Rafael Nadal: Tennis Great Will Continue to Dominate the Clay for Years to Come
Rafael Nadal showed the world that he has no equal on clay by winning his seventh career French Open title at Roland Garros—a new record. The scary thing for the rest of the tennis world? Rafa just turned 26 on June 3, 2012.
He's just entering the prime of his career, and he might just win seven more titles before he retires.
Many people wondered if perhaps this would be the year for Novak Djokovic to beat Nadal after he won in Madrid and Rome. But Rafa's dominance on clay was evident once again. Djokovic gave Nadal a good fight, taking him to four sets, but Rafa is simply too good on the red clay of Roland Garros.
A defiant Nadal talked to reporters after the match, via ESPN.com:
Don't forget that I've played the last five Grand Slam finals in a row. That's not victory. That's not a title, but that's fantastic results...You have to find your moments...I made it. I did everything I could to win this match.
Nadal's ability to work both sides of the court with his strong backhand, combined with his innate ability to cover ground on the slow clay, is what makes him so tough to beat on clay. The thing that puts Nadal over the top has nothing to do with physical skills, though.
Nadal says his greatest strength is his ability to overcome mental obstacles, according to Reuters.com:
My mental part is one of the most important things, especially on clay. More than with the rest of the surfaces, because you have to run, you have to suffer sometimes, you have to play with more tactics, because you have more time to think, to do things.
His dogged, relentless will to overcome the mental challenges was on clear display against Djokovic, as the Djoker ended up with 53 unforced errors, including a disastrous double fault to lose the match.
Nadal is the greatest clay-court champion of all time, and there's no doubt in my mind that he'll continue adding to his record for years to come.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?