Fun take: 2007 Nadal was better than 2011 Nadal on all surfaces when healthy

Which of these seasonal showings of The Nadal was better on which surface when not rusty or injured?

  • 11 on clay, 11 on grass, 07 on hard

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 11 on clay, 07 on grass, 07 on hard

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    55
  • Poll closed .

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Which is enough to place 2011 over 2007 for Nadal. And he also did better in Miami if I recall.
I think the key word there is "substantially". He played pretty well in Miami 2007; it's just that he ran into Djokovic in the QFs instead of the final.
 

GabeT

Legend
I think the key word there is "substantially". He played pretty well in Miami 2007; it's just that he ran into Djokovic in the QFs instead of the final.
But 2007 Nole was a far cry from his 2011 version. Being stopped by Nole in 2007 is not the same as in 2011. Nadal‘s 2007 HC results (which are about 2/3 of the pro tour) were not very good.
 
But 2007 Nole was a far cry from his 2011 version. Being stopped by Nole in 2007 is not the same as in 2011. Nadal‘s 2007 HC results (which are about 2/3 of the pro tour) were not very good.
Djokovic was better in 2011 obviously but he showed glimpses of prime in 07, Miami was one of those tournaments.

Losing to eventual winners in 4 of the 6 HC masters (winning another one) and YEC is not good now, haha. The slams were the weak point, but in 2011 he was only good at the USO not AO, so you're saying 2011 is better because of one tournament.
 
I'm not interested in sub-1000 tournaments when we're discussing slam winning seasons. Fact is, Nadal either won or lost an elimination match to the eventual winner in 11 of 14 top tournaments in 2007 (exceptions: AO, USO, Cincy), in 8/14 in 2011 (exceptions: AO, Canada, Cincy, Shanghai, Paris, YEC).

Comparing exceptions, AO is similar (straight-set QF loss), Cincy slightly better in 2011 but still bad (straight-set QF loss to Fish) so irrelevant. That leaves Canada, Shanghai, Paris, YEC as weak tournaments for Nadal in 2011 (won 2 matches total, ha), and USO in 2007. I don't think a slam is more important than 3 masters + YEC.
 

GabeT

Legend
I'm not interested in sub-1000 tournaments when we're discussing slam winning seasons. Fact is, Nadal either won or lost an elimination match to the eventual winner in 11 of 14 top tournaments in 2007 (exceptions: AO, USO, Cincy), in 8/14 in 2011 (exceptions: AO, Canada, Cincy, Shanghai, Paris, YEC).

Comparing exceptions, AO is similar (straight-set QF loss), Cincy slightly better in 2011 but still bad (straight-set QF loss to Fish) so irrelevant. That leaves Canada, Shanghai, Paris, YEC as weak tournaments for Nadal in 2011 (won 2 matches total, ha), and USO in 2007. I don't think a slam is more important than 3 masters + YEC.
We seem to constantly change the measuring stick. All of a sudden masters are important but sub 1000 no? Let’s recall that using that approach then Novak’s 2015 season is clearly above Fed’s 2006.
 
We seem to constantly change the measuring stick. All of a sudden masters are important but sub 1000 no? Let’s recall that using that approach then Novak’s 2015 season is clearly above Fed’s 2006.
It is, although the difference is smaller than it seems since the Rome epic forced Federer (and Nadal) out of Hamburg (which couldn't have happened in 2015 with BO3 finals), but Djo still has an extra masters final beyond that.

Note that hasn't always been the case, sub-1000 tournaments declined in 2002, with a new ranking system putting more emphasis on masters tournaments.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
The guys Federer faced were often able to give him tough matches on his strongest surfaces, but I'm sure on his weakest surface he was still relatively far more formidable than they were.

Logic fail.
Going through Djokovic & Federer for 12 of your 19 slams > going through Philippousis, Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Gonzales, Oldgassi, baby Rafa and baby Djoker for 12 of your 20 slams.

Who exactly is having a logic fail here?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Going through Djokovic & Federer for 12 of your 19 slams > going through Philippousis, Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Gonzales, Oldgassi, baby Rafa and baby Djoker for 12 of your 20 slams.

Who exactly is having a logic fail here?
Not even addressing the point. Not surprising from a Dull fan like you.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
I'm not interested in sub-1000 tournaments when we're discussing slam winning seasons. Fact is, Nadal either won or lost an elimination match to the eventual winner in 11 of 14 top tournaments in 2007 (exceptions: AO, USO, Cincy), in 8/14 in 2011 (exceptions: AO, Canada, Cincy, Shanghai, Paris, YEC).

Comparing exceptions, AO is similar (straight-set QF loss), Cincy slightly better in 2011 but still bad (straight-set QF loss to Fish) so irrelevant. That leaves Canada, Shanghai, Paris, YEC as weak tournaments for Nadal in 2011 (won 2 matches total, ha), and USO in 2007. I don't think a slam is more important than 3 masters + YEC.
2007 Nadal did better only in the fall season, which he usually doesn't care about.

