Let's put Nadal's 2010 season into perspective: How impressive it is really?

[GasquetGOAT]

Previously, we have established that Fed's 2006 is far more superior to Nadal's 2010, Fed's 2007 season would be still be more impressive if Nadal fails to win the WTF, which of course, he failed.

Fed's 2007 ( -
Tennis Masters Cup (Indoor/Hard) , Basel (Indoor/Hard) , US Open (Outdoor/Hard) , ATP Masters Series Cincinnati (Outdoor/Hard) , Wimbledon (Outdoor/Grass) , ATP Masters Series Hamburg (Outdoor/Clay) , Dubai (Outdoor/Hard) , Australian Open (Outdoor/Hard)

Nadal's 2010 (7) -

Tokyo (Outdoor/Hard) , US Open (Outdoor/Hard) , Wimbledon (Outdoor/Grass) , Roland Garros (Outdoor/Clay) , ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid (Outdoor/Clay) , ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome (Outdoor/Clay) , ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo (Outdoor/Clay)

8 titles for Fed and 7 for Nadal.

3 slams each. Same number of slams although there are debates whether it is more impressive to win 3 slams over a period of 9 month or 3 slams in 4 month.

3 clay masters for Nadal and 2 masters for Fed, but Fed has won his on two different surfaces.

1 masters cup for Fed, IMO, this is the tie breaker. If Nadal wins the WTF then his 2010 would be better, if not, Fed's 2007 would still be superior.

I would rate the 10 most impressive seasons (of the last decade) in the following order,

1.Fed --2006
2.Fed --2004
3.Fed --2007
4.Nadal 2010
5.Fed --2005
6.Nadal 2008
7.Fed --2009
8.Fed --2003
9.Nadal 2005
10.Fed -2008

 

[dmt]

i am not sure if federers 05 is better then nadals 08, i mean they are certainly close their. Otherwise nice list

 

[Spider]

EDIT: My error

1.Fed --2006 (agreed)
2.Fed --2004 (agreed)
3.Fed --2007 (agreed)
4.Nadal 2010 (agreed)
5.Fed --2005 (agreed)
6.Nadal 2008 (agreed)
7.Fed --2009 (agreed)
8.Fed --2003 (agreed)
9.Nadal 2005 (agreed)
10.Fed -2008 (agreed)

 

[niff]

Gah stupid Federer and his slam consistency Tried to find someone to replace that year for colour. Djoko's 2008 and Agassi's 2001 boast better titles won, but neither of them were in another slam final that year and of course Fed finished 2008 ranked higher than Nole.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

i am not sure if federers 05 is better then nadals 08, i mean they are certainly close their. Otherwise nice list

In 05, Federer had an +90% winning ratio, something Nadal has never achieved.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

i am not sure if federers 05 is better then nadals 08, i mean they are certainly close their. Otherwise nice list

Sounds cool. Just two years, I beg to differ:

1.Fed --2006 (agreed)
2.Fed --2004 (agreed)
3.Fed --2007 (agreed)
4.Nadal 2010 (agreed)
5.Fed --2005 (this should be six, reason below)
6.Nadal 2008 (this should be five because of the Olympic win in addition to the two slam wins)
7.Fed --2009 (agreed)
8.Fed --2003 (agreed)
9.Nadal 2005 (agreed)
10.Fed -2008 (agreed)

I rate Fed's 2005 over Nadal's 2008 because he won 11 titles that year, compared to 8 by Nadal in 2008. The Olympic gold, again, is impressive in its own right but was never significant in tennis, historically.

I don't have other stats of Fed's 2005 (maybe others can chime in?) but I remember his dominance during that season was just as impressive as his other prime years.

Federer 2005:
(11) Bangkok (Indoor/Hard) , US Open (Outdoor/Hard) , ATP Masters Series Cincinnati (Outdoor/Hard) , Wimbledon (Outdoor/Grass) , Halle (Outdoor/Grass) , ATP Masters Series Hamburg (Outdoor/Clay) , ATP Masters Series Miami (Outdoor/Hard) , ATP Masters Series Indian Wells (Outdoor/Hard) , Dubai (Outdoor/Hard) , Rotterdam (Indoor/Hard) , Doha (Outdoor/Hard)

 

[GasquetGOAT]

In 05, Federer had an +90% winning ratio, something Nadal has never achieved.

