If Nadal didn't have his own era, then did he have the toughest competition? - 18 slam finals against Fedovic!

Did he?


  • Total voters
    46

goldengate14

Professional
Yes, and Nadal has had a mental problem against Djokovic since 2011, endless physical problems, etc. Every player has his own set of individual challenges.
Djokovic has more mental.problems against Nadal than vice versa at the slams for sure. No way Nadal should have been winnin slam matches v Djokovic post 2012 as his movement was way off after the long lay of in 2012. Nadal has hurt Djokovics career massively since 2012.
 

goldengate14

Professional
The difference between Nadal and the other 2 is clear: In his prime he never had a negative H2H against either one (still enjoys a positive slam H2H against them). Also, in Roland Garros they couldn't beat him, but he beat prime versions of them outside Roland Garros (Fed in Wimbledon 08 and AO 09, and Djoker in the 2013 USO).

It is this simple. That is why Nadal has an ATG career outside clay and Fed and Djokovic have paltry Roland Garros trophy cabinets, and that after they could scavenge some without playing Nadal in the final. I mean, Tsitsipas. LOL
RG2022 will be interesting if Nadal and Djokovic meet again. I say interestig as i want to see how big a difference day and night conditions make in that match up.
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
Nadal made it a tough era for Djokoerer just as much. Peak Fed and Peak Djokovic ran into Nadal on Clay during there best years which held them back just as much.

For example Federer is a Soderling upset away from not having a RG or career slam. Djokovic had to be at his peak level against a weaker Nadal to get one aswell
 
But if you're right, and Federer really isn't that good, then Nadal's competition is weaker, no?

I think Nadal did have his own era. 2008-13.
Exactly. It is pathetic that people say Nadal had no Era of his own when he finished year end No 1 no less than 5 times (same as Federer). Nadal is an all time great and it is ridiculous some people think he is sandwiched between 2 eras.
 
Nadal is often seen as the man sandwiched between two different eras, the era of Federer and the era of Djokovic, but if that is the case, then he was the main rival to both the two dominant champions.

Nadal has played an incredible even 9 times against each of Federer and Djokovic in a slam final, that is a combined 18 slam finals where he faced arguably the two most dominant players in history. Rafa was the glue that kept it all together, making sure each of the two dominant champions had something all the greats need in the eras they stand....a truly worthy rival who stands as their equal.

18 slam finals is a joke. No other player has had that many. You can make an argument for Murray having 10 finals against them, but even that falls short by quite a bit.

So if Nadal didn't have his own true era, as often gets said with the numbers siding against him, then that does mean out of the true greats of the game, he is the one likely who had it the toughest as he was the one that partcipated in the most high profiled, high stakes rivalry of both their eras. 18 slam finals....
Is this talking about the same Nadal, winner of 20 GSs, 35+ Masters 1000, 2 Olympic golds and 5 times Year End No 1.

If so, it is Indisputable that Nadal defined his Era in both 2008-10 and 2012-2013.
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
Exactly. It is pathetic that people say Nadal had no Era of his own when he finished year end No 1 no less than 4 times. Nadal is an time great and it is ridiculous some people think he is sandwiched between 2 eras.
There was times he was the best in the world but overall he didn’t necessarily have his own era. He had his own era on Clay which is mostly all of his career and in his best years 2010 and 2013 definitely was the best player but I dont think he had his own era
 
There was times he was the best in the world but overall he didn’t necessarily have his own era. He had his own era on Clay which is mostly all of his career and in his best years 2010 and 2013 definitely was the best player but I dont think he had his own era
This is such a bunch of nonsense.

1). Nadal had 3 years where he was undisputably the best: 2008/2010/2013.

2) Nadal also finished World No 1 in each of the above years.

It goes without saying 2008-13 was Nadal's era.
 
A player who won 81 match on clay and reached three times in a row the Wimbledon finals or a player who reached 5 slam final in a row is atg
Exactly. There are folks here saying a bunch of nonsense to make it look as if Nadal is somehow not as good as Fed/Novak. The only gap in Nadal's resume is having not won any World Tour Finals but given he has an Olympic Singles Gold, his resume is ATG level.
 

Rosstour

Legend
Exactly. It is pathetic that people say Nadal had no Era of his own when he finished year end No 1 no less than 5 times (same as Federer). Nadal is an all time great and it is ridiculous some people think he is sandwiched between 2 eras.
The thing that clouds it a bit is that there was considerable overlap. I view the 08-13 period as the Nadal era, but it also contains the best season for Djokovic and the best stretch of Federer's career (US08-AO10: six consecutive Slam Finals with 4 wins that happened to be an entire career Slam).