Up to UO 2011 Nadal was a beast.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Across their careers I don't see how you could say Nadal had it significantly tougher with a straight face - let alone much tougher like you seem to think.
Federer won a big poll about who had the toughest competition quite a few times. Then you have Lew showing with stats Djokovic had it by far the toughest. I don’t think it’s only him lol. Maybe you can argue for any of them having it the toughest but it certainly isn’t by a big margin which ever way.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Federer won a big poll about who had the toughest competition quite a few times. Then you have Lew showing with stats Djokovic had it by far the toughest. I don’t think it’s only him lol. Maybe you can argue for any of them having it the toughest but it certainly isn’t by a big margin which ever way.
No I think they've had roughly similar competition, I think Nadal's first 7 slams were tougher but it's evened out now.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
It'about how good they are overall in their careers, not in a matchup consisting of just 4 matches.Leading the h2h is useless if that is not sustained by titles won.
You mean like 19 > 17 slams at the same age? Or like 35 - 28 in M1000? Lucky Fed has five additional years and 2003 - 2007 or it could have gotten real embarrassing for him.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
You mean like 19 > 17 slams at the same age? Or like 35 - 28 in M1000? Lucky Fed has five additional years and 2003 - 2007 or it could have gotten real embarrassing for him.
Five additional what ? In that same period Nadal was winning slams and adding to his legacy.He would have won 2 titles at Wimby too had Federer not been in his way.

Let's see who ends up with more slams, that it's all that matters at the end of the day, not how many slams they had at a certain age.
 

Nadal_Django

Hall of Fame
Don't be too hard on Fed - Rafa is just better than him, not Fed's fault.
But 19/20 y/o Rafa was peaking in 2006 and 2007, playing the best tennis of his career, and Fed was still owning him outside clay as he was owning the other Peaking monsters those years like Roddick, Blake, Kiefer, Hewitt and Baghdatis, thus Peak Fed invincible with the highest peak evah, in the toughest competition evah, and Peak 2005-2007 Rafa just his sidekick.
Thank god Fedr becomed old, monoed and washed up in 2008, and all those other tennis Ubermenschen like Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick, Blake, Baghdatis also suffered debilitating injuries during that time, otherwise no Slams for the poor Peak Rafa outside clay for many years after 2007. ;)
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
But 19/20 y/o Rafa was peaking in 2006 and 2007, playing the best tennis of his career, and Fed was still owning him outside clay as he was owning the other Peaking monsters those years like Roddick, Blake, Kiefer, Hewitt and Baghdatis, thus Peak Fed invincible with the highest peak evah, in the toughest competition evah, and Peak 2005-2007 Rafa just his sidekick.
Thank god Fedr becomed old, monoed and washed up in 2008, and all those other tennis Ubermenschen like Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick, Blake, Baghdatis also suffered debilitating injuries during that time, otherwise no Slams for the poor Peak Rafa outside clay for many years after 2007. ;)
At this point you’re just a parody of yourself.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Five additional what ? In that same period Nadal was winning slams and adding to his legacy.He would have won 2 titles at Wimby too had Federer not been in his way.

Let's see who ends up with more slams, that it's all that matters at the end of the day, not how many slams they had at a certain age.
I think that is a point we can definately agree on
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
On clay their worst surface for the most part so yeah doesn't mean as much as you think.
Wins against Fed or Djoker for a slam title by Nadal off clay:
AO 2009 v Fed
WIM 2008 v Fed
USO 2010 v Djoker
USO 2013 v Djoker

Wins by Fed or Djoker against Nadal for the title on clay:
0

I think it actually means a lot more than you think
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Clay:

2007 Nadal: super dominant, routined everyone but the toughest opponents. Dominated MC and Barcelona, bested supercharged Davydenko in epic Rome SF, one loss in Hamburg final when he was fairly tired and Federer was zoning like mad, but responded with a brilliant RG capped off with a massively clutch performance against peak Federer in the final.

2011 Nadal: dropped a 2-6 set to Murray in MC (Rafa's best haven in BO3, wot ze hell?), dropped TB sets to Lorenzi in Rome and two to Isner at RG, struggled with past-prime Fedr more than with peak one in 07, oh and of course he lost twice to Djokovic but that's not even the main problem as I showed.

Grass:

2007 Nadal: struggled early on but found peak form in 4R/QF and gave still near-peak Fedr a great scare in the final, could've won if a few points went his way.

2011 Nadal: struggled less en route but completely fudged it up mentally in the final, 1/6 BP saved with a breadstick lolwot is this. Novak was good but with his dropping sets to Baghdatis and Tomic he certainly wasn't on the level of 07 Grasserer.

