to the Finals or semifinals of these Grand Slams, then I will say that Nadal is best on clay and second best in the world on all other surfaces.

However, remember that up to this point, he has only gotten to the quarterfinals of a nonclay court Grand Slam one time.

That, in my view, disqualifies him from being the second best fast court player in the world.

Mavs<Spurs
07-09-2006, 12:00 PM
I'd say that nobody, I mean NOBODY, is in the class of Federer or Nadal.

Trying to be dumb by saying two things that are self contradictory.

If Nadal is in Federer's class, then somebody is in Federer's class (by definition).

Nadal has been to the quarterfinals of a non clay court Grand Slam exactly one time.
Roger has won 8 fast court Grand Slam tournaments.

See the difference.

If not, I don't know how else I can help you since it appears to be deliberate obtuseness.

zech
07-12-2006, 09:35 AM
you just talk about first set and fourth set,and yest ofcourse the third set was won on a tie break by nadal,what about the second set?if nadal had served well maybe we could be talking about something else,see my point is roger is very good probably on all surfaces,but so is nadal(who also happens to be the second only to federer)name another player who you think is better than nadal,anyone?nadal is not overrated he's earned what people say about him,actually i wont be surprised if he becomes the number one player sooner that you expect,because he works so hard to improve and he has the proper mindset.(It won't take a feder injury for this to happen,federer might even still at his peak)

Quadzilla99
07-12-2006, 10:03 AM
Marat Safin has the potential if he focuses but GrandeDavid is right Federer and Nadal are in a class by themselves.