Was Nadal unlucky to have a precociously early grass prime/peak?

[GabeT]

It's freaking obvious to anyone who's been watching tennis for the last 20 years...

Replace Fed 14,15 + 19 with Fed 06-08 against Djok in those finals and he's toast.
Conversely, Replace 06-08 Fed with 14,15 + 19 Fed against 06-08 Nadal and he wins all 3...

4 Wimbledon titles each that way...

So yes, pure timing. It is what it is.

Another expert in time travel tennis that can’t predict actual matches!

 

[RS]

Another expert in time travel tennis that can’t predict actual matches!

 

[The Fedfather]

Nadal always had his struggles on grass throughout his career. Even when he reached the late rounds, he would have his fair share of tough matches in early rounds when the grass was still slick:

2006 (F): 2R vs Robert Kendrick: 6-7, 3-6, 7-6, 7-5, 6-4
2007 (F): 2R vs Soderling: 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 4-6, 7-5; 3R vs Youzhny: 4-6, 3-6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-2
2008 (W): -
2010 (W): 2R vs Haase: 5-7, 6-2, 3-6, 6-0, 6-3; 3R vs Petzschner: 6-4, 4-6, 6-7, 6-2, 6-3

As the tournament progresses, the grass gets worn down and the court slows down more and more, enabling Nadal to play his game with greater efficacy

The 2012-17 period was a cosmic correction of sorts, where Nadal actually lost the matches he should have lost earlier:

Implying that 5-set matches with scores like 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-0 in the last sets are matches Nadal should've lost is pure lol. That much funnier coming from a Djokovic fan. Doesn't Novak have the most wins in 5 sets? I wonder when that cosmic justice is going to hit.

 

[GabeT]

It’s a calling!

 

[Milanez82]

Nadal 2007 has a strong chance of winning Wimbledon 2013.

He owns Murray at slams so he definitely beats him. Vs Djokovic it would be a tough match. Their 2011 match would make the latter the favorite, but Nadal would definitely have a chance of winning, especially because at the time he was much stronger mentally and he was coming off their RG win.

Nadal owned Djokovic at slams until the final of Wimbledon 2011 so Murray would be just as likely to brush him aside

 

[GabeT]

Nadal fans need to stop deluding themselves. Nadal is nowhere near Novak’s level at Wimbledon and imagining time travel tennis matches won’t change that. At this point they have both played very long careers and we know where each has their advantages and disadvantages

 

[jm1980]

Implying that 5-set matches with scores like 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-0 in the last sets are matches Nadal should've lost is pure lol. That much funnier coming from a Djokovic fan. Doesn't Novak have the most wins in 5 sets? I wonder when that cosmic justice is going to hit.

Actually, the same can be said for Djokovic.

I will not contest that.

I believe the Wimbledons he's won are also a cosmic correction of sorts for his USO record. It's quite incredible that he's only won 3 USO titles

 

[jl809]

It wouldn’t make much difference. Nadal had a shorter peak on grass. Ultimately this is his weakest surface where he has been much more vulnerable over the years.

Even in his best years he sometimes struggled to get out the first week. I feel no matter when nadal peak was he’d still just have 2 titles, maybe an extra one if stars aligned.

Agreed, and so my question is, would those 2 Wimbledons be looked on more favourably if they were won closer to the present day, and if they involved beating prime Djoker (say in 2013)

One of the big arguments used against Nadal IRL is that he hasn’t won Wimbledon or beaten Djokovic or Federer on grass in over 13 years

 

[GabeT]

Agreed, and so my question is, would those 2 Wimbledons be looked on more favourably if they were won closer to the present day, and if they involved beating prime Djoker (say in 2013)

One of the big arguments used against Nadal IRL is that he hasn’t won Wimbledon or beaten Djokovic or Federer on grass in over 13 years

I think the main argument against Nadal at WB (relative to the other Big 3) is the amount of tourneys won, not the timing

 

[Milanez82]

Having a 5 year prime instead of a decade long prime on the surface, how so bery unlucky...

