Really, Rafa?

I have a lot of respect for what Rafael Nadal has accomplished as a tennis player, but I have never enjoyed his game or what he has brought to it (to understand the kind of tennis we like here, please read the ABOUT section of this blog), since while he does show an increasing ability to attack when he has to, the basic template of his game is that of a counterpuncher. Now, I do understand that some people enjoy watching long baseline rallies, loads of topspin on every ball with players showing off remarkable physicality, stamina and endurance.

For some, the game has moved in the right direction by producing more players that refuse to miss by running down balls and managing to manufacture opportunities from bleak defensive positions. Really, I understand this. Borg was similar, Connors mixed it up but by and large enjoyed passing and hitting from the baseline, relying on pure tenacity and heart than skill, Wilander was similar though more crafty, and all these greats had legions of fans, deservedly so, because they beat players on some of the quickest surfaces ever. Nadal is doing the same now, though more dominantly than all of them but Borg, but does not face the same conditions they did. Yet, I understand why young kids look up to him since he never seems to back down and his muscular physique, unseen in tennis before his time, inspires dedication to training.

So the admiration for Nadal's game is understandable. But his recent comments on the game today are not.

From the ATP website during the first week Wimbledon 2011:

Current Generation More Enjoyable

Rafael Nadal believes previous tennis eras cannot match the excitement generated by the current stars of the sport. "Personally, to watch a Pete Sampras versus Goran Ivanisevic match, or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable," the 10-time major champion told The Evening Standard. "It's not really tennis, it is a few swings of the racquet. It was less eye-catching than what we do now. Everyone enjoys the tennis we play much more. I am not saying we are playing better tennis, just more enjoyable tennis. For me, in the past it was just serve, serve, serve." Mats Wilander, the seven-time Grand Slam champion, says there is greater depth today. "If you go down to the 100th-ranked player, we weren't as deep as they are today," said Wilander. "But the first seven or eight guys were at the same level and produced great rivalries. Looking 

back, it was really special."
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/06/25/Wimbledon-Diary-Day-Five.aspx

This is disappointing (to put it mildly) on many levels. First, I have never heard a great from a certain era actually compliment his own style of play and that of his contemporaries while playing down the nature of the game of greats from a previous era. That Nadal would actually go ahead and reduce an entire era of play by referring to one rivalry of the two best servers in history is mind-boggling, and frankly, irksome.

Even when looking at things objectively, the 90s produced probably the best mix of tennis styles in the history of the game. Everybody had a chance to win the major most suited to their games, and the jump from Paris to London in summer was not the least bit simple. 

Jim Courier deservedly won the French playing baseline tennis, as well as the Australian Open. Andre Agassi, a man who could not hit a clean volley to save his life until later in his career, won Wimbledon because he looked for opportunities in a point and hit the ball early enough that the bounce did not affect him, and his game was the most exciting of any player in the 90s. Grinders were around then and dominated the French and in fact, were far more defensive than the clay court players of today. Wayne Ferreira gave Pete Sampras fits on most surfaces. Sampras-Agassi at their penultimate match at the US Open, produced a display of attacking tennis from the baseline as well as at the net, in the twilight of their careers that too, that wasn't seen again till Federer-Safin at the Australian Open 2005. Pete and Goran had serves and volleys that nobody from the current generation could touch. Pete Sampras' forehand is as big as Federer's though admittedly not as varied, Patrick Rafter hit a backhand smash that was absolutely stunning to witness and Edberg was more graceful than any player ever not named Federer. 

Why is all of this being dismissed by Nadal so callously?

And what exactly is it about today's game that Nadal seems to think is so much better than Pete Sampras' or Goran Ivanisevic's? Nadal and Djokovic can't seem to finish a point until one of them feels thirsty during a rally. Novak has improved just one aspect of his game this year as compared to 2010, and that is his fitness. His recent streak can be attributed to one or two things at the most: an ability to run down humanly unreachable baseline strokes, and the confidence garnered from this new level of fitness, which keeps him in matches mentally. He has not developed a better serve, but simply gone back to an old one that suited him. His forehand is no bigger, his backhand is as good but not better.

And how about Nadal himself? The rivalry that defines his legacy is based upon nothing but an ability to hit continuously with venomous topspin in the direction of a single-handed backhand. And this happens to be the way he approaches most matches. His serve in any other era would be considered mediocre, his backhand is not great except when in form (when his crosscourt backhand is devastating), he volleys only to put sitters way. His one big stroke, his forehand, is nowhere near as varied as Roger Federer's, though equally effective in the scheme of his game as a whole. He can hit a flat forehand, but it in no way compares to a flat Federer forehand or a Sampras crosscourt running forehand.

I am astonished that his comments have not been scrutinised more intensely by the media. 

Nadal-Djokovic-Murray do produce matches that people enjoy, and though I might not be one of those people, I can understand the attraction. Not everyone necessarily thinks much of the ability to serve big at crucial moments or to serve well throughout a match and break when the opportunity arises, as opposed to multiple breaks where the serve is a way to start off a rally rather than a way to set up a point (all three players have improved their serves, but none can compare to Federer's serve, at least not his first delivery). Some people want to see more of a gladiatorial spectacle than a display of clinical precision and skill. It is a matter of taste, but Nadal does not seem to understand that, coolly dismissing an entire era as being boring by referring to one uni-dimensional tennis match-up. He also, with his comments, does not seem to be appreciative of what these greats brought to the game, and of the fact that the boom in popularity of tennis in the 80s and 90s is what led to opportunities for players in the fringes of the professional game to receive sponsorships and support.

Being an ambassador of the game means encouraging kids by playing and behaving well today, and I don't understand how he is considered one when he doesn't seem to understand that this can't be done unless you respect yesterday's legacy. Popularity allows for exposure and short-term appreciation, but I don't know whether that intangible historical aspect of his legacy will be much to write home about when all is said and done, because clearly, he doesn't seem to think much of the more recent history of the game himself. 

These comments have been very disappointing for me as a lifelong tennis fan to read, since it goes to show how little the most dominant player of the game today thinks of players that made the game as big as it is today. Additionally, after adjusting for inflation, I'm pretty sure attendance numbers and money generated by the sport in the 90s would easily match, if not surpass, the numbers from today's game, though I do not have data to support this. Excitement is in the eye of the beholder, when it comes to tennis, and clearly, in this respect, Rafael Nadal has limited vision.