Did nadal benefit from a weak clay era?

[90's Clay]

Chances are if you didn't play in the 50s, 80s at the time of Wilander and Lendl etc. or early- mid 90s (courier, bruguera, Muster, agassi, Chang, kafelnikov, etc), you played in a weaker clay era.

There haven't been many "strong" clay eras. Borg's wasn't strong, neither is Nadal's


All Borg had to contend with was Vilas (who was probably on par with Fed or a little better), all Nadal has to contend with is Djoker and Fed. Who are "good" dirtballers but certainly not great by any means

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by DRII

Because, when I was the first to make the comparison a year or so ago (I think) I was specifically referring to Federer's level of competition. To me there was a clear delineation between pre 08 and post 08: mainly the emergence of two other all time greats on the scene to join Federer and one with the clear potential (Murray)...

I agree that 2001 to 03 (the end of Sampras/Agassi era going into Hewitt's and Roddick's short time on top) was even weaker than 04-07 and was incredibly transitional...

Again, i will say as I've always said: there is no such thing as a weak era in a multinational, established sport with the potential to make millions of dollars, but there are certainly weaker eras/time spans.

I think Nadal emerged before 2008, on grass he challenged Federer in 2007. There's not that much difference between 07 and 08, tiny margins changed, Federer going down a bit and Nadal coming up a bit. So nadal had already emerged in 2007, he just hadn't won a non clay slam, but that was only ecause one of the greatest Wimbledon champions had defeated him in a 5th set. Nadal had proved himself beyond dout, though some people didn't want to believe it. Djokovic emerged during 2007 but obviously he cememnted this in 2008. However as a slam player I'd say he was definitely worse in 09 and 10 than he was in 07.

Of course some periods are weaker (though part of Nadal becoming so good as a player is him aiming at Federer to take his place, then Djokovic aiming at the standard they both set), I just feel people go overboard and assume that certain players would have won nothing in different circumstances. Like this thread about Nadal, Nadal has had it easier with less competition, but he'd still probably have done most of what he has. He would have just lost a few more sets, maybe a title or 2 out of his haul of clay titles. And sorry but I think the same for Federer. He's still won a slam this year beating Murray and Djokovic and beat Djokovic 6-0 7-6 in a final and had a close H2H with him this year despite being 31 and 15 years a pro. It's hard no matter how young you are to keep the same desire after even 10 years which is a factor why Nadal might sometimes seem less focussed the past few years. There are certain players like Nadal on clay who only has Borg in the same league and would beat most other people most of the time. With Federer there are only a few guys like Sampras and maybe Connors and Mac at their best, who would have a significant impact on his career because Federer is in a higher league to most players who have played the game. I think most times Federer would beat guys like Becker because as good as he was he's not in the top level of the game. Yeah it would be harder than beating Baggy. but he'd still win. Prime for prime I still think Federer is a better HC player than Djokovic (who is one of my favourite all time players) and much better on grass. Djokovic has still struggled vs Federer at the US Open everytime they played. On Plexicushion Djokovic is the guy to beat, but on rebound ace who knows.

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Except Djoko started challenging the top names long before 2011. He beat Fed and Nadal for the first time in masters in 2007 and he beat Fed in a slam for the first time in 2008.

True but he failed to back that up for a while, even I was beginning to think he would never win another slam.

[veroniquem]

He still beat those guys in 2009 and 2010. There is no way to contend that his USO 2010 win over Fed should not count. Conversely, he continued losing matches to them in 2011 and after, so there is no reason to start any new era at the beginning of 2011. seems very artificial to me.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

He still beat those guys in 2009 and 2010. There is no way to contend that his USO 2010 win over Fed should not count. Conversely, he continued losing matches to them in 2011 and after, so there is no reason to start any new era at the beginning of 2011. seems very artificial to me.

you don't see any distiction between Djokovic prior to 2011 and afterwards?

I guess there is no distiction between Nadal in 2005 and in 2008 or 2010..

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Towser83

you don't see any distiction between Djokovic prior to 2011 and afterwards?

I guess there is no distiction between Nadal in 2005 and in 2008 or 2010..

