Nadal had all the qualities of a champion. He has persistence and the tremendous desire to win and not to give up which made him come back from the brink many times
The forthcoming biography of Rafael Nadal by noted tennis writer Christopher Clarey of the New York Times is titled 'The Warrior: Rafael Nadal and His Kingdom of Clay'. That Nadal has been the master of tennis on clay has been largely accepted, considering that he has won 14 of his 22 Grand Slam titles on clay and has been taken to five sets only three times in the French Open, the only Slam played on clay, has a 63-9 record on the copper surface finals and has won 81 consecutive matches on the surface between 2005 and 2007. So there is justice in calling him the 'King of Clay'. But amid all this, it is not always recalled that Nadal was equally brilliant on other surfaces, though not as cutting edge. The Spaniard has beaten Roger Federer in three different Grand Slam finals (French Open, Wimbledon, Australian Open) and has won eight majors on hard courts (six) and grass (two). So Nadal is not just a player made of clay.
It will be unfair if Nadal, who lost his last match prior to retirement in the Davis Cup against Australia on November 18, is confined to clay, though he was a master there. A champion player like Nadal can play his top game on any surface bar with a few difficulties. Nadal won predominantly on clay because he grew up on it, and so loved to slide a long way (copied well by his successor Carlos Alcaraz both of whom grew up on clay courts of Mallorca) and also could top spin the ball ferociously which would pounce on the opponent on clay. Any way we look at it, Nadal took tennis to grand heights along with two other of his great contemporaries, Federer and Novak Djokovic.
Nadal's unbelievable shots
When in full flow, Nadal was a pleasure to watch. His serves and most forehands had the maximum rotation per minute, suggesting a mastery of the forehand swing and follow through. The forehand is not as easy as it looks for you don’t hit the ball but has to brush it and the racquet has to swing away in an arc. And among his unbelievable shots was the one he could curve around the net post and into the corner of the opponent's baseline. It was the tennis version of the inswinger and few opponents could pick it because they never suspected that the ball would boomerang into them. The tennis ball always did his bidding. Those who had the privilege of playing him took his shots as left-handed compliments.
Also read: End of Big Three Era | Gen Next takes over men’s tennis with Sinner’s win in US Open
What was it that he had, that Federer or Djokovic did not have? It is difficult to compare the greats. But Nadal lost sets by 0-6 in 15 big matches but he has given it back as well. In the copper surface of Roland Garros, he has handed opponents the humiliating gift of a bagel set 24 times.
Nadal had all the qualities of a champion. He has persistence and the tremendous desire to win and not to give up which made him come back from the brink many times, a quality he shares with the other greats of tennis. The longest Grand Slam final he played against Djokovic in the 2012 Australia Open lasted five hours 53 minutes which Djokovic won with a 7-5 last set. Two other qualities that most champions have also characterised Nadal: ability to sustain a dream for long from childhood, and the undying faith in oneself. For all winners, they are their own Gods.
Federer's emotional letter
During the last two years, when Nadal was fighting injuries, it was always presumed that he, being ageless, would come back and start letting go of the bomb-like forehands again, leaving his opponents stretched helplessly like an Avante Garde sculpture. That was not to be for at 38, his body would not take any more. During these last two years, he must have been watching Alcaraz through the corner of his eyes and figured out that his successor has well and truly arrived, and that too from Malaga itself and there was no point trying to prove anything to a brash teenager who grew up wanting to be another Nadal. Till the very end, Nadal was a humble man and never announced, after pocketing yet another two or three million dollars, that he was the greatest. Ironically and happily, it was always the shy smile of an unsure player that escaped from his lips, not the bravura of a conqueror. Nor did he ever say, like Goran Ivanisevic, that the racquet was his gun. Despite the power his Babolat Aero generated, the shots that ricocheted off the strings were more art, as if just splashing the canvas with paint to create a masterpiece. In fact, he did. The many five-setters, the many classy cross-court passes that left the other guy hanging at the net were all to be framed in the mind.
Also read: Infosys signs tennis legend Rafael Nadal as brand ambassador for 3 years
Nadal was openly emotional only once when he cried after Federer’s last match. Federer sent an equally emotional letter to his left-handed friend on his retirement. That was a letter only Federer could have written. “You beat me – a lot. More than I managed to beat you. You challenged me in ways no one else could. On clay, it felt like I was stepping into your backyard, and you made me work harder than I ever thought I could just to hold my ground. You made me reimagine my game – even going so far as to change the size of my racquet head, hoping for any edge.” What a tribute, considering that they spent most of their life shooting rockets at each other with their racquets.
Also read: 1974 Davis Cup final: When India forfeited the tie, chose principle over tennis glory
In the galaxy of tennis biggies of the modern age, where would we place him? The latest generations of players always improve on older ones because of their access to new science and technology. John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors and Arthur Ashe all stake a claim to this pantheon. Robert Lipsyte wrote about Connors: “His age is only relevant because so many in the crowd have seen him play for longer than Aaron or Monica or Goran have lived. It is not his longevity but his neediness that sucks the gallery dry, his willingness to give up body and soul for their attention and love.”
Maybe true of all greats and definitely of Nadal. Maybe he called it a day when he realised that the love of the gallery had shifted a bit to other youngsters around the corner.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal)
