"the loser of seven ATP titles"

hahahahahahaha

Ricky, "the loser of 7 titles" is more defining of nadal's year than "the winner of 3 titles". lol

LOL cheeky devils!!

Not the right way to put it. It should be 'the loser in seven finals' . How could he lose the titles this year when he's fighting in the finals to win them in the first place? Unless Johan was referring to Rafa losing his 2010 titles, in that case it's five titles, not seven.

Masters Cup and Davis Cup aside, what's even more important is that in the past month Nadal has been putting in all the preparation groundwork for the 2012 season. Look out Australian Open here he comes!

Normally , when players return after a long time off ( more than a month is a long for the ATP) ...they get to play themselves into form starting slowly from round 1 or 2 in the tournament . No seeded players and you get back to your best by the time you are in the semi and have to face one of the big guns . Using the WTF as the starting point after a break aint so smart at all . On day one you play one of the top 8 !
he might Win it because he is the most rested . But if he looses , i think it is going to be a massacre on court cos he is gona get a whipping due to lack of court time ...

Good luck to all 8 !

breakpoint has obviously not watched Rafa at the WTF last year. Didn't Rafa also go for a five weeks break, skipping Paris Masters, last year? See how he performed last year, won all his RR matches and the semifinal, and only lost to Fed in the final. I didn't see anyone whipping him, as he did not go down in straight sets to Fed in the final.

Conversely, playing too many matches before the WTF may lead to players getting fatigued
and running out of steam during the WTF, like what had happened to Nole at the 2007 and 2009 TMC/WTF.

Seriously, Mr. Lindhal should post blogs in his native language and let us take our chances with Google translate!

Head shake..............

I'm confused. The article says "finals" not "titles". And he DID lose 7 ATP finals. Ricky, did you read that wrong?

titles/finals was not the funny part (though I am pretty sure it read "titles" to begin with)

the point was calling Nadal "The loser of seven ATP Finals" instead of, say, something normal like...

"The Spaniard"

"The world No. 2"

"The second-ranked Spaniard"

"The six-time French Open champion"

"The 10-time Grand Slam champion"

"The three-time winner in 2011"

You are right. It was originally 'loser'.

Hit 'send' too soon. Meant to write 'Loser of seven titles'

I rather think Mr. Lindhal does not much care for Mr. Nadal. It's not the first time he has written a piece on Rafa with a negative spin to it.

ed25511115122,2165 that is so funny if it was true?

But you did put a dot and exclamation marks so I really do not believe you hit the sendbutton to soon. You cheeky devil.

So acording to sienna and bleck " 3 times winner " is not a big deal...
Hmmmm... Let me see... Anyone else with 3 titles ?
Anyway... This is " copy/paste Johan" ... Lol!

Huh? where did I say not a big deal to win 3 titles?

Sienna, I also didn't say such a thing. Zare is out here writing lies.
He wants to stir up some discussions. Let's not indulge him.

Zare, I said that the 7 loses in finals are define better the year nadal has had so far.
If he had won 3 titles and lost 1, 2 or 0 finals then "3 title winner" would be the better definition. Got it?

Sienna. OK you were having a bit of a laugh but that was not an exclamation mark - although I can see why you thought it was. It is a close quote mark, followed by full stop. Promise.

I know Rafa's season could be said to be relatively poor by his standards (as was Roger's until he took off like the express train that bears his name) but it's a tad premature to be writing him off as a 'loser' wouldn't you say?

You have a memory like an elephant so maybe I dont need to remind you I'm first and foremost a Rafan, I cheer for Murray, I respect and admire (but dont worship) Federer, and am lukewarm about Djokovic ever since his behaviour at and following AO '08.

I just thougth referring to Nadal as "Loser". Or better the loser would be a cheeky devil observation by eddynumbers! See his comment of 8:12 PM,

Of course there is some thruth in that statement as being second is in most sports considered the loser!

Weeks at No. 2 (as of January 2, 2012).
Player Total
1. Rafael Nadal 216
2. Boris Becker 136
3. Stefan Edberg 104

I will leave out #4 for obvious reasons..... I think you must have atleast two years as being the second best player in the world.

And Edna to you Sienna!

Lindahl's bias always come through in these so-called articles. I like Ricky's rewrite of Rafa much better!

Ricky Dimon: "the second ranked spaniard"?? How would that be a more appropriate description of Nadal? At least johan Lindahl's statement was factually correct.

The second ranked spaniard is David ferrer and he is not the topic of this rubbish article.

Ricky obviously meant that Rafa is the spaniard who is ranked #2 in the world. Being factually correct is not Lindahl's strength in many ways. He makes provocative statements that are designed to get a reaction.