He had his best season in 2011. So what? He lost matches vs Fed and Nadal in 2012 and actually he lost a major match to Fed in 2011. Just because he had a great year means everything he achieved before was not on the same level? Sorry but Djoko started being a force in 2007. He became a top player in 2007. In 2009, he pushed Nadal on clay to his limits. He won slams, masters, WTF AND Olympic medal before 2011. He didn't have his "breakthrough" in 2011. He had his best season which is not the same thing.
ETA: no, there is no major distinction between Nadal's 2005, 2008 and 2010: those are simply his best 3 seasons on the tour. Nadal has had his "break through" season in 2005. Since then, he's been a top player which is exactly what one could say about Djoko since 2007.

[MichaelNadal]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

He had his best season in 2011. So what? He lost matches vs Fed and Nadal in 2012 and actually he lost a major match to Fed in 2011. Just because he had a great year means everything he achieved before was not on the same level? Sorry but Djoko started being a force in 2007. He became a top player in 2007. In 2009, he pushed Nadal on clay to his limits. He won slams, masters, WTF AND Olympic medal before 2011. He didn't have his "breakthrough" in 2011. He had his best season which is not the same thing.

His level was almost flawless though. U must not have watched the matches o_O

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

He had his best season in 2011. So what? He lost matches vs Fed and Nadal in 2012 and actually he lost a major match to Fed in 2011. Just because he had a great year means everything he achieved before was not on the same level? Sorry but Djoko started being a force in 2007. He became a top player in 2007. In 2009, he pushed Nadal on clay to his limits. He won slams, masters, WTF AND Olympic medal before 2011. He didn't have his "breakthrough" in 2011. He had his best season which is not the same thing.

Yeah his breakthrough was in 2007, but he didn't reach his potential until 2011, in 2009 and 2010 he actually went backwards as a player.

It's like Pete Sampras had his breakthrough in 1990, but there;s no question he went up a level in 1993.

Are you saying Nadal didn't reach another level in 2008 or 2010, he was in fact the same as 2005?

Not saying Djokovic wasn't a force, but his force wasn't on the same level as Federer and Nadal, and in 2011 he raised his game to be the best player. 2012 wasn't as good but he's still at a higher level than before 2011.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by MichaelNadal

His level was almost flawless though. U must not have watched the matches o_O

Sure but that's what happens during a player's peak season. That would be true about Nadal too in 2008 (and like Djoko in 2011, for part of the season, not the entire time). That doesn't change the fact Djoko was already a top player in 2007. I guess the difference it that he became #1, just like Nadal won his first slam off clay in 2008. Those are landmarks all right. That doesn't mean they were not top players or legit threats before they happened.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Sure but that's what happens during a player's peak season. That would be true about Nadal too in 2008 (and like Djoko in 2011, for part of the season, not the entire time). That doesn't change the fact Djoko was already a top player in 2007. I guess the difference it that he became #1, just like Nadal won his first slam off clay in 2008. Those are landmarks all right. That doesn't mean they were not top players or legit threats before they happened.

The biggest difference is that he was an actual slam winning threat that was beating Federer and Nadal AT slams. After his AO 08 win, he went backwards. He never followed up on his win over Federer, losing to him at the USO in 08 and 09, as well as to "weak" era clowns Safin and Haas at Wimbledon, another "weak" era clown Roddick at the AO in 2009, Kohlscreiber at RG, and Tsonga at the AO in 2010, Melzer at RG, and Berdych at Wimbledon.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Towser83

Yeah his breakthrough was in 2007, but he didn't reach his potential until 2011, in 2009 and 2010 he actually went backwards as a player.

It's like Pete Sampras had his breakthrough in 1990, but there;s no question he went up a level in 1993.

Are you saying Nadal didn't reach another level in 2008 or 2010, he was in fact the same as 2005?

Not saying Djokovic wasn't a force, but his force wasn't on the same level as Federer and Nadal, and in 2011 he raised his game to be the best player. 2012 wasn't as good but he's still at a higher level than before 2011.

I guess we're gonna have to disagree here. To me, Djoko has been a threat to the top players since 2007. He didn't win his first master in 2011, he didn't win his first slam in 2011, he didn't even win his first WTF in 2011 and he certainly didn't beat Nadal and Fed for the first time in 2011. He became better in 2011, no doubt that he went up a (big) notch that year but I'm not sure it justifies treating his former years as irrelevant or completely separate. Rafa also got better in 2008 but he was a major force before 2008 too.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

The biggest difference is that he was an actual slam winning threat that was beating Federer and Nadal AT slams. After his AO 08 win, he went backwards. He never followed up on his win over Federer, losing to him at the USO in 08 and 09, as well as to "weak" era clowns Safin and Haas at Wimbledon, another "weak" era clown Roddick at the AO in 2009, Kohlscreiber at RG, and Tsonga at the AO in 2010, Melzer at RG, and Berdych at Wimbledon.