But after that it's clear that Nadal fell off a cliff relative to the other two and basically stopped beating them anywhere outside of RG. So his era has to end in 2013 and Djok's begins in 2014.
 

lucky13

Semi-Pro
This is such a bunch of nonsense.

1). Nadal had 3 years where he was undisputably the best: 2008/2010/2013.

2) Nadal also finished World No 1 in each of the above years.

It goes without saying 2008-13 was Nadal's era.
I think Rafa was the best player in 2013 but you can not say that it was "undisputably" when Nole was selected to the ITF champ that year!
 
Last edited:

lucky13

Semi-Pro
Exactly. There are folks here saying a bunch of nonsense to make it look as if Nadal is somehow not as good as Fed/Novak. The only gap in Nadal's resume is having not won any World Tour Finals but given he has an Olympic Singles Gold, his resume is ATG level.
no, that's not his only hole in his resume. that he undoubtedly did not have his era is obviously another sosom as he has spent considerably less time at the top of the rankings in terms of sampras, fed and nole and he is clearly worse on 2 of 3 surfaces than those 3. and it is also a hint of less dominance. then he has negative h2h vs his biggest rival even though they played as many matches on clay as on HC even though only 4/14 (29%) tournaments are on clay and the whole 9/14 (64%) are on HC. if we compare him with nole he also lacks all masters (rafa lacks paris and miami and nole has them all at least 2 grr) and double CGS. nole also had the best season, holds the points record and he held all 4 slams at the same time. no doubt he has an ATG level but there are too many holes for GOAThood.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
The difference between Nadal and the other 2 is clear: In his prime he never had a negative H2H against either one (still enjoys a positive slam H2H against them). Also, in Roland Garros they couldn't beat him, but he beat prime versions of them outside Roland Garros (Fed in Wimbledon 08 and AO 09, and Djoker in the 2013 USO).

It is this simple. That is why Nadal has an ATG career outside clay and Fed and Djokovic have paltry Roland Garros trophy cabinets, and that after they could scavenge some without playing Nadal in the final. I mean, Tsitsipas. LOL
You are counting three slam with one.
Rafa outside his favorite surface is seven slam from thee different slam.
Novak has 8 slam from only Wimbledon and RG outside hc.
And fed 12 outside grass
 

aldeayeah

Legend
Rafa was always weak outside clay, lets face it.

He started winning clay slam from 05 itself, outside clay he was struggling on HCs even in those slam winning years of his, it is not like he was reaching finals and losing to Federer, he was losing to everyone. Then he raised his HC level from 2009 and sacrificed his grass performance for that after his injury, see such a guy cannot be glorified for having tough rivals as if he can win in their absence
Eh, bullshite. He won a bunch of HC masters in 2005-2008, plus the wimbledon finals, plus the win.

He was better "outside clay" (that category you guys love) than anyone else not named Roger Federer over the 2005-2008 period.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Eh, bullshite. He won a bunch of HC masters in 2005-2008, plus the wimbledon finals, plus the win.

He was better "outside clay" (that category you guys love) than anyone else not named Roger Federer over the 2005-2008 period.
I had HCs in mind when I wrote that.

Nadal's slams on hc from 05-08 were ???
 

lucky13

Semi-Pro
The thing that clouds it a bit is that there was considerable overlap. I view the 08-13 period as the Nadal era, but it also contains the best season for Djokovic and the best stretch of Federer's career (US08-AO10: six consecutive Slam Finals with 4 wins that happened to be an entire career Slam).

But after that it's clear that Nadal fell off a cliff relative to the other two and basically stopped beating them anywhere outside of RG. So his era has to end in 2013 and Djok's begins in 2014.
and how exactly can 11-13 belong to the end of rafas and not the beginning of noles era?

shall we check and compare this period?

nole vs rafa 2011 - 2013:

YE # 1: 2 - 1
ITF champ: 3 - 0
weeks as no1: 101 - 38
ATP points: 38810 - 29 315
ATP ranking: 1,1,2 (1,3 on average) - 2,4,1 (2,3 on average)

slams: 5 - 4
WTFs: 2 - 0
masters: 11 - 8
big titles: 18 - 12

h2h: 10 - 6 (3-3 on GS)

not only that rafa is not having his own era but he has never put together 2 years as YE # 1 or ITF champ!
 
Last edited:

Kralingen

Legend
Eh, bullshite. He won a bunch of HC masters in 2005-2008, plus the wimbledon finals, plus the win.

He was better "outside clay" (that category you guys love) than anyone else not named Roger Federer over the 2005-2008 period.
He did oddly struggle a ton on HC until 2009 AO.

