Federer's slam streak was 2003-2010. Nadal's is 2005-

RAFA2005RG

RAFA2005RG

Banned
Federer won his 1st slam in 2003.
Nadal won his 1st slam in 2005.

Federer won slams from 2003-2010.
Nadal won slams from 2005-

Anyone who thinks they are not from the same generation is kidding themselves.

6a00d8341c565553ef01156f3afa0e970b-800wi


Their ages don't matter, as one was an early bloomer and the other was a standard bloomer.
 
Isn't your right hand in pain at this point. Dude you gotta stop, for your health. There are other fish in the sea, some will be dumb enough to even take you. Just forget Nadal, he's already taken.
 
Magnus said:
Isn't your right hand in pain at this point. Dude you gotta stop, for your health. There are other fish in the sea, some will be dumb enough to even take you. Just forget Nadal, he's already taken.
Click to expand...

I average 2.65 posts per day.
You average 4.03 posts per day.
 
RAFA2005RG said:
Federer won his 1st slam in 2003.
Nadal won his 1st slam in 2005.

Federer won slams from 2003-2010.
Nadal won slams from 2005-

Anyone who thinks they are not from the same generation is kidding themselves.

Their ages don't matter, as one was an early bloomer and the other was a standard bloomer.
Click to expand...


Murray won his 1st slam in 2012. nadal in 2005, yet they are of the same generation. Hence the year of 1st slam win doesnt indicate whether players are of same/different generation.
 
2005-2012.

If Borg(1974-1981), Sampras(1993-2000) and Federer(2003-2010) couldn't win at least a slam for 9 years in a row, I doubt Nadal will do it.

Federer the slam king couldn't do it. Says everything.
 
Dark Magician said:
Murray won his 1st slam in 2012. nadal in 2005, yet they are of the same generation. Hence the year of 1st slam win doesnt indicate whether players are of same/different generation.
Click to expand...

He used 1st slam as an indicator for when a player reached his best level. This indicator can't be used for all the players, because some players never win slam, even at their best. It is true that Federer and Nadal were at their best level during roughly the same time span. They are of the same tennis generation as he became Fed's greatest rival one year after Fed reached his peak.
 
Flash O'Groove said:
He used 1st slam as an indicator for when a player reached his best level. This indicator can't be used for all the players.
Click to expand...

Of course the OP's argument is totally stupid. According to this "logic", Gomez and Sampras are from the same generation, as they both won their first slam in 1990, when Sampras was aged 18 and Gomez... 30. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove said:
He used 1st slam as an indicator for when a player reached his best level. This indicator can't be used for all the players, because some players never win slam, even at their best. It is true that Federer and Nadal were at their best level during roughly the same time span. They are of the same tennis generation as he became Fed's greatest rival one year after Fed reached his peak.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Fedal won most of their slams from 2005-2010.

It's Nolandy's time now.
 
merlinpinpin said:
Of course the OP's argument is totally stupid. According to this "logic", Gomez and Sampras are from the same generation, as they both won their first slam in 1990, when Sampras was aged 18 and Gomez... 30. :roll:
Click to expand...

No it is not stupid because in their specific case, peak playing activity is a better indicator than age to define their tennis generation. Age is not a good indicator for every tennis player because some have particular careers shapes.
 
Flash O'Groove said:
No it is not stupid because in their specific case, peak playing activity is a better indicator than age to define their tennis generation. Age is not a good indicator for every tennis player because some have particular careers shapes.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then it should be considered that Rafa failed to reach hard court Finals from 2004 - 2008 despite being in Roger's same generation. Baby Nadal excuse doesn't hold water
 
Flash O'Groove said:
He used 1st slam as an indicator for when a player reached his best level. This indicator can't be used for all the players, because some players never win slam, even at their best. It is true that Federer and Nadal were at their best level during roughly the same time span. They are of the same tennis generation as he became Fed's greatest rival one year after Fed reached his peak.
Click to expand...
Dont take me wrong, but the OPs word about the common period 2005-2012 is true only because of Roger. Most players fade near 29, Nadal is (so far) seemingly down at 27. Had Federer also faded away at 29, lets say like sampras and then Nadal would be 24. So howcome a player of his generation retires when he (rafa) is only 24? They are partially (weird, but somehow) of the same generation but completely.
And if slams are being used as indicator, then as many a people say, Nadals best level came near 2008, isnt it? before that it was only FO!
 
Flash O'Groove said:
No it is not stupid because in their specific case, peak playing activity is a better indicator than age to define their tennis generation. Age is not a good indicator for every tennis player because some have particular careers shapes.
Click to expand...

Agree in part only. They're contemporaries, but they aren't from the same generation, just as Wilander, Edberg, and Becker weren't of Lendl's generation. McEnroe and Lendl were of the same generation, but Lendl being a late bloomer had a peak period which was closer to that of the next generation than to his own (especially with Wilander, who was an early bloomer).

As for Federer and Nadal, if you agree that their respective peaks started in 2003(4) and 2008 (which is debatable for Nadal), then there *is* a whole tennis generation between them. In fact, one could argue than, outside clay, Nadal's peak only began when Federer lost a step (one could also say that this was because of mono, but whether this is the case or not, it's beside the point anyway), ie that Federer's "de-peaking" allowed him to peak.
 
forzamilan90 said:
Oh Ratfa is not winning a slam this year that's for sure. I'm beginning to think Clarky's actually on top of things
Click to expand...

Will you still be saying that when Rafa wins 2 clay events in February? I shudder to think at your heart rate upon reading this question. Nadal's consecutive slam years will go all the way to Rio 2016.
 
RAFA2005RG said:
Federer won his 1st slam in 2003.
Nadal won his 1st slam in 2005.

Federer won slams from 2003-2010.
Nadal won slams from 2005-

Anyone who thinks they are not from the same generation is kidding themselves.

Their ages don't matter, as one was an early bloomer and the other was a standard bloomer.
Click to expand...

I would agree, they are from the same tennis generation.

They started winning slams within a couple of years of each other, spent a lot of years in the top 3 at the same time, and are declining at the same time.

And at this point it's a race to see which of them retires first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic in 1st Round Grand Slam Matches
Replies
15
Views
2K
sbengte
sbengte
Madinolf
  • Poll Poll
How much of Federer's decline in 2008 was due to the height of opponents?
2
Replies
65
Views
2K
Deleted member 779124
D
M
Impact of Nadal's Withdrawal
Replies
11
Views
2K
Zarfot Z
Zarfot Z
Mike Sams
If Nadal wins a Slam this year, he surpasses Federer!
Replies
13
Views
1K
Warmaster
Warmaster
M
Nadal's Grand Slam Struggles - Appreciation for Federer's Grand Slam semifinals streak
Replies
23
Views
1K
Kalin
Kalin
Back
Top