You cannot use the highs and lows of a career as proof of a radical difference. Once again, Djoko beat Fed in 2 different slams BEFORE 2011. Why on earth shouldn't that count??? If he hadn't beaten Fed in a slam before 2011, then you would have a point, but he did, twice. So regardless of his career tribulations, no magical transformation actually happened in 2011 in that department (and even when Djoko ended up not beating the big names in slams pre-2011, there is no way you could claim that he was not perceived as a threat).

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

You cannot use the highs and lows of a career as proof of a radical difference. Once again, Djoko beat Fed in 2 different slams BEFORE 2011. Why on earth shouldn't that count??? If he hadn't beaten Fed in a slam before 2011, then you would have a point, but he did, twice. So regardless of his career tribulations, no magical transformation actually happened in 2011 in that department (and even when Djoko ended up not beating the big names in slams pre-2011, there is no way you could claim that he was not perceived as a threat).

IMO, Djokovic was not really a threat in 2009 or 2010 to actually win a slam. Simply because of the inconsistent results I stated, and the fact that he was destined to lose to one of either Federer or Nadal even if he made it far in a slam. The difference now is if Djokovic is playing well he's the favourite on any surface except on clay against Nadal, (Wimbledon 2012 was an upset by many peoples standards) but if Federer and/or Nadal were playing well in those years they were favoured by a fair bit. His results in MS beating Fed and/or Nadal and winning the WTF are impressive, but he wasn't winning a slam in 2009 or 2010, and many people believed that even in those years.

It's the same case for Murray. By some chance, if he beat one of Federer or Nadal in a slam, there was no way he was beating the other one.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

I guess we're gonna have to disagree here. To me, Djoko has been a threat to the top players since 2007. He didn't win his first master in 2011, he didn't win his first slam in 2011, he didn't even win his first WTF in 2011 and he certainly didn't beat Nadal and Fed for the first time in 2011. He became better in 2011, no doubt that he went up a (big) notch that year but I'm not sure it justifies treating his former years as irrelevant or completely separate. Rafa also got better in 2008 but he was a major force before 2008 too.

I didn't say he wasn't a threat, but he wasn't on Nadal and Federer's level, at least not at slam level.

Between his AO 2008 win and his 2011 win

Nadal - 6 slams from 6 finals
Federer - 4 slams from 8 finals
Djokovic - 0 slams from 1 final

Since and including AO 2011

Nadal - 2 slams from 5 finals
Federer 1 slam from 2 finals
Djokovic 4 slams from 5 finals

Don't get me wrong, Djokovic was a great player, but he kept losing to players he would never lose to in slams now and if he did face Federer or Nadal most times he lost.(after that AO win he won 1 of 4 matches in slams vs them and in the 3 losses he won 1 set) that's a different picture from now.

So I say before he was a great player slightly wasting his potential, now he'sa great playing using it.

[90's Clay]

Well Its normal to suffer questionable losses when you're still young..

One thing I think people forget is Djoker had respiratory/breathing/fitness issues. It wasn't until he got that under control did he start to see real success (late 2010 or last year). If he didn't get that under control he would probably still be suffering bad losses left and right

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Well Its normal to suffer questionable losses when you're still young..

One thing I think people forget is Djoker had respiratory/breathing/fitness issues. It wasn't until he got that under control did he start to see real success (late 2010 or last year). If he didn't get that under control he would probably still be suffering bad losses left and right

i'm not blaming him for his losses, just saying he's taken on the pressures and expectations of a toppayer now. Also I think it's more his head than breathing, I'm sure he had an operation ages ago to help with that

[Cup8489]

I dont know why people consider 04-07 weaker than 08 on. Djokovic has been in, what, 9 finals? winning 5 of them?
During 04-07, Nadal made 5 major finals, winning 3. Roddick made 3 finals in this period, and played Federer no less than 5 times in majors, including all three finals.

Hewitt ALSO played Federer 5 times in majors, including a final and a few semifinals. Like Roddick, he lost to Federer each time. This is not surprising considering Federer is..well, Federer. The only reason Nadal didn't lose as much to Federer is because of the 4 finals they played during this period, half were on clay, Nadal's EASILY best surface. It's not surprising that one of the best ever on that surface won both finals against Federer, but was not able to beat him at Wimbledon until 2008.