Lost to Youzhny in USO '06
Destroyed by Gonzo in AO '07 in straights
Lost to Daveed in USO '07 LOL
Lost to Tsonga in AO '08 in straights
Lost to Murray in USO '08
Wrecked by DelPo in USO '09

The legacy of Nadal is weird, he was obviously capable of high level HC tennis (masters) but was mainly a grass specialist from 18-22. Like he could only do one or the other.

Then once he won his first HC Slam, he traded his grass success for HC success after 2011. 2010-11 and 2008 are the only years he was competitive at both Wimby and a HC slam.
 

Rogerer

Rookie
and how exactly can 11-13 belong to the end of rafas and not the beginning of noles era?

shall we check and compare this period?

nole vs rafa 2011 - 2013:

YE # 1: 2 - 1
ITF champ: 3 - 0
weeks as no1: 101 - 38
ATP points: 38810 - 29 315
ATP ranking: 1,1,2 (1,3 on average) - 2,4,1 (2,3 on average)

slams: 5 - 4
WTFs: 2 - 0
masters: 11 - 8
big titles: 18 - 12

h2h: 10 - 6 (3-3 on GS)
Nadal won the Davis(davis>wtf. Rosevall and McEnroe think the same)but don't change the result.
 

lucky13

Semi-Pro
Nadal won the Davis(davis>wtf. Rosevall and McEnroe think the same)but don't change the result.
DC is a team effort and is not very important in compiling the performance of a single tennis players. for example, in 2013 (which belongs to the selected interval) nole had 7-0 in DC singles matches including both wins in the DC final but did not win a title anyway. WTF and the other side depend only on the player himself and play a much bigger role in players single achievement.
 
You are counting three slam with one.
Rafa outside his favorite surface is seven slam from thee different slam.
Novak has 8 slam from only Wimbledon and RG outside hc.
And fed 12 outside grass
That is disingenuous because you know Fed and Djokovic have an advantage over Nadal outside clay, and Nadal on clay. Also, Nadal had to compete against 2 ATGs more competent than him outside, they only had to compete with Nadal.

In any case, all three are tied in the slam count despite Nadal's slam surface distribution disadvantage.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
That is disingenuous because you know Fed and Djokovic have an advantage over Nadal outside clay, and Nadal on clay. Also, Nadal had to compete against 2 ATGs more competent than him outside, they only had to compete with Nadal.

In any case, all three are tied in the slam count despite Nadal's slam surface distribution disadvantage.
You would think we could finally arrive at this point after all this time! 8-B
 
Djokovic has more mental.problems against Nadal than vice versa at the slams for sure. No way Nadal should have been winnin slam matches v Djokovic post 2012 as his movement was way off after the long lay of in 2012. Nadal has hurt Djokovics career massively since 2012.
I wouldn't go that far. Nadal has had very good periods on HC, specially in 2013.
 
You would think we could finally arrive at this point after all this time! 8-B
Nadal has a crap serve compared to Fed and Djokovic, 3/4 slams are played outside his favorite surface, and he has had the worst luck with injuries of the 3, but he is still tied in the slam race, and has a positive slam H2H against both. GOAT
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
That is disingenuous because you know Fed and Djokovic have an advantage over Nadal outside clay, and Nadal on clay. Also, Nadal had to compete against 2 ATGs more competent than him outside, they only had to compete with Nadal.

In any case, all three are tied in the slam count despite Nadal's slam surface distribution disadvantage.
Why Rafa had that disadvantage?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
That is disingenuous because you know Fed and Djokovic have an advantage over Nadal outside clay, and Nadal on clay. Also, Nadal had to compete against 2 ATGs more competent than him outside, they only had to compete with Nadal.