No its 5 year prime followed by 5 year non prime then back to 5 year prime...
Lol

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

Agreed, and so my question is, would those 2 Wimbledons be looked on more favourably if they were won closer to the present day, and if they involved beating prime Djoker (say in 2013)

One of the big arguments used against Nadal IRL is that he hasn’t won Wimbledon or beaten Djokovic or Federer on grass in over 13 years

Maybe they would. Although then people would just argue the other way that he could only win when he has a bit older. I personally don’t see a difference if he won in 2014 instead of 2010.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Nadal owned Djokovic at slams until the final of Wimbledon 2011 so Murray would be just as likely to brush him aside

Djokovic became a much better player in 2011 than before and turned things around beating Nadal in 3 different slam finals and 7 matches in a row. Murray never made something similar so I don't see why I would think he'd be the favorite vs Nadal unless it was specific circumstances like in 2015/2016 when he was peaking and Nadal was in a slump.

 

[abmk]

Was his peak really that high or is it being exaggerated on here? @jm1980 pointed out how he escaped early on in matches in 2006, 2007 and 2010. Did Federer and Djokovic struggle to that extent at their peaks in early rounds to players of that caliber? I think his matchup advantage against Federer is why many people see it that way, plus he benefitted from the higher bouncing grass. I remember people (Navratilova) were complaining around 2006 about how much they slowed down the conditions. You don't think that helped Nadal? His struggles then and his defeats in early rounds between 2012-2015 suggest that he was a really good grass player, but not on the level of the greats.

yeah, right. I mean matchup adv vs the greatest grass court player of all time meant automatic 5-setters vs him - which no one in fed's prime had done before. . which prime djokovic and Murray couldn't do vs past-prime/prime-ish fed in Wim 12.

3 wins for Nadal vs Murray (Wim 08, Wim 10, Wim 11), including a destruction, a straight-setter and another 4-set win while prime Djokovic is 0-2 in matches and 0-5 in sets means nothing.

I remember that Djokovic in his 20s at Wimbledon lost to lets see: nadal (retired), Safin, Haas, Berdych, Federer, Murray, Querrey. 7 losses in 10 out of which ZERO of them went to 5 sets - 3 of them were straight-setters and 4 of them were 4-setters/him taking a set.
We also had Djoko's pre-SF struggles vs Baggy/Tomic in Wim 11, Stepanek/Cilic in Wim 14, Anderson in Wim 15. ****
clearly benefitted from slow down and more consistent bouncing grass.

Clearly suggest Djokovic was a really good grass player, but not on the level of the greats.


**** (equating to federer in early rounds at WImbledon at prime is a joke - federer had zero struggles in 1R-QF at Wim from 03-09 at his prime - ZERO, heck, guy didn't lose a set in the SF of Wim from 03-09)

 

[abmk]

TTW say peak Nadal is closer to a peak Djokovic than peak Fed on grass.

well duh.
hilarious/completely djokovic or fed hate/dislike blinded evaluation to think otherwise.

 

[RS]

When is the tennis podcast abmk?

 

[GabeT]

Already feeling sorry for fans that will go nuts if Novak wins #8 next year

 

[RS]

well duh.
hilarious/completely djokovic or fed hate/dislike blinded evaluation to think otherwise.

Nadal Wim 08 vs Fed Wim 09 20 match series?
Fed Wim 09 vs Djokovic Wim 15 20 match series?

 

[abmk]

Nadal Wim 08 vs Fed Wim 09 20 match series?
Fed Wim 09 vs Djokovic Wim 15 20 match series?

don't care about 20 match series.
But first one is about even.
second one fed has the edge, though not a big one.

 

[RS]

don't care about 20 match series.
But first one is about even.
second one fed has the edge, though not a big one.

12-8/6-4 2nd?

 

[abmk]

Already feeling sorry for fans that will go nuts if Novak wins #8 next year

but hey you are not sorry for tennis fans about the darkness of the inflation era that has been going on for like 7 years (2016-2022) because it helps your boy Djoko, right?
Djoko fandom > the game of tennis, no?

 

[NoleFam]

yeah, right. I mean matchup adv vs the greatest grass court player of all time meant automatic 5-setters vs him - which no one in fed's prime had done before. . which prime djokovic and Murray couldn't do vs past-prime/prime-ish fed in Wim 12.

