Nadal Makes History Again!


Rafa Nadal is awesome, the greatest player ever, in my opinion, not just for his ATP and Grand Slam titles but also his contribution to the history of tennis. In 2019 alone, Rafa has achieved a record 34 Masters 1000 titles and become the only person in history to win the most amount of titles at a particular Grand Slam when he won his 12th Roland Garros Grand Slam title. But what makes him especially impressive for me is his incredible athleticism, reaction time, and speed around the court (which seems to me even more sublime this year at Roland Garros). In addition, Rafa has a rarer talent, which I call the rubber ball effect. By this I mean that he has an incredible bounce effect in his explosive power movement and running on court, as well as an unbelievable flexibility enabling him to turn his body every which way yet still have power on his shot. One example of his speed, flexibility and variety of shot making which I enjoyed at RG was his Bahrami shot, as I call it, when, with his back to the court, he hits a type of forehand shot over his right shoulder with power and accuracy. Rafa was brilliant throughout the tournament but his RG final against Thiem was genius at work.

For Becker1 to expect younger players to be like Nadal, who is an all-time great, is unrealistic and unhelpful. Players like Nadal don’t come along very often, in much the same way as golfers like Ballesteros are also a rare breed. I cannot find enough superlatives to describe Nadal’s awesome display of talent. He most certainly deserved to win his 12th RG no-one else played anywhere close to his level. (I liked his outfit too.) Nadal has every shot conceivable at his disposal, making him excellent at both attack and defence. So expecting Thiem to just roll up and beat him is ridiculous. Thiem played really well, but he was up against the wall! I find Becker’s comments and this generally pervasive negative criticism of players not trying hard enough disrespectful to both top players (by assuming they can be easily defeated and win because others are lazy or not good players) and to lower ranked or younger players (by depicting them as lacking ability, skills, talent and motivation). And then to fine them for this supposed lack of effort based on very nebulous evidence is beyond belief. At RG this year, Tatishvili was fined an absurd amount of money (£41,000) which wiped out her first round earnings2. Worse still, this was based on claiming she wasn’t fit enough to return from injury and so was purely returning to make use of her last chance wild card. Who can blame her? When you start on the tour, you don’t so much as receive an M&S voucher for your efforts during the match, not to mention all the on and off court training beforehand and the expenses of getting there plus accommodation. She’s right to try to push herself to compete as soon as possible. She is currently unranked so needs points and money to restart her career and fund her expenses at the lower tournaments. What better way to start than at a Grand Slam, where points and money are the highest? So she would be pushing herself to get as far as possible in the tournament, not just turning up to try to lose 1st round. Her score was nothing unusual. There were plenty of bagels in various rounds, throughout the tournament from well-ranked players. We can also see how Kuznetsova is struggling to get back up the rankings after injury despite being an incredible player who has won RG.

No player is unfit, they are all sportswomen/athletes! So it is both highly subjective and a contradiction in terms to claim a sportsperson is unfit to participate in their sport. It is also wrong to prevent them, put them off or fine them for merely doing their job so they can earn a living. They also have pressure from sponsors to rush back to compete in events on pain of losing sponsorship or being demoted. Recently, women athletes have criticised Nike for imposing the same performance targets on them when pregnant and coming back from giving birth as they had before having a family3. This resulted in, amongst other things, women running competitively before they had the chance to fully regain their top level in order to simply pay the bills. Part of competitive sport is to push yourself as much as possible to compete and win, irrespective of whether the conditions are perfect or not (although giving birth is in a category of its own, so this doesn’t apply to post-partum comebacks). If athletes waited until they were completely injury free and perfectly ready and fit, they would never work! And match play is part of building fitness and being match-tight. On the one hand, girls are being encouraged more and more to participate in sports and become sportswomen, yet on the other hand, those in the sports industry are putting them off with their appalling attitudes towards sportswomen.

Past players, I think, should give more thought and consideration to media comments that they release about current players on the tour. Whether it’s promoting who they like as the next sensation, or which generation should retire or come through, or passing judgement on players irrespective of whether it is on or off the court, such as post-match interviews and organisational issues. It creates a negative, critical environment which they didn’t have to put up with in their era when there was less media spotlight on sportspeople. Media coverage should be about present day players and televising their matches, making them easily available for everyone to watch on social media and TV. It should not be filled with opinions of past players, no matter how good they were in their day. Young people by and large are more inspired by watching matches than listening to gossip and opinions about the players. It is also unhealthy because it could cause prejudice against certain players who they are less positive about. It also doesn’t help younger players who may attract less endorsements if portrayed as lacking talent and promise. For Becker to claim none of the men under 28 years old have the right attitude to beat the top troika is inaccurate. Thiem just beat Djokovic in the semi-finals to reach the final of RG! What more do you want? It was a good result. I’m sure Djokovic wasn’t delighted! So all these negative attitudes and opinions just wears out up and coming male and female players, potentially giving them a psychological blockage or even exacerbate mental health issues, such as the ones Katie Swan has discussed recently, including her confidence wobbles4.

I noticed a lot of negativity in the press surrounding Nadal’s attempt to break Margaret Court’s record of 11 titles at a particular Grand Slam. However, we are conflating two things, namely pre and post Open Era. I think only 4 out of her 11 Australian Open titles were in the Open Era so it is misleading to lump them all together indiscriminately. Pre Open Era, it was a relatively empty draw at the AO because players didn’t have the money to travel on long-haul fights and cope with the extreme heat conditions. As Billie Jean King once said, records are there to be broken. But which ones are we counting? Surely only the Open Era ones, otherwise we are inventing hurdles that aren’t there. Both Serena and Nadal have exceeded Margaret Court’s records years ago, yet the bar is raised to beat records (which were set in a much easier era and across pre and post Open Era) twice over (first the Open era titles then the pre-Open Era title records). In the words of John McEnroe: “You cannot be serious!”

Luckily, despite the highly charged atmosphere, questioning whether Rafa should win RG yet again or leave it to the younger players to win (surely that’s exactly what he can’t do, without being accused of not making enough effort and getting fined for laziness) Nadal showed incredible focus. He was completely in the zone, giving 100% on court and staying fully in the moment. Numerous players talk about being in the zone, but Nadal takes it to another level. It’s not just a pep talk he gives himself but, like Connors before him, he spills his guts on the court! They are charismatic because of their style of play, the way they channel all their energies into every shot. That’s tough. Monica Seles had that focus, playing each shot with intensity. Sharapova also displays this focus, her expression and effort never changing, no matter the score. No player, male or female, has managed to have it all, but Nadal has come the closest to sporting perfection.

We want to enjoy every match, appreciate all players no matter what their ranking or results, and follow them as they develop at their own pace. The tours need to evolve organically, not be artificially pressured. Whoever wins, wins! It’s great when they break records, but it’s not essential. You can be a great player without a truck load of titles and records to your name. Schiavone, to my mind, is an exceptional player, similar to Nadal but doesn’t have the long list of titles, but that doesn’t lessen her in my opinion. What happened to enjoying sport for its own sake, rather than focusing on who wins what? We don’t want them to burn out simply because we want a factory-like turnover of one sensation after another amassing wins.

On a final note, congratulations to Nadal, I’m delighted he won Roland Garros! He’s always been my favourite male tennis player over the years. He was, believe it or not, my template for playing on clay. After my tournaments in Croatia, I even bought strings he was advertised as using, hoping I would morph into Nadal and the strings would work miracles for me if I used them in future clay court tournaments!

#Wimbledon - #VamosNadal!










Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Giorgi wins Montreal (updated)

Should medics be court-side?

Not again, Martina!