Who's to say that Hewitt and Roddick, despite being excellent players in their own right capable of beating past champions, were simply not a match for a man better than them on the surfaces he played them on?

I mean we've discussed this ad nauseum, that Roddick could have won 4 or more majors without Federer around. Djokovic won 4 of 5 majors after Federer turned 28, and began slowing down. Is it not possible that he was helped out in this way, that Roddick too could have had a career similar to Djoke's at this point had it not been for Federer?

Why is that so hard to understand as a possibility? But nooo, you all assume "hey, Federer won alot during these years." The simplest explanation is that he was just that much better than everyone during this period (kinda like Djoke in 2011, maybe?), but nooooo, you have to go argue "well obviously the vast majority of players were just weaker for this one random section of time, but once Djoke and Rafa got big wins, the era suddenly became stronger".

It's dumb logic, and overly complex given the situation.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

I dont know why people consider 04-07 weaker than 08 on. Djokovic has been in, what, 9 finals? winning 5 of them?
During 04-07, Nadal made 5 major finals, winning 3. Roddick made 3 finals in this period, and played Federer no less than 5 times in majors, including all three finals.

Hewitt ALSO played Federer 5 times in majors, including a final and a few semifinals. Like Roddick, he lost to Federer each time. This is not surprising considering Federer is..well, Federer. The only reason Nadal didn't lose as much to Federer is because of the 4 finals they played during this period, half were on clay, Nadal's EASILY best surface. It's not surprising that one of the best ever on that surface won both finals against Federer, but was not able to beat him at Wimbledon until 2008.

Who's to say that Hewitt and Roddick, despite being excellent players in their own right capable of beating past champions, were simply not a match for a man better than them on the surfaces he played them on?

I mean we've discussed this ad nauseum, that Roddick could have won 4 or more majors without Federer around. Djokovic won 4 of 5 majors after Federer turned 28, and began slowing down. Is it not possible that he was helped out in this way, that Roddick too could have had a career similar to Djoke's at this point had it not been for Federer?

Why is that so hard to understand as a possibility? But nooo, you all assume "hey, Federer won alot during these years." The simplest explanation is that he was just that much better than everyone during this period (kinda like Djoke in 2011, maybe?), but nooooo, you have to go argue "well obviously the vast majority of players were just weaker for this one random section of time, but once Djoke and Rafa got big wins, the era suddenly became stronger".

It's dumb logic, and overly complex given the situation.

I dont think there is more depth 2008-on.. But the quality at the top the last 3-4 years BLOWS 2004-2007 (the top 4 spots) completely out of the water. Hands down.. You want to win a slam today, you have to go through at least 2 of the big 4. Outside of clay (the opportunities were much greater to assemble a ton of slams and not have to play the top talent in their primes like you would have to play over the past few years. You could get through slams in 2004-2007 playing guys who could barely walk like Agassi during that time

[NadalAgassi]

Federer fans love to play the if Federer didnt exist game to build up Roddick and Hewitt, who anyone who knows the game realizes are at absolute best on par with the typical level of a 1 or 2 slam winner, and placed in most other random eras would not have done any better than that either (there are some eras one or both might have been slamless for that matter, and there are certainly numerous people better than them in every era). As opposed to eliminating Federer place Hewitt or Roddick in any previous era, the Sampras and Agassi era, the Borg and Connors era, the Borg and McEnroe era, the Lendl and Becker and Edberg era, and try arguing how they would win anymore than 1 or 2 majors in those as well. Good luck doing so, especialy as the French Open (where opportunity in some of those beckons) is not even a feasible option for either in any era. However even that flawed logic fails, since if you remove Federer and pretend he never existed, Djokovic could well have 8 or 9 slams now himself, vs the 4 or 5 Roddick or Hewitt might have, so would still be way ahead, just as he already is, with lots of career and likely lots of slams left. Even Murray would probably have 4 or 5 slams, just as Roddick is being given in the hypothetical, if Federer didnt exist, and like Djokovic and unlike Roddick and Hewitt, still has alot of career left, and likely more slams in the future. Nadal of course needs no qualification. The very suggestion Roddick might have won 4, 5, or even 6 slams without Federer only proves the very point of how poor the field must have been then as well, since Roddick with his limited skill set winning that many majors is simply incomprehensible and shouldnt even be possible in the first place. Especialy when the huge serve and huge forehand combination which made him somewhat legitimately formidible lasted all of 18 months into his contending years, and the remainder of his career reverted to a pooshy clay courter forehand and tried to win with defense and grinding when he doesnt even have the foot speed to even logically attempt to play that way, which meant he was essentialy all a huge serve, fight, and some junk from the baseline after that.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

guillermo vilas? I think he was better than any of the clay courters nadal faced (well not actually better then fed or nole but those are no clay specialists).