3 wins for Nadal vs Murray (Wim 08, Wim 10, Wim 11), including a destruction, a straight-setter and another 4-set win while prime Djokovic is 0-2 in matches and 0-5 in sets means nothing.

I remember that Djokovic in his 20s at Wimbledon lost to lets see: nadal (retired), Safin, Haas, Berdych, Federer, Murray, Querrey. 7 losses in 10 out of which ZERO of them went to 5 sets - 3 of them were straight-setters and 4 of them were 4-setters/him taking a set.
We also had Djoko's pre-SF struggles vs Baggy/Tomic in Wim 11, Stepanek/Cilic in Wim 14, Anderson in Wim 15. ****
clearly benefitted from slow down and more consistent bouncing grass.

Clearly suggest Djokovic was a really good grass player, but not on the level of the greats.


**** (equating to federer in early rounds at WImbledon at prime is a joke - federer had zero struggles in 1R-QF at Wim from 03-09 at his prime - ZERO, heck, guy didn't lose a set in the SF of Wim from 03-09)

What was the mo that Fed fans liked to go to 7 years ago? 17 > 14 > 12?

Well now it's 8 > 7 >>>> 2. Boost up Nadal at all costs and all you like to make Federer's competition look much better to help yourself deal with what actually happened, which you are struggling to do. Do whatever it takes to make Djokovic's look worse as well. Be happy 2020 Wimbledon was canceled. Remember, you're the one who said Djokovic would never reach 21 and laughed at the prospect. I can see you're no longer laughing.

Spoiler

 

[RS]

What was the mo that Fed fans liked to go to 7 years ago? 20 > 14 > 12?

Well now it's 8 > 7 >>>>> 2. Boost of up Nadal at all costs and all you like to make Federer's competition look much better to help yourself deal with what actually happened, which you are struggling to do. Do whatever it takes to make Djokovic's look worse as well. Be happy 2020 Wimbledon was canceled. Remember, you're the one who said Djokovic would never reach 21 and laughed at prospect. I can see you're no longer laughing.

Spoiler

20 17 12 not 14

Or 17 14 12 back pre 2017

 

[NoleFam]

17 not 14 lol

It was 14 in 2015.

 

[RS]

It was 14 in 2015.

See my edit

 

[abmk]

What was the mo that Fed fans liked to go to 7 years ago? 20 > 14 > 12?

Well now it's 8 > 7 >>>> 2. Boost of up Nadal at all costs and all you like to make Federer's competition look much better to help yourself deal with what actually happened, which you are struggling to do. Do whatever it takes to make Djokovic's look worse as well. Be happy 2020 Wimbledon was canceled. Remember, you're the one who said Djokovic would never reach 21 and laughed at prospect. I can see you're no longer laughing.

Spoiler

nope, I've always talked about context and proper analysis.
But hey, since you couldn't address the actual points (djokovic's 7/10 losses in 20s, none of them 5-setters; nadal dominating Murray on grass, djoko being dominated by Murray on grass; djokovic benefitting from modern grass), and don't have the guts to admit the reality about actual levels, you will try to divert.

 

[RS]

Nadal Wim 08 vs Fed Wim 09 10 match series?
Fed Wim 09 vs Djokovic Wim 15 10 match series?

@NoleFam

 

[D.Nalby12]

Nadal was still in his prime during 2012-14. He is just vulnerable in first week of Wimbledon. The Rosol/Darcis kind of losses could have happened in say 2010 as well when he was supposed to be in his prime..

 

[NoleFam]

See my edit

Oh you're right...It was 17 > 14 > 12

 

[RS]

Oh you're right...It was 17 > 14 > 12

TBH it's not a 5 slam gap yet with Djok vs Fed

 

[abmk]

Nadal was still in his prime during 2012-14. He is just vulnerable in first week of Wimbledon. The Rosol/Darcis kind of losses could have happened in say 2010 as well when he was supposed to be in his prime..

Rosol kinda loss, yes.
Darcis - no way.

But if we are taking their 6 best years (for Nadal and djoko ), not a big difference:

Djoko 11,14-15 vs Nadal 07-08,10
Djoko 12,13,18 vs Nadal 06,11,18


Its not that much of a difference. What we do know for sure is Djoko Wim 18 a little over Nadal Wim 18.