Thanks. That's what I was looking for.

 

[Spider]

In 05, Federer had an +90% winning ratio, something Nadal has never achieved.

Sorry, the percentage wasn't this high in 05 for Federer. It was about 85%.

 

[niff]

Sorry, the percentage wasn't this high in 05 for Federer. It was about 85%.

It was 95% actually

He had an 81–4 record that year, the closest ever to beating Mcenroe's record. The 4th loss came to Nalbandian in the epic 2005 YEC final.

 

[Spider]

It was 95% actually

He had an 81–4 record that year, the closest ever to beating Mcenroe's record. The 4th loss came to Nalbandian in the epic 2005 YEC final.

I just checked and you're right, my error. In that case, Federer's 05 is greater than Nadal's 08. That is a phenomenal win ratio. I will edit my first post now.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

Gah stupid Federer and his slam consistency Tried to find someone to replace that year for colour. Djoko's 2008 and Agassi's 2001 boast better titles won, but neither of them were in another slam final that year and of course Fed finished 2008 ranked higher than Nole.

Indeed, damn his slam consistency!:neutral:

 

[namelessone]

Nr of titles should matter, not win percentage over the year.

You can make a case for other things to result that Fed's 2005 is greater than Nadal's 2008 but win percentages matter for little IMO.

Does it matter if in a particular year on player has 88% wins or 90%? I think what he was won is far,far more important.

In theory you could enter a year with a very good standing,play 17 events, win five of them(AO,RG,WB,USO,WTF, making it 33 wins) and if you lose 1R in the rest of the twelve you will not get anywhere near 80% let alone 90%. 33+12=45, 33/45=73% win percentage. Yet the dude would have clearly been the best player in that year.

Obviously the odds of something like that happening are basically 0 but in theory it could happen, one guy tanking everything else and peaking only in major events.

I mean look at Nadal's best years:
88,76% in 2005(1 GS, 3 MS, no TMC participation)
88,17% in 2008(2 GS, 3 MS, no TMC participation)
87,85% in 2010(3 GS, 3 MS, TMC final)

Even if we take out TMC in 2010, it means 9 losses versus 67 wins out of 76 matches which makes it a 88,15% win percentage.

Now looking at those numbers(win percentages) and Nadal's trophies, wouldn't you say that his 2010 would trump his 2005, even his 2008, despite the fact that he had a lower win percentage in 2010?

 

[dlk]

Still an okay year

 

[niff]

Nr of titles should matter, not win percentage over the year.

I disgree though, because no one is using the winning percentage as a standalone factor. We were just differentiating Nadal's 2008 and Fed's 2005, where they both had 2 slams, and 2 slam semis. Fed won 11 titles and Nadal won 7 titles + Olympic gold. So it's a close call but Fed's ratio of 81-4 that year is just further proof of his ridiculous consistency that year.

 

[namelessone]

I disgree though, because no one is using the winning percentage as a standalone factor. We were just differentiating Nadal's 2008 and Fed's 2005, where they both had 2 slams, and 2 slam semis. Fed won 11 titles and Nadal won 7 titles + Olympic gold. So it's a close call but Fed's ratio of 81-4 that year is just further proof of his ridiculous consistency that year.

Well then Fed clinches it on titles, it's fairly obvious:

2 to 2 in GS won
2 to 2 in GS SF
11 to 8 titles --> bingo we have a winner, you don't need win percentage, which at most would only back it up NATURALLY. I mean it's tough to have a lower win percentage winning 11 tourneys(out of 15 entered) than a guy who won 8 (out of 19 entered), no?

 

[forthegame]

VERY VERY

10obviousquestions..

 

[GasquetGOAT]

Gah stupid Federer and his slam consistency Tried to find someone to replace that year for colour. Djoko's 2008 and Agassi's 2001 boast better titles won, but neither of them were in another slam final that year and of course Fed finished 2008 ranked higher than Nole.

