The Curse of Nadal

[johnyandell]

Let's discuss William Skidelsky's latest article, "The Curse of Nadal"

[gzhpcu]

I, for one, do not dislike Nadal. He is a special character, suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder. I admire his doggedness, fighting spirit. Tics, yes, but what matters is his unique style of playing and intensity of play. He hypes himself up. Am sure he does not intentionally try to intimidate his opponent. He is always respectful of his opponents. Tics, yes. Quirks, yes. Obsessive behavior, yes. Twelve Roland Garros titles. I do not understand why the author dislikes Nadal.

[jeffreycounts]

I do not understand why the author dislikes Nadal.

There is definitely a tongue in cheek aspect to this article. I think his point is that Nadal's mere existence has prevented Federer from achieving god knows how many more Slams, and for someone whose book is titled "Federer and Me: A Story of Obsession", you can see how even if Nadal were a combination of Mother Theresa and Da Vinci on the court, he would still dislike him.

I find a lot to respect and love about Nadal, but I think Skidelsky paints a humorous and not too far off picture of him. I appreciate the writing of this series as well - intelligent, humorous, and self-deprecating.

[stotty]

Strange article. Starts with absolutely loathing yet finishes quite detectably with respect. Roger fans ought to be mighty relieved Rafa has missed 11 or so slams through injury. I rather think Roger's 20 slams would have been long eclipsed otherwise. Such is life...always putting the spanner in the works.

[stroke]

It certainly like looks more likely than not that Nadal will eclipse Roger's GS tally. I have probably said this too much, but his 12 FO titles is the greatest feat in all of sports to me. And he could have had even more. The best clay court player in the world since 2004.

I also think this writer is a bit tongue in cheek with this Nadal hate. But one thing I would certainly agree with, he is unbreakable. He never gives in, the toughest out in tennis. Roger is close.

[ten1050]

I believe I am much like the author of this article. I have read his book, and it is certainly the best book on Federer I have ever read. And I read every Federer book I can get my hands on. Unfortunately, Roger Federer has little interest in writing or dictating an autobiography. He has said so in a number of interviews. I have a friend who has umpired matches at all the grand slams for many years. He is now retired. I have asked him about Federer, and he said that Federer was kindest of all the top players. The only other top player in his opinion that could match Federer's character was Patrick Rafter. Anyway, what this world needs is a little more kindness, we are so fortunate that Roger loves this game as much as we do.
Sincerely,
Norman Ashbrooke

[stotty]

Anyway, what this world needs is a little more kindness
Sincerely,
Norman Ashbrooke

So true.

[bman]

Great article!! I couldn't have said it better myself.

[kcw1]

I absolutely adore everything about Federer, and I like Nadal a lot as well...a good foil for Roger and with so much to admire. Yes, I think the author is definitely pulling our collective leg a bit with the mock "hatred". As much as I like Nadal as my second favourite, I do wish Roger's records to hold and thus am never disappointed when Nadal loses (except to Djokovic, don't get me started on why I dislike Nole!). I love that they seem to have genuine respect and affection for each other. As sports figures and tennis idols, I don't think we could ask for better. Nadal's tiks used to drive me crazy, as did his hideous "wifebeater" sleeveless shirts and pirate pants. Now I am older, wiser, and kinder...and I find both Nadal and Federer infinitely interesting and wondrous in their talent and personalities. We are so fortunate to have them both!!

[gzhpcu]

Actually, the author would do better to write an article on why Djokovic is less popular than Nadal and Federer.

[stotty]

Actually, the author would do better to write an article on why Djokovic is less popular than Nadal and Federer.

Because they were there first and Djokovic came along and spoilt the party?

[gzhpcu]

I do not think so... He tries too hard to be liked.... He also pulled out during a match citing injury... Roger never did...

[stotty]

Personally I think we are all guilty on passing judgement on things we can't possibly know.

Roger has cobbled himself a couple of times by continuing when he should have stopped. He has done this twice with his back that I can recall and ended up sidelined a little longer no doubt because of it. Djokovic will be off the court in a shot if his body plays up. He's no fool. He tried to mange the elbow problem because the stakes were high but it was a mistake to do so. Murray has paid a terrible price for trying to mange injuries instead of stopping. Nadal, as we all know, is hyper sensitive to injury.

Anyone can tear a player down for his given approach to these things, but, when all said and done, none of them are wrong. They all have their own way of dealing with these things.

[glacierguy]

I didn't like the article, and that is a first for tennisplayer. Maybe it was a joke that just passed me by...

[dorinn]

People need to get a life...