Wim 08 Nadal ~ Wim 15 Djoko
Wim 07 Nadal < Wim 14 Djoko in first week, but better in 2nd week. So Wim 07 Nadal overall, IMO.
Wim 10 Nadal < Wim 11 Djoko thanks to 1st week

Now it boils down to Djoko Wim 12/13 vs Nadal Wim 06/13. Probably slight edge to Djoko here.

So overall, Djoko with small edge.

 

[NoleFam]

TBH it's not a 5 slam gap yet with Djok vs Fed

Doesn't need to be. 1 is enough.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Nadal always had his struggles on grass throughout his career. Even when he reached the late rounds, he would have his fair share of tough matches in early rounds when the grass was still slick:

2006 (F): 2R vs Robert Kendrick: 6-7, 3-6, 7-6, 7-5, 6-4
2007 (F): 2R vs Soderling: 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 4-6, 7-5; 3R vs Youzhny: 4-6, 3-6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-2
2008 (W): -
2010 (W): 2R vs Haase: 5-7, 6-2, 3-6, 6-0, 6-3; 3R vs Petzschner: 6-4, 4-6, 6-7, 6-2, 6-3

As the tournament progresses, the grass gets worn down and the court slows down more and more, enabling Nadal to play his game with greater efficacy

The 2012-17 period was a cosmic correction of sorts, where Nadal actually lost the matches he should have lost earlier:

Well said. Nadal' grass prime didn't suddenly end in 2011. It's just his luck which ran out. He should have lost in early rounds at least once during 2006-11. Too many close matches. And he should have gone deep at least once during 2012-17. He played very well in 2014/17 editions. Even I believe he would have gone deep had he escaped Rosol.

 

[RS]

Doesn't need to be. 1 is enough.

Would you say it's more defensible to call Fed greater than Djokovic now than Djokovic greater than Fed in 2016 though?

 

[D.Nalby12]

Rosol kinda loss, yes.
Darcis - no way.

But if we are taking their 6 best years (for Nadal and djoko ), not a big difference:

He played bad in 2013 but he was still in his prime. It was one of his most dominant years. It's just he is not equally versatile as other two.

 

[RS]

Erm, what?
Nadal's draw wasn't great before the final, but Nadal in Wim 06 faced peak fed in the final. Played 2 excellent sets and 1 decent set.

Wim 06 Nadal > Wim 19/21/22 Djoko

Put Wim 06 Nadal in djoko's place and he wins all of those 3.

Put Djoko 19/21/22 vs fed Wim 06 and he gets beaten badly.

What's Wim 06/11 Nadal's chances vs Wim 18 Djokovic? Or Wim 12 SF/Wim 13 pre final Djok

 

[NoleFam]

Would you say it's more defensible to call Fed greater than Djokovic now than Djokovic greater than Fed in 2016 though?

?

 

[duaneeo]

Some Djokovic fans thinking 14-15 could beat 06-7 Fed. Thoughts?

 

[RS]

?

You didn't get it?

Trying to ask is there more a case for Fed being over Djokovic now behind by 1 slam than Djokovic over Fed pre 2016 when the latter had 5 more slams. Because even if 2016 some Djokovic fans may have still felt he was better than Fed.

 

[The Fedfather]

I will not contest that.

I believe the Wimbledons he's won are also a cosmic correction of sorts for his USO record. It's quite incredible that he's only won 3 USO titles

There isn't much you could contest. It was a ridiculous argument to try and lessen prime Nadal's quality on grass because he played a couple 5-set matches in earlier rounds, most of which he was winning comfortably in the end.

Djokovic was a point away from having 2 USO titles. And I think only one final he lost at the USO went to 5 sets. Why is the cosmic correction for Nadal struggling a little on grass is for him to lose more, but the cosmic correction for Djokovic always struggling in the USO finals is for him to win more? It's a rhetorical question. There's no cosmic correction for anything. Nadal's prime on grass was just short-lived because once his speed on the baseline declined, he became that much more vulnerable on faster grass as his rallying quality was the biggest advantage he had, given lack of spectacular serve or return to rely on.