Hard:
aha, this one is the closest obviously but even there 07dal's superiority shines through:

2007 Nadal:

beat a solid Murray at AO then lost to supercharged Gonzo (same shyt happened in 08 vs Tsonga, it is ok), put up a masterful peak display in IW (didn't drop a set, broken only 3 times in 6 matches, umbilleevel), was strong in Miami and Canada losing to eventual champ Djokovic.

Was sick in Cincy (retired) and had his usual knee thing at the USO, outlasted by Ferrer, so those are excused. Back to strong for his standards (considering indoor weakness) in Madrid and Paris - got destroyed by eventual champ Nalbandian both times, but at least he made it that far.

Made YEC SF, lost to goating Fedr (could've played better but Fed was in unbreakable bot mode anyway, 80% 1st serve you kidding me)

2011 Nadal:

pulled hamstring, lost easily to Ferrer at the AO. Had the draw of gods at IW (no top 80 players xD) and started well vs Djo but then forgot how to hit 1st serve (ridiculous for someone serving as safely as nads) and got pwned badly - worse than 07. Played extremely well in Miami losing serve just once before F, gave his all vs BOATOV1C losing in 3rd set TB - better than 07. So far so good when healthy.

But then disgustery erupts: epic choke to Dodig (huh?) in Canada, destroyed himself in self-imposed epic vs Verdaco in Cincy and lost easily to Fish, made USO final looking ok but got pwned badly and had to engage 9000% mode to sneak a set, destroyed in Tokyo final by Murray (last two sets), botty loss to Mayer in Shanghai, destroyed by Fedr in YEC RR (lost RR 1-2 record).

Basically 11 Nadal only looks better cause of the USO, but it wasn't great given the pwnage (and that selfsame PEAKOV1C just barely escaped old bones in SF). Other than that, he sux'd pretty sad for his standards post-Wimbledon despite playing healthy, whereas 2007 Nadal maintained composure throughout the entire season except Cincy-USO when he was traditionally injured so it doesn't count.
Comparing gimpy vs gimpy, classic TTW. :D
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Wins against Fed or Djoker for a slam title by Nadal off clay:
AO 2009 v Fed
WIM 2008 v Fed
USO 2010 v Djoker
USO 2013 v Djoker

Wins by Fed or Djoker against Nadal for the title on clay:
0

I think it actually means a lot more than you think
The ones against Federer were impressive, those Djokovic ones at the USO not so much considering form.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
The real question is Shawn Michaels first run, or Shawn Michaels second run? :)
Might be the toughest question to answer all day. I think this is where the Mr. Wrestlemania part kicks in, and he had so many of them in the second run. Angle, Jericho, Cena, Benoit/Triple, Undertaker twice etc. But then you have to look past Wrestlemania to be fair. I'm not being fair to Flair here. haha Nah, I just don't fancy that match much in comparison to the rest. Think I'm leaning towards door 2.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
You mean like 19 > 17 slams at the same age? Or like 35 - 28 in M1000? Lucky Fed has five additional years and 2003 - 2007 or it could have gotten real embarrassing for him.
Federer never had the luxury of consistently having mugs to win a particular Slam. To say that Nadal's US Open draws are beyond the joke is the understatement of the century.

Also, the nerve you Hambas have to talk about how Fed had it easier in the light of recent events is just beyond me. Or is this just the Berrettini effect?

Looking forward to Nadal playing Lajovic in the 2020 US Open final too, eh?
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Federer never had the luxury of consistently having mugs to win a particular Slam. To say that Nadal's US Open draws are beyond the joke is the understatement of the century.

Also, the nerve you Hambas have to talk about how Fed had it easier in the light of recent events is just beyond me. Or is this just the Berrettini effect?

Looking forward to Nadal playing Lajovic in the 2020 US Open final too, eh?
Firstly, if Nadal gets to play Lajovic in the 2020 US Open final then yes please, bring it on ;)

Re: Fed having it easier, go and list the finalists that both have had for their slam titles, compare the names and then get back to me and tell me with a straight face that Fed's list isn't preferable. When you are comparing them also remember that Rafa's Ferrer and Puerta slams were made possible by beating Djokovic and Federer in each respective semi-final.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
The ones against Federer were impressive, those Djokovic ones at the USO not so much considering form.
Well in 2010 Djokovic won the Davis Cup pretty much single handedly for Serbia and was about to go on his monster 2011 run so I'd say his form was pretty decent. In 2013 he was the world number 1 so.......
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Well in 2010 Djokovic won the Davis Cup pretty much single handedly for Serbia and was about to go on his monster 2011 run so I'd say his form was pretty decent. In 2013 he was the world number 1 so.......
I don't think listing his achievements from other, separate tournaments helps support the arguments that he played well in either final. Federer was also ranked No. 1 when he played one of the worst matches of his career against Volandri in Rome 2007. Likewise, Nadal was also the No. 1 player when Dustin Brown took him out in straights at Halle.
 
Top