I dont consider Vilas better than Federer on clay at all. Federer has a better FO record, has won more Masters equivalents than Vilas, was more competitive with the greats (the rare ones they even faced) on the surface, was more dominant over the rest of their respective weak clay fields (outside Nadal, Borg, and to a lesser degree Federer and Vilas) than Vilas was. I would rate Federer just outside the top 10 all time on clay, and Vilas barely top 20 all time. What is Vilas's edge over Federer on clay, going to remote parts of the World (alot of times just to hide from Borg) to play tiny tier 3 and tier 4 events and winning them. I expect Mustard to jump in here any second, but this is a sensitive area for him considering the only player in history who rivalled Vilas for mickey mouse event hordeing on clay was his own beloved Muster, so naturally he wants such a thing to be grossly overcredited to what it ought to be. For what its worth, Djokovic by the end of his career will probably have easily surpassed Vilas on clay too, if not quite possibly Federer (if Nadal goes down he almost certainly will surpass Federer also). Vilas also barely got games off the #2 or #3 clay courter all time Borg, while Federer usually got a set before match vs the clay court GOAT Nadal, and prime to prime I would bet on Federer beating Vilas with regularity on clay.

In the case Vilas, who barely got games off Borg on clay, and couldnt even beat a 17 year old Wilander to win a 2nd French Open after Borg retired, was his biggest competition on clay, and I agree he was, it only emphasizes what a weak clay era Borg played in. Even weaker than Nadal's as I said.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

IMO, Djokovic was not really a threat in 2009 or 2010 to actually win a slam. Simply because of the inconsistent results I stated, and the fact that he was destined to lose to one of either Federer or Nadal even if he made it far in a slam. The difference now is if Djokovic is playing well he's the favourite on any surface except on clay against Nadal, (Wimbledon 2012 was an upset by many peoples standards) but if Federer and/or Nadal were playing well in those years they were favoured by a fair bit. His results in MS beating Fed and/or Nadal and winning the WTF are impressive, but he wasn't winning a slam in 2009 or 2010, and many people believed that even in those years.

.

Imo, you're exaggerating the lack of threat before 2011 and overdoing the threat since 2011. Djoko was never the favorite at RG and still isn't. There has always been only 1 favorite at RG and we know who that is.
Djoko is not the favorite on grass by a long shot. Not only did Murray win the Olympics and make the W final but he's also won 2 Queen's and he has a higher winning % than Djoko on grass. If anything, 2011 appeared like a freak accident due to the combined effect of Fed's upset and Nadal's block (Nadal's results on grass overall are also vastly superior) . Fed is naturally a massive favorite on grass (even if he has endured a few upsets in the last years, he's still the reference ). That makes 3 players who are still more favorite at W than Djoko.
That leaves us with the 2 hard court slams and that's where the core of our disagreement occurs. On hard court, Djoko was a threat from day 1. He made his 1st IW final in 2007. He lost to Nadal that time but would beat him the year after on his way to the 2008 title. Immediately afterwards, he beat Nadal in Miami and won the event for the first time. He beat all of Rod, Nadal and Fed to win Canada 2007 and proceeded to make his 1st USO final. By that time, anybody who hadn't understood Djoko would be a major threat on hard was not paying attention. He confirmed in 2008 by winning AO and WTF. In 2010 he added another USO final after upsetting Fed, no less. It is not because he had some struggles with his serve and confidence that he should be relegated to "non entity" for 2 years. And one can be a threat in a slam (or elsewhere) without winning the title. Djoko didn't win USO in 2012, that doesn't mean he was not a threat. I believe on hard Djoko has been a favorite all along. (It is also my belief that if Djoko hadn't suffered some sort of heat stroke at AO 2009 causing him to retire in the quarter, he would have beaten Fed that year and made another AO final.)
ETA: we could also take Nadal as an example. Nadal hasn't won a slam on hard since 2010. Does that mean he was not a (major) threat at AO 2011 and 2012 and at USO 2011? I'd beg to differ.