CAMELOT FANTASIES

Quote from: Clay Death on May 05, 2014, 06:21:03 pm

the crazy think about nadal is that he could have been so much better than he already was or had become.


he never got around to developing a more of an assault oriented game. for example can you imagine if he had been able to volley like Edberg or Sampras.


nadal was one of the greatest athletes of all times. surely he could have learned to volley at an early age but who the hell knows what happened. he just wanted to mow people down from the baseline. given his heavy topspin game, that style of play took its toll on him too. so he spent a lot of time being injured.


the game would have been easier for nadal if he had learned a killer slice and a deadly net game at an early age. that would have also given him more options.

I feel though herc, things pan out the way they are supposed to. Nadal is doing great regardless. Do you take his H2H over Federer lightly? Because I don't. I am sure it's one of the greatest achievements in tennis history. Nadal basically put Federer in place and firmly so. If anything it is a sheer delight to see this reality of things. It's a prime example to all those hypothetical situations. No matter how you want to play it now and I bet it's fun too, but the fact and reality is, you haven't got a clue. No amount of arguments will prove anything otherwise because not only you can't change a past result, but also, you can't really project a 'could have' or 'would have' based on what you think it should be. If you put Federer against Sampras, Federer won't be leading Sampras 17-2; however, he will be leading in that way only in your fantasy. You may even sleep better based on your fantasy but you should also know that you are deluded since you think your projected fantasy is more real than the actual outcome, which you clearly haven't got a clue. Neither are you all that bright if you want to still dispute it.

Anyway, Nadal does volley occasionally and he does it very well but he only does it when he's very sure of the point. Also, he loves playing from the baseline. So he may have a natural disliking playing at the net - whether he's good at it or not perhaps doesn't matter to him.

A great player is always a great player, herc and great at everything but they perhaps exceed expectation in one thing they are most talented about. Otherwise it would be like saying Mozart wouldn't have been a great composer if he were to be born in this era. Or Van Gogh or Monet wouldn't been a great painters etc. Tennis is  very competitive sport and we tend to put one against the other and yes, some are better than others but that doesn't take away the fact that, they are all individually great players.

all great baseliners learned to be effective at the net. borg forced himself to be able to volley competently at the net. Agassi and wilander also went forward when they had to and could volley somewhat effectively.

I don't know much about Connors and Lendl. guess I need to read up. how were they at the net.


nadal is just a practitioner of very high percentage tennis. there is almost no risk with a heavy topspin game from the baseline if you can consistently hit it deep. and you only go in on your own terms. you pull the trigger at exactly the right shot.


going to the net entails risk and nadal simply chooses to take as little risk as possible. and how the hell can we argue with him anyway: he can always say that he has the highest winning percentage of any player in the open era. and that he owns a winning record against 100% of the top 30 players.


my deal is one of improvement and thereby making the sport easier on his body. he could have forced himself to improve more.