Just realised I have forgotten about Fed's 2010, which was not too shabby either considering he was no doubt the best player in the last quarter with 3 titles (1 WTF beating 4 of top 5 players) and 2 masters finals. Other than his slams performance, it's certainly an improvement compared to 2008.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

How is Federer's 2003 better than Nadal's 2005, 06 or 07?

 

[MichaelNadal]

How impressive is it? More impressive than anyone else's record in the last 10 years not named Federer.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

After the AO injury withdrawal Nadal was untouchable in the slams:

FO - steamrolled the field without dropping a set, won the final in dominant style.
Wim - Steamrolled everyone, dropping 1 set in total from rd16 and onwards, totally dominated the final.
USO- steamrolled the field dropping just 1 set all tournament, dominated the final.

 

[meg0529]

Fed's 2007 ( -
Tennis Masters Cup (Indoor/Hard) , Basel (Indoor/Hard) , US Open (Outdoor/Hard) , ATP Masters Series Cincinnati (Outdoor/Hard) , Wimbledon (Outdoor/Grass) , ATP Masters Series Hamburg (Outdoor/Clay) , Dubai (Outdoor/Hard) , Australian Open (Outdoor/Hard)


Nadal's 2010 (7) -

Tokyo (Outdoor/Hard) , US Open (Outdoor/Hard) , Wimbledon (Outdoor/Grass) , Roland Garros (Outdoor/Clay) , ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid (Outdoor/Clay) , ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome (Outdoor/Clay) , ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo (Outdoor/Clay)

8 titles for Fed and 7 for Nadal.

3 slams each. Same number of slams although there are debates whether it is more impressive to win 3 slams over a period of 9 month or 3 slams in 4 month.
Not very debatable, if you are gonna say Fed's masters titles are better than Nadal's 3 because 2 diff surfaces, how about 3 different surfaces???

3 clay masters for Nadal and 2 masters for Fed, but Fed has won his on two different surfaces.

1 masters cup for Fed, IMO, this is the tie breaker. If Nadal wins the WTF then his 2010 would be better, if not, Fed's 2007 would still be superior.

Nadal won 3 slams in a shorter period of time on 3 completely different different surfaces. His masters titles were also back to back along with a slam thrown into the sequence. This gives him a HUGE edge. If you are going to treat the WTF as a tie breaker then sure he didn't win the WTF, but he made it to the finals, and took it to 3 sets. If you refuse to accept that Nadal's 2010 is better than Fed's 07 which IMO it is. Then you have to put them right next to each other. Also fed lost of his RR matches at the WTF in '07 so technically they both have 1 loss for the whole tournament.

Also, Rafa dropped only 1 set in all 3 of his slam finals, Fed dropped 2.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Not to mention he was daaamn close to winning both those sets at the AO. (the first 2)

 

[abmk]

Not to mention he was daaamn close to winning both those sets at the AO. (the first 2)

^^

not the first set .. murray won that 6-3 ..

fed-nadal in RG 2007 final was closer and by some margin

 

[abmk]

After the AO injury withdrawal Nadal was untouchable in the slams:

FO - steamrolled the field without dropping a set, won the final in dominant style.
Wim - Steamrolled everyone, dropping 1 set in total from rd16 and onwards, totally dominated the final.
USO- steamrolled the field dropping just 1 set all tournament, dominated the final.

Hey TheTroll,

FO - faced nobody who could challenge him on clay till the finals

USO - faced nobody who was in form/playing well till the finals

wimbledon - was down 2 sets to 1 against both haase and petzschener , untouchable :roll:

 

[MichaelNadal]

^^

not the first set .. murray won that 6-3 ..

fed-nadal in RG 2007 final was closer and by some margin

Im pretty sure that was a 1-break set, and Rafa had multiple points to break back.

 

[abmk]

Im pretty sure that was a 1-break set, and Rafa had multiple points to break back.

yes, it was a one-break set. actually nadal broke first, murray broke back and then broke again. I am not sure if nadal had break-back points. Anyways even if he'd broken he'd have to hold again - no guarantee there. I wouldn't call it/the match close .. especially when comparing with the RG 2007 final where fed took a set off nadal

 

[abmk]

fed 2007/nadal 2010 is debatable , I'd might switch nadal 2005 and fed 2003 too ...

both had poor results in slams apart from the ones they won ... fed won the YEC, but nadal won a bunch of masters, on both clay and hard , nadal had a higher winning % also

 

[abmk]

How is Federer's 2003 better than Nadal's 2005, 06 or 07?

who said fed's 2003 is better than nadal's 06 or 07 ?

