FEW PEOPLE were on hand in the tunnel at Flushing Meadows to witness one of the saddest tales in the history of the US Open. However, the vision of Rafael Nadal hobbling away after his exit from this years tournament took my mind back 26 years.
It was 1981. I was a 16-year-old playing in the junior competition and Bjorn Borg had just lost his fourth US Open final. As John McEnroe celebrated, the great Swede walked off the court and rushed out the back door and into a waiting limousine.
Borg didnt want to talk to anybody. He was in no mood to answer questions on why victory at this tournament seemed so unattainable for a player who proved so durable at the French Open and Wimbledon. Deep down, he knew he couldnt ever win the elusive prize, and, ultimately, he never played another important match.
I am not saying we wont see Nadal walk out at Arthur Ashe stadium again, and I am not suggesting his glory days are over. Once his knees have healed and he gets back on courts that are more conducive to his game, he will again be the man to beat. But I wonder whether the thought is going through his head that the US Open may turn out to be the one that passes him by. And if he is thinking that way now, things are unlikely to get any better in the future.
If you take the view that Nadal is predominantly a clay-courter, he would not be the first of his ilk to struggle at Flushing Meadows. Gustavo Kuerten won the French title three times, but never got beyond the quarter-finals in New York. Thomas Muster fared no better. Sergi Brugueras best was a place in the last 16.
I think it is sacrilege to bracket Nadal as simply a clay-court player. He is much more than that reaching two Wimbledon finals in as many years proves that. However, these New York courts are the fastest and most physically demanding in Grand Slam tennis. Nadal must make adjustments to his game, his preparation and his schedule if he is to have any chance.
Any top athlete knows there must be rest periods between important tournaments. After Nadals run-up to the French Open, yet another Roland Garros crown, then heading straight to the Artois Championships at Queens Club and finally an excellent Wimbledon, where he came closer than anyone to beating Roger Federer in the final, he must have been completely spent physically. He deserved several consecutive noncompetitive weeks to recharge in time for the rigours of two Masters Series events in North America and then the US Open.
Yet what did he do? While Federer was in Dubai, taking things easy before doing a little physical preparation for the US, Nadal headed back to his beloved clay and won another title in Stuttgart. Why?
To read the full story go to: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article2413937.ece
I disagree with what he says! However, i think the reason he may have played Stuggart was probably to protect his no.2 ranking, but unfortunately he got knocked out in the 4th rd and Djokovic lies in wait! I think Nadal knew he was playing it tough with an injury, but he took a risk by playing. The journo should realise he is 20/21 years of age, by the time he reaches his peak, federer will be gone and that will give him a chance to claim a GS other than the french open. but he wont have it all his own way. Djoko already there, Murray and others etc will follow suit and compete for the top honours. So the journo should stop criticse young athletes!!!
I disagree with what he says about Borg...who retired at 25 (?), still at the peak of his powers...ok he'd lost to McEnroe at Wimbledon and the US open but both matches had been incredibly close and Borg had still picked up the French Open that year. It wasn't as if McEnroe had worked him out for good and was starting to completely outplay him. If he'd continued playing, he'd have had at least 5 years still at the top of the game (look at McEnroe who went on competing at the highest level for 11 more yrs)...he'd have still been one of the big favourites for the Wimbledon and US Open in next few yrs, and who's to say he wouldn't have won more slams...it was another 4 years till the likes of Becker, Lendl, Edberg etc came on the scene.
However, regarding Nadal, Cash does have a point, ok in 4-5 years time when Federer will be past his peak, Nadal will be even more of a top contenders for world no 1 and the other 3 slams but if he continues with his current crazy schedule...his body may not allow him to win those slams. He has certainly made some bizarre decisions this year....at the beginning of 2007 he played it smart...took a good rest after Aussie Open and just played Dubai in the next 5 weeks, so arriving in Indian Wells very fresh and he strolled to the title.
but with the scheduling for the clay season, surely either Barcelona or Hamburg should have been dropped....then after Queens he'd been competing for 5 straight weeks and just had a week off before Wimbledon.
Playing Stuttgart seemed crazy cause with the pts that Nadal and Federer have got, winning an ordinary ATP isn't going to make much difference...its going deep in the masters series and slams which are gonna push Nadal closer to Fed....as a result he seemed somewhat jaded in Montreal and had to retire in Cincy
If Nadal is fully firing at the Aussie Open, he will be a huge threat there as after the French its his best slam surface
He needs to cut down on his dramatically. If he is to play normal ATP events at least he should play on hard courts to get some more experience/wins under his belt.
I think he could be worried about the effect hard courts has on his body, with his very physical game. I believe that is why he is more or less avoiding hard courts and playing more clay.
