Honestly, I think Nadal's level on clay was pretty much the same for most of 2005-2014. I can't find very many noticeable differences in raw level, though as you said he faced tougher competition against Djokovic than Federer. Tougher competition, however, is not always conducive to good level. He had the godly movement from 2005-2008 and the more impressive shotmaking from 2010-2014. The two sort of cancel each other out, imo. Not much of a difference at all, except for perhaps his 2009, 2011, and 2014 versions being a bit worse than the rest of the lot.
I'd also contest the bolded. Nadal had a bit of an early grass peak as well. He made the final in 2006 and played about as well as he did in 2011 (definitely better in the middle two sets) and his 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon runs need no introduction. I'd say Nadal peaked earlier on grass, later on hard, and had both early and late peaks for clay. It's just that he's that good on the surface.
While I think Nadal would definitely struggle more against Djokovic, suggesting that any version of Djokovic would be the favorite over any version of Nadal at RG from 2005-2008 is a bit of an outlandish claim, at least for me. People were already suggesting that Nadal was going to be the best on clay by 2007, even despite his lack of titles compared to Borg at the time. It was certainly because of his level.
For me, Nadal's RG ranking from those years probably goes like this:
2008
2007
2012 (can be swapped with 2007)
2010
2005
2013
2006
gap
2014
2011
gap
2009
About the bolded, this is not what I'm suggesting.
It's more
prime version of Djokovic would be favore against 2005-06 Nadal at RG and had a shot against 2007 Nadal at RG. 2008 was too much for any version of Nole.
For Nadal's year rankings I can see your point, but it depends about what you are considering, results or level of play.
I think a player career play level is more or less a function with only 1 peak, steep raise before, some steady years near best level(prime), and a slower decline after. Usually(In this era) 24-28 or 23-29 are the best years, but Nadal was an early boomer, so at 22 he was at his peak or near it.
Obviously, there are external factor(Like injuries). A clear example is 2009: Nadal could had played his best tennis that year(And at AO he did), but he was banged up for most of the year. Same for 2017 Djokovic and 2014 Nadal after RG.
I tend to think Nadal level was more or less:
Improving from 2005 to 2007
Reached his peak in 2008-10
Remain near his peak 2012-14
Begin decline after 2014
In a ranking, at play level without injuries:
2008-10 > 2011-13 > 2014 and 2007 > 2006 > 2005. Obviously, as you value the actual season, 2014 and 2009 go down in the list because he didn't play at his level for most of the year.
I think you are underrating 2011, he was at a really high level in my opinion, but Nole was absolutely peak here.
This is an interesting way to do the analysis, but I don't think that literally plugging Djokovic into every Federer slot makes sense, and I also don't think we can ignore the impact of the change(s) on other players. For example, like me, you have Djokovic losing at Wimbledon 2003. Presumably, like me, you also have Roddick winning the title (although I could see a case for Philippoussis). Then, while I have Roddick winning the 2003 U.S. Open, you have Djokovic winning, presumably w/Djokovic taking out Roddick in the SF (his worst match of the tournament).
But, in our alternate reality, at the 2003 U.S. Open, the rankings and draw are completely different. And you have Djokovic having to take down a Roddick who has presumably won Wimbledon, Canada, and Cincinnati. That would be a all order.
Absolutely agree, this is all speculation. There isn't a right way to do it.
By the way, it works in both sense. Djokovic had better results early in his career than Federer, so he would had better draws from 2001 to early 2003 probably.