In any case, all three are tied in the slam count despite Nadal's slam surface distribution disadvantage.
Come on, Nadal could have very well adapted to HCs just like Fedovic did.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
Because he's a worse tennis player lol.
I never like this reasoning that Rafa was at disadvantage because there was one slam on clay? Don't he knew there was only one slam on clay from the very start,Fed also knew there was only slam on grass so he also became a legendary hc player.
It's just about the selection or maybe natural instinct of player .
Rafa has a legendary career outside clay, I have said this many times and his peak on hc and grass was greater than Novak and Fed on clay, you can see my old posts, if you don't believe me.
But saying he was at disadvantage because there was one clay slam is totally wrong, my personal opinion
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I never like this reasoning that Rafa was at disadvantage because there was one slam on clay? Don't he knew there was only one slam on clay from the very start,Fed also knew there was only slam on grass so he also became a legendary hc player.
It's just about the selection or maybe natural instinct of player .
Rafa has a legendary career outside clay, I have said this many times and his peak on hc and grass was greater than Novak and Fed on clay, you can see my old posts, if you don't believe me.
But saying he was at disadvantage because there was one clay slam is totally wrong, my personal opinion
Whether he was disadvantaged or not, he still made up for it, so the discussion is pointless to start with. If only he had more USO's than the HC GOAT or something..... oh wait :cool:
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
Whether he was disadvantaged or not, he still made up for it, so the discussion is pointless to start with. If only he had more USO's than the HC GOAT or something..... oh wait :cool:
That's great for him for what he did at uso really great
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
Whether he was disadvantaged or not, he still made up for it, so the discussion is pointless to start with. If only he had more USO's than the HC GOAT or something..... oh wait :cool:
the discussion was Rafa has seven slam outside clay and Fed and Novak has less slam on clay.
I just pointed out you can't count three different slam for Rafa and one for other two
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
That's why he has never had a negative H2H against prime Fed, even when the first match was played on HC. Yeah, he is a crap player, a pusher. LMFAO
Look at this exaggeration lol. Nadal is a great player, arguably peaked higher than Djok at 3/4 slams. But in terms of consistency and overall he's obviously not as good as they are on HC or grass.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
It's truly amazing to witness how sour Maestronians got the moment Nadal and Djokovic hit 20 slams. Sad, but amazing :cool: he went from the Undisputed GOAT, to yall needing to tear down Nadal 24/7 to feel like he at least secured second place :X3: as if TTW conversations actually matter! :giggle:
 

goldengate14

Professional
Look at this exaggeration lol. Nadal is a great player, arguably peaked higher than Djok at 3/4 slams. But in terms of consistency and overall he's obviously not as good as they are on HC or grass.
But does not that mean Nadal is greater if he has a higher peak. To my mind that is what defines greatness if a player also stays around for a while. However stayim around a while seems not necessary. Think Mike Tyson and Mcenroe. Both had relative short stays at the top compared to rivals but you often hear people put them in goat discussions due to their highest peak.
This is where for me Djokovic is at a massive disadvantage goat wise. He is undoubtedly the most consistent at playig his best level. But the perception is his peak was neber as high as Fedal. It is why i feel he is the one who needs to win the slam race. The federer v Nadal argument will never be settled.
 

goldengate14

Professional
It's truly amazing to witness how sour Maestronians got the moment Nadal and Djokovic hit 20 slams. Sad, but amazing :cool: he went from the Undisputed GOAT, to yall needing to tear down Nadal 24/7 to feel like he at least secured second place :X3: as if TTW conversations actually matter! :giggle:
But the fact Federer and Djokovic fans keep asteriskig Nadal achivements such as clay doesnt matter and Uso cup cake draws etc says to me both sets see Nadal as Goat as it is human nature to try and knock someone off a pedastel.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
But does not that mean Nadal is greater if he has a higher peak. To my mind that is what defines greatness if a player also stays around for a while. However stayim around a while seems not necessary. Think Mike Tyson and Mcenroe. Both had relative short stays at the top compared to rivals but you often hear people put them in goat discussions due to their highest peak.
This is where for me Djokovic is at a massive disadvantage goat wise. He is undoubtedly the most consistent at playig his best level. But the perception is his peak was neber as high as Fedal. It is why i feel he is the one who needs to win the slam race. The federer v Nadal argument will never be settled.
You could make that argument.
 

timnz

Legend
Aaaand guess what? This stat is.... is.... is.... have you guessed.... yes ladies and gentlemen... it's heavily clay skewed... Lol... Next one please...
Nadal has basically a similar to McEnroe slam off clay slam career plus 13 French opens on clay slam career. In other words 5 slams on hard court and 2 of grass. That’s quite a significant slam career, even off clay.
 

lucky13

Semi-Pro
Nadal has a crap serve compared to Fed and Djokovic, 3/4 slams are played outside his favorite surface, and he has had the worst luck with injuries of the 3, but he is still tied in the slam race, and has a positive slam H2H against both. GOAT
he does not have positive h2h vs nole, but the opposite! and despite the fact that only 4/14 (29%) of all big tournaments are on clay and 9/14 (64%) on HC, they have played the same number of matches on clay and on HC! and in slams they have met each other more times on RG than on the remaining 3 slams together!
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Nadal has basically a similar to McEnroe slam off clay slam career plus 13 French opens on clay slam career. In other words 5 slams on hard court and 2 of grass. That’s quite a significant slam career, even off clay.
That's true, but unfortunately he is being compared to Federer and Djokovic and thus he is sorely lacking.
 

goldengate14

Professional
You could make that argument.
I think strong argumets for all three. We all likely value different achievements more. personal preference.
I do think the longer we all have to sit through an event like IW the more equally loved all 3 will be on here by rival fanbases. As time goes on fan wars get forgotten anyway.
 
Top