05 is a bit debatable. read my previous post for that

 

[Spider]

Federer's 07 is definitely greater than Nadal's 10. Because Federer managed to win three slam titles and the masters cup that year. Nadal managed to win just three slam events. If Nadal had won the masters cup this year, it would have to go to Nadal. This defeat at the hands of Federer at the final definitely makes Federer's 07 greater than Nadal's 10.

 

[MichaelNadal]

That AO match was really good and high quality, I remember watching on a treadmill. As far as Fed 07 vs Nadal 10.. they are about even IMO.

 

[niff]

Not to mention he was daaamn close to winning both those sets at the AO. (the first 2)

Close but no cigar.

 

[meg0529]

Federer's 07 is definitely greater than Nadal's 10. Because Federer managed to win three slam titles and the masters cup that year. Nadal managed to win just three slam events. If Nadal had won the masters cup this year, it would have to go to Nadal. This defeat at the hands of Federer at the final definitely makes Federer's 07 greater than Nadal's 10.

Don't wanna retype but i'll copy paste from above

Nadal won 3 slams in a shorter period of time on 3 completely different different surfaces. His masters titles were also back to back along with a slam thrown into the sequence. This gives him a HUGE edge. If you are going to treat the WTF as a tie breaker then sure he didn't win the WTF, but he made it to the finals, and took it to 3 sets. If you refuse to accept that Nadal's 2010 is better than Fed's 07 which IMO it is. Then you have to put them right next to each other. Also fed lost of his RR matches at the WTF in '07 so technically they both have 1 loss for the whole tournament.

Also, Rafa dropped only 1 set in all 3 of his slam finals, Fed dropped 2.

 

[Spider]

Don't wanna retype but i'll copy paste from above

Nadal won 3 slams in a shorter period of time on 3 completely different different surfaces. His masters titles were also back to back along with a slam thrown into the sequence. This gives him a HUGE edge. If you are going to treat the WTF as a tie breaker then sure he didn't win the WTF, but he made it to the finals, and took it to 3 sets. If you refuse to accept that Nadal's 2010 is better than Fed's 07 which IMO it is. Then you have to put them right next to each other. Also fed lost of his RR matches at the WTF in '07 so technically they both have 1 loss for the whole tournament.

Also, Rafa dropped only 1 set in all 3 of his slam finals, Fed dropped 2.

8 titles comprising of three slam wins, one masters cup, and two masters events is greater than 7 titles comprising of three slam wins, and three masters event wins.

We are talking about the entire year and not just a dominant sector of a year therefore 12 months need to be taken into consideration, which will give Federer the edge due to the masters cup. It is greater than Nadal's 10 because of that.

 

[abmk]

Also fed lost of his RR matches at the WTF in '07 so technically they both have 1 loss for the whole tournament.

so ? it is RR format.. there is no point in here

Also, Rafa dropped only 1 set in all 3 of his slam finals, Fed dropped 2.

that's funny considering:

a) fed faced in-form rafa in wimb, rafa faced no one as tough in any of his three slam finals

b) fed actually made the final in the 4th slam, FO whereas rafa made only QF at the AO .. This point is MUCH more relevant than what you stated !

 

[niff]

8 titles comprising of three slam wins, one masters cup, and two masters events is greater than 7 titles comprising of three slam wins, and three masters event wins.

We are talking about the entire year and not just a dominant sector of a year therefore 12 months need to be taken into consideration, which will give Federer the edge due to the masters cup. It is greater than Nadal's 10 because of that.

+ 4 slam finals

 

[Spider]

+ 4 slam finals

Of course I forgot about that, thanks for highlighting it. This seals the deal for Federer 07 against Nadal's 10.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

In 05, Federer had an +90% winning ratio, something Nadal has never achieved.

