Roger Federer, speaking to Spanish newspaper El Pais about Rafael Nadal's clay court ability, once said:
"On clay you don't need a volley or a serve. You just need legs, an incredible forehand and backhand, and to run after every ball. I'm not trying to take anything from Rafa: He has been successful in other surfaces as well. But on clay you can get away, you can be competitive even with a very incomplete game. I'm not saying it's so simple, but it's too easy."
In another interview with Nike, Rafael Nadal's uncle and coach Toni Nadal took a totally different view:
"If you've got the inspiration but you don't work hard, it's not possible to get very far. It's much better to rely on hard work than to rely on talent."
Which assessment holds more water in your view?
The argument could be that the top two male players (Novak Djokovic and Nadal) in the world at the moment fit Toni Nadal's assessment. Would you agree with this view of the top two? And if so, does it lessen their achievements in your estimation?
Thirdly, one of the effects of the Federer era and the conception that his style of play was "art" is the disconnect that Federer fans experience with today's tennis and the way it is played. If the results are the same, can one style be better than another?
Jump into the debate and have your say.
JUMP INTO THE DEBATE AND HAVE YOUR SAY.
Agree with someone's comment? Vote for it to make the Debate Highlights section. Disagree with a comment? Reply and voice your opinion. Happy Debating!Add Comment