I was talking to my friend last night (pause) about our high school tennis days, when the topic of this year's Wimbledon finals came up. For those who watched the event, it was a great display of tennis, two of the best in the world on top of their game. This match ranked in the top three for me, the other two being Pete Sampras - Corretja when Sampras puked on the court, and Baghdatis-Agassi from last year because Agassi was old.

Nadal is a great champion because he is a tennis player's player (pause). You can explain what Nadal does; if you're a coach, you can build a Nadal, and if you're a player, you can play like Nadal. You couldn't do this for Sampras or Federer. Sampras had a serve and volley game that he was seemingly born with. No matter how many hours you practice, you'll never serve like Sampras. And one could never play like Federer. What are you supposed to tell a player, go out on the court and hit a winner off every shot? He has a more impossible game than Sampras. But Nadal's game is more attainable - hit good groundstrokes, be a good counterpuncher, have a good defense, have exceptional footwork, be quick as shit, take all chances to attack, never give in on a point and never lose a point - these are all ideas and skills that are hammered into a player from the first time he steps onto the court for a lesson. To me, Nadal is Michael Chang to the 10000th degree. Growing up, small Asian people like me had Chang to look up to, but he only won one major and after that, he couldn't take the physical toll of playing 3 hour epic matches everytime he set foot on a court. That shit adds up. So we walked around getting fucked up by bigger opponents. And along came Hewitt, and the same thing happened to him. That's the thing with these player's games built on consistancy and counterpunching, which my game was built on - they always got bossed by bigger, stronger players. But Nadal is a counterpuncher who dictates tempo - that shit makes no sense. The only other things in sports I can compare it to would be if Floyd Mayweather fought a heavyweight in a boxing match, and the heavyweight was so scared of Floyd's speed that Floyd would be the one moving forward and stalking him. Or Chris Paul ballin.

In conclusion, Nadal is dope because he is a realistic champion, whereas in describing these other champions, you use words that sound good but don't really mean shit, like "He's amazing" or "He's brilliant.". With Nadal, you just say he's gotten very good at all the fundamentals truths of tennis. And he's also quick as shit. The end.