Any time a player wins a slam in a tennis year, and that slam ties Borg's record of six titles which has stood for thirty years, then it cannot be considered a failure. Rafa had too many tough losses in finals to Nole, which I hope he will resolve in 2012, but that tenth slam was a beauty.

So if Federer is the 4th ranked Swiss that puts him behind Stephane Bohli.

To describe Rafa as the loser of 7 ATP finals makes it sound like he did worse than Roger who is the loser of 2 ATP finals.

Of course you have to get to the final first to lose it.

NNY@2:50 AM: I'm undecided if it's deliberate or not ;-)
But if it is, he fails to provoke discussion most of the time. Just look at the index of the news items and see how many times they are ignored. But his columns serve a useful purpose between tournaments.

rafaisthebest, 11/16/11 6:20 PM
'Mr. Lindhal should post blogs in his native language and let us take our chances with Google translate'

That was hilarious!

ed,

So you like reading this guy? I really don't find his columns that interesting. He has had many factual errors and can be sloppy.

To be honest, I usually even skip reading them, but if you find it useful when we are between tennis, then good for you. :)

Just bought my ticket to see Rafa v Fish on Sunday. Unfortunately it's the night session which is not great for travelling back home, but hey, I'll see Rafa live!

nadline,

Ooh, you are the lucky one! Wow! You have to tell us all how he looks and his game and everything!

I wish I was there!

willmw - dont play DUMB

second-ranked Spaniard, first-ranked Serb, fourth-ranked Swiss....that is common vernacular in tennis in case you didn't know

you are confusing those with phrases like:

"Serbia's top player"

"Spain's top player"

"Switzerland's top player"

Stephane Bohli is not "the fourth-ranked Swiss"

Stephane Bohli is "Switzerland's No. 4 player"

I have the original article. It said "finals" not "titles".

Simmer down, everyone. Stating that Nadal has lost 7 FINALS is not only a factually correct statement, but appropriate, since the sentence continues that even after losing 7 times, he still sees his season as positive.

Ricky, stop nit-picking.

When Ricky said 7 title I absolutely knew what he meant. There was someone else nit picking about his choice of word. And nobody here stops readin JL articles. Everyone has something to say and I feel he is a fresh breath of air because he has absolutely no preferences for a player.

Sienna: I beg to differ. 43% of recent articles were devoted exclusively to the subject of Federer. But let's leave it at that.

NNY @ 10:40 AM You trying to wind me up or what? Surely you know my views on the subject!!!!!!!!

When I said they serve a useful purpose I meant he comes up with 'yesterday's news' under tabloid style headlines which keeps us happily occupied arguing with each other while waiting for the next tourney to start. :-D

ed,

Oh come on, I was just kidding with you! Maybe I should put a LOL after my comments, just so you know for sure. I did put a smiley face thing, though.

So you were also being sardonic yourself, right? I am glad, because this guy is beyond obnoxious and always tries to twist facts to suit his purpose, which is to create controversy.

I don't read his articles anymore, because I find nothing of value in them.

You actually did the math on the articles! Well done edy, Can you count the words or compair pos / neg articles. You could give youre study and claims a bit more effort.

I think the statistic speaks for itself. And off the top of my head I'd say they were 100% positive. No need to labour the point.

Ricky Dimon,

I have a 1st class degree in english from Oxford, so please don't impress your irrelevant grammatical musings on me. I'll just attribute it to a mistype.

willmw101 - It's really the content that matters though, right? Otherwise, I do believe the word "english" needs a capital. Ricky, the meaning is quite clear and I agree 100%.

Johan Come on.... Keep up with the news.
Nadal and Ferrer need the cash but nobody can come up withit.

http://www.10sballs.com/2011/11/15/nadal-vs-ferrer-exhibiti on-cancelled/

I revealed the information about the cancellaton of this exho days ago. I got the it from a Rafa fan forum. Who needs Johan Lindahl?

oh is that so. Which article did you put in on TT? I thought there were only 3 writers here on TT? Or did you made a mistake and did not realise posting as NNY?

In the UK, Murray is always referred to as the British No 1, so in that sense calling Rafa the second ranked spaniard implies that he is the second best amongst the spaniards.

Obviously, I revealed the information about the cancellation on one of the topic threads in a general discussion. I was chatting with luckystar about it.

There is no reason to get personal about it. I got the information much earlier on a Rafa fan forum and relayed it on this site, as I have done in the past when I had other information.

I have no more to say on the subject.

Who needs Johan Lindahl?
This is getting personal. I have no intend to get personal with you. It would only get me banned.