I would bump Nadal's 2008 right up the top of the list since he won the Olympic Singles Gold medal and the Davis cup in the same year he won the FO and Wimbledon.

 

[Spider]

I would bump Nadal's 2008 right up the top of the list since he won the Olympic Singles Gold medal and the Davis cup in the same year he won the FO and Wimbledon.

Olympics and Davis cup are irrelevant as compared to slam wins. So no, you are wrong.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

I would bump Nadal's 2008 right up the top of the list since he won the Olympic Singles Gold medal and the Davis cup in the same year he won the FO and Wimbledon.

Again, the Olympic gold, is impressive in its own right but was never significant in tennis, historically.

As for Davis cup, it's a team sport, Federer would have won it also if Verdasco, Ferrer and Lopez were Swiss.

 

[namelessone]

Im pretty sure that was a 1-break set, and Rafa had multiple points to break back.

Rafa broke first at 1-1 for a 2-1 lead.

Murray broke right back (15-40) to make it 2-2.

On Murray's next service game Rafa has 0-40 but Murray has a huge hold here. 3-2.

Rafa's next service game went to 30-30 and Murray hit an amazing BH to make it 30-40. He broke afterwards. 4-2 Murray.

Murray hold pretty comfortably, 5-2.

Rafa holds his own, 5-3.

On the last game of the set, Rafa has a BP and has the second serve to work with but the netcord stops one of his balls. They go to deuce two times and Andy comes out the winner.

End of first set.

In the second set:

Rafa holds comfortably for 1-0.

He has 0-30 on Murray's serve but he is denied by a couple of great serves.
They go to deuce, Murray holds for 1-1.

Rafa holds at love for a 2-1 lead.

Murray holds at love to make it 2 all.

Rafa holds comfortably, 3-2.

Rafa breaks at 15-40 and makes it 4-2.

On his next service game Rafa makes some wild errors(netted ball, double fault) and Murray had double BP which he converts. 4-3.

Murray holds at love 4-4.

Rafa holds for 5-4.

Rafa gets a look at Andy's serve at 30 all but misses. Andy holds for 5-5.

Andy gets into form and has a 15-40 on Rafa's next service game but Rafa has as a strong hold. 6-5.

They go to 30-30 on Andy's next service game but he pulls it out. 6-6.

In the tiebreak Murray wins clearly.

Those were two tight sets IMO and one of the best I've seen all year.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

How is Federer's 2003 better than Nadal's 2005, 06 or 07?

Just for the simple fact that Wimbledon is more prestigious than French Open and Fed also won the Masters Cup that year.

 

[namelessone]

It's a damn impressive year but I don't see why all this Fed comparisons. Fed is the guy with the most records in tennis. It's kinda hard to come out on top in a comparison against him. Compare Rafa's season to other people in tier 2.

I don't really see people comparing Rafa's seasons to Sampras's(to give a random example) for some reason, only Federer.

 

[GasquetGOAT]

It's a damn impressive year but I don't see why all this Fed comparisons. Fed is the guy with the most records in tennis. It's kinda hard to come out on top in a comparison against him. Compare Rafa's season to other people in tier 2.

I don't really see people comparing Rafa's seasons to Sampras's(to give a random example) for some reason, only Federer.

I'm sorry to say this, but Sampras never had a season like Rafa's. Even Nadal's 2008 is arguably better than any season Sampras ever had.

 

[sennoc]

Nadal's 2008 was significantly more impressive than Nadal's 2010, imo.

In 2008 Federer decreased his level of play. Federer only.

In 2010 Nadal didn't face any really uncomfortable rivals. Davydenko - injured. Del Potro - injured. Tsonga - plays badly and they met just once. Soderling is a very chimeric player, and they met just 2 times. Nalbandian? Blake? Come on... And Nadal met Federer just two times, won first by bad bounce at arithmetic matchball and lost second one.

I do not count Murray and Djokovic, Nadal is better in baseline marathons and that's quite obvious.

So, I do not understand those who think that this season was impressive by Nadal. Great results, yeah, but standards are much much lower.

 

[namelessone]

Nadal's 2008 was significantly more impressive than Nadal's 2010, imo.

In 2008 Federer decreased his level of play. Federer only.