 

[RS]

Why is it laughable ?

In a match that didn't take place

 

[abmk]

He played bad in 2013 but he was still in his prime. It was one of his most dominant years. It's just he is not equally versatile as other two.

Nadal was in his prime in general in 2013. But my point is Darcis kinda loss wouldn't have happened to Nadal at Wim from 2006-11. Darcis just ain't threatning enough.
shouldn't forget nadal hit his grass court prime early in 2006 (2 years earlier than corresponding for fed in 2003 and 4 years earlier than corresponding for djoko in 2011)

I don't think nadal is as versatile as djokovic, let alone federer. But for that, we'd have to look at indoor HC more so than grass, IMO.
nadal's peak at Wim 07/08 remains his 2nd best at at a slam after RG (over USO and AO). Wim 10 a little below Wim 07/08.

 

[NoleFam]

You didn't get it?

Trying to ask is there more a case for Fed being over Djokovic now behind by 1 slam than Djokovic over Fed pre 2016 when the latter had 5 more slams. Because even if 2016 some Djokovic fans may have still felt he was better than Fed.

Of course Federer has more of an argument when it's one Slam than when Federer had 5 more Slams and more weeks at #1. Not sure why this is a question.

 

[RS]

Of course Federer has more of an argument when it's one Slam that when Federer had 5 more Slams and more weeks at #1. Not sure why this is a question.

Was just trying to see where you stood. Because even in 2016 some Djokovic fans thought he was the greatest.

Even further back than that in the rare case

 

[D.Nalby12]

Nadal was in his prime in general in 2013. But my point is Darcis kinda loss wouldn't have happened to Nadal at Wim from 2006-11. Darcis just ain't threatning enough.
shouldn't forget nadal hit his grass court prime early in 2006 (2 years earlier than corresponding for fed in 2003 and 4 years earlier than corresponding for djoko in 2011)

I don't think nadal is as versatile as djokovic, let alone federer. But for that, we'd have to look at indoor HC more so than grass, IMO.
nadal's peak at Wim 07/08 remains his 2nd best at at a slam after RG (over USO and AO). Wim 10 a little below Wim 07/08.

Darcis kind - I mean loss to lower ranked player. He had any tight matches against nobodies in his so called grass prime as well.

 

[abmk]

Nadal's prime on grass was just short-lived because once his speed on the baseline declined, he became that much more vulnerable on faster grass as his rallying quality was the biggest advantage he had, given lack of spectacular serve or return to rely on.

not that shortlived. Nadal did make 5 Wim finals in 2006-11.
Also did make the semis in 18/19 (2nd best player in Wim 18) after that. so some credit for that as well. would've been worse if he hadn't done that.

 

[NoleFam]

Was just trying to see where you stood. Because even in 2016 some Djokovic fans thought he was the greatest.

Even further back than that in the rare case

I think they thought he was the best or BOAT. He didn't have much of an argument as the greatest back then.

 

[abmk]

Darcis kind - I mean loss to lower ranked player. He had any tight matches against nobodies in his so called grass prime as well.

ok, got it.
But my point was all of them had weapons - Kendrick with SnV, haase/petz - big serving/hitting.
darcis didn't.
Rosol did.
Hence why I said Rosol type loss was possible, but not Darcis.

 

[The Fedfather]

not that shortlived. Nadal did make 5 Wim finals in 2006-11.
Also did make the semis in 18/19 (2nd best player in Wim 18) after that. so some credit for that as well. would've been worse if he hadn't done that.

Yep. I guess I meant to say comparatively short-lived, but that comparison would be the the very best grass courters, so you're right

 

[RS]

I think they thought he was the best or BOAT. He didn't have much of an argument as the greatest back then.

I guess. I think some though the BOAT + competition though if not numbers.

Back then I saw posts elsewhere in that 15/16 time period than if Djok reached 14-15 then his strongest competition would put him above Fed and Nadal even overall

 

[Rosstour]

Unlucky?

The legitimacy of his GOAT case is undermined by beating Fed on Centre Court in 2008. So, a resounding no to "was he unlucky?"

That match made him.