In 2010 Nadal didn't face any really uncomfortable rivals. Davydenko - injured. Del Potro - injured. Tsonga - plays badly and they met just once. Soderling is a very chimeric player, and they met just 2 times. Nalbandian? Blake? Come on... And Nadal met Federer just two times, won first by bad bounce at arithmetic matchball and lost second one.

I do not count Murray and Djokovic, Nadal is better in baseline marathons and that's quite obvious.

So, I do not understand those who think that this season was impressive by Nadal. Great results, yeah, but standards are much much lower.

Murray had won his last 4 matches on HC with Rafa until WTF.
Djoker had straight setted him three times on HC before USO final.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Again, the Olympic gold, is impressive in its own right but was never significant in tennis, historically.

As for Davis cup, it's a team sport, Federer would have won it also if Verdasco, Ferrer and Lopez were Swiss.

History is changing most now rate a Olympic singles Gold as big or bigger than a slam, before the last Olympics Fed said winning the singles gold would be as big to him as winning Wimbledon. And Joker cried like a baby when he won the bronze. The fact that all the top players like Federer, Nadal, Joker and Murray etc rate the Olympics so highly and that all the top players compete in it is what makes it so prestigious now.

The Davis cup is also widely regarded alongside the slams.If Nadal was Swiss he would have won Switzerland 3 Davis cups alongside Wawrinka, he would have won Switzerland the Singles Gold medal and the doubles Gold would have Nadal and Wawrinka's name on it.

 

[timnz]

Masters Cup

8 titles comprising of three slam wins, one masters cup, and two masters events is greater than 7 titles comprising of three slam wins, and three masters event wins.

We are talking about the entire year and not just a dominant sector of a year therefore 12 months need to be taken into consideration, which will give Federer the edge due to the masters cup. It is greater than Nadal's 10 because of that.

Yes a Masters Cup (WTF) is about halfway between a Masters win and a Grand Slam win. It far more prestigious than a Masters Shield.

Hence (2000 x 3) + 1500 + (1000 x 2) > (2000 x 3) + (1000 x 3)

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Just for the simple fact that Wimbledon is more prestigious than French Open and Fed also won the Masters Cup that year.

2005- Nadal won RG, 4 Masters and 11 titles
2006- Nadal won RG, 2 Masters and got to the Wimbledon final
2007- Nadal won RG, 3 Masters and got to the Wimbledon final

All those years are quite clearly better than Federer's 2003.

 

[illkhiboy]

History is changing most now rate a Olympic singles Gold as big or bigger than a slam, before the last Olympics Fed said winning the singles gold would be as big to him as winning Wimbledon. And Joker cried like a baby when he won the bronze. The fact that all the top players like Federer, Nadal, Joker and Murray etc rate the Olympics so highly and that all the top players compete in it is what makes it so prestigious now.

The Davis cup is also widely regarded alongside the slams.If Nadal was Swiss he would have won Switzerland 3 Davis cups alongside Wawrinka, he would have won Switzerland the Singles Gold medal and the doubles Gold would have Nadal and Wawrinka's name on it.

The Olympic Gold matters a lot to some people but not to everyone. For instance, Roddick skipped this last Olympics. On the other hand, the top 3 at the time were all passionate about it.

Personally I think even though the Olympic Medal is not that big a deal in tennis, the 2008 Olympics counted a lot since the Big Three wanted to win it badly.

So I give Nadal a lot of credit for that. But at the same time, remember, the ATP only awarded it 400 points compared to 500 for Masters/1000 for Slams.

Nevertheless it was a fairly big title and Nadal's victory there was big. Would Federer give up a Masters Cup title for a Gold Medal in singles? Perhaps? But probably not.

 

[illkhiboy]

2005- Nadal won RG, 4 Masters and 11 titles
2006- Nadal won RG, 2 Masters and got to the Wimbledon final
2007- Nadal won RG, 3 Masters and got to the Wimbledon final

All those years are quite clearly better than Federer's 2003.

What's better? Getting to a final of a Slam or winning the Masters Cup? Probably the Masters Cup. But Federer's Slam results in 2003 were quite poor. So I guess all those three Nadal seasons do trump Federer's 2003.