Nadal’s most underrated period?

[Razer]

Fed was default number 1 because Rafa was out. That’s not to take away his wins or great season but it doesn’t tell the full picture. It’s a bit like when Andre became world number 1 in 1999.

Andre was never in contention to become slams leader while Federer was in 2009, so the image we all had in our minds was that Federer was still the King of the tour while the king had a new young challenger, but king is king.

2010 was the year when this changed for good, the defeats to Berdych, Soderling & Djokovic (who was Federer's pigeon at USO until that point) literally told us that Federer was gone, Rafa would take control now for good.... So I would still say 04-to 10AO was a phase where Federer was the alpha despite being dethroned at wimbledon 2008.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Andre was never in contention to become slams leader while Federer was in 2009, so the image we all had in our minds was that Federer was still the King of the tour while the king had a new young challenger, but king is king.

2010 was the year when this changed for good, the defeats to Berdych, Soderling & Djokovic (who was Federer's pigeon at USO until that point) literally told us that Federer was gone, Rafa would take control now for good.... So I would still say 04-to 10AO was a phase where Federer was the alpha despite being dethroned at wimbledon 2008.

This is of course all correct but also (maybe to a slightly smaller extent) applies to 2008-2014 for Nadal. He clearly won the most slams in that period and had three multiple-slam years while none of the others had two. Sure, Djoko's 2011 is a real thorn in his side even more so than his own 2008 is in Fed's, but other than Fed he turned it around in the respective time period and won 4 consecutive slam matches against Djo. 2013, Rafa was clearly the best and then reached the AO final and won the FO. He had 14 slams at this point and the talk was clearly that he was in striking-distance to surpass Fed's 17, while nobody gave Djoko a chance at that time being on 6 and at the same time not many thought that Fed would win any more. It was his loss to Kyrgios, his injury and his abysmal 2015/16 as well as Djoko taking over that stopped all the talk.

 

[Razer]

This is of course all correct but also (maybe to a slightly smaller extent) applies to 2008-2014 for Nadal. He clearly won the most slams in that period and had three multiple-slam years while none of the others had two. Sure, Djoko's 2011 is a real thorn in his side even more so than his own 2008 is in Fed's, but other than Fed he turned it around in the respective time period and won 4 consecutive slam matches against Djo. 2013, Rafa was clearly the best and then reached the AO final and won the FO. He had 14 slams at this point and the talk was clearly that he was in striking-distance to surpass Fed's 17, while nobody gave Djoko a chance at that time being on 6 and at the same time not many thought that Fed would win any more. It was his loss to Kyrgios, his injury and his abysmal 2015/16 as well as Djoko taking over that stopped all the talk.

Yeah, before Becker arrived Djokovic was all lost and Nadal was having an edge due to that.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yeah, before Becker arrived Djokovic was all lost and Nadal was having an edge due to that.

Becker is really underrated as a coach. His private life might be a mess but with all things that are tennis-related he is great.

 

[RS]

Becker is really underrated as a coach. His private life might be a mess but with all things that are tennis-related he is great.

Becker gets a lot of credit for Djokovic's success though.

 

[mike danny]

This is of course all correct but also (maybe to a slightly smaller extent) applies to 2008-2014 for Nadal. He clearly won the most slams in that period and had three multiple-slam years while none of the others had two. Sure, Djoko's 2011 is a real thorn in his side even more so than his own 2008 is in Fed's, but other than Fed he turned it around in the respective time period and won 4 consecutive slam matches against Djo. 2013, Rafa was clearly the best and then reached the AO final and won the FO. He had 14 slams at this point and the talk was clearly that he was in striking-distance to surpass Fed's 17, while nobody gave Djoko a chance at that time being on 6 and at the same time not many thought that Fed would win any more. It was his loss to Kyrgios, his injury and his abysmal 2015/16 as well as Djoko taking over that stopped all the talk.

In fairness Rafa was in a better position to get back at Djoko in the early 2010's than Fed was in the late 2000's against Nadal.

 

[mike danny]

Becker gets a lot of credit for Djokovic's success though.

I'd say almost too much. His coaching stint coincided with changes in the tennis landscape at that time. We'll never know which one of these contributed more to Djokovic's success.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I'd say almost too much. His coaching stint coincided with changes in the tennis landscape at that time. We'll never know which one of these contributed more to Djokovic's success.

Only difference was Nadal injury. But Nadal was also not fully there between 2012 to 2013. He missed virtually 3/4 slams in this time.

Becker made Nole unbeatable. Apart from 1 RG he won in 2016, Becker was responsible for him to start Wimbledon domination. That has been major factor for Nole's current status.

Before Becker 1 Wimbledon title.
During Becker run 2/3 Wimbledon titles.

After Becker's run between 2018 to 2022, 4/4 Wimbledon titles.

Someone like Becker is perfect player to improve Djokovic's attacking game.

 

[RS]

We will see what Becker can do with Rune now

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

In fairness Rafa was in a better position to get back at Djoko in the early 2010's than Fed was in the late 2000's against Nadal.

Is it really so clearly? Djok was on an absolute roll in 2011-early 12 and overall far more dominant than Ned was in 2008. When Nadal started turning it around with FO 12, he was 25 years old, when Fed lost AO 09, he was 27, not such a big difference and by no means too old for Fed to win that match and turn it around after the two losses in 08 (in fact he was the clear favourite going into that match).

Of course one advantage Nadal had to turn it around was that he caught Novak on his beloved clay, while Fed didnt get Nadal in USO 08 or Wimbledon 09 where his changes would have been better (however, the circumstances of the AO 09 final were already very favourable for him).

Anywho, my point is more that extending Fed's era to beginning 2010 does not sound so much more cogent to me than extending Ned's era to beginning 2014. Both had years in between where they weren't the best or at least not clearly the best (Nadal more so than Fed admittedly but the difference is not gigantic).

 

[RS]

I'd say almost too much. His coaching stint coincided with changes in the tennis landscape at that time. We'll never know which one of these contributed more to Djokovic's success.

Thread?

 

[The Blond Blur]

I'd say almost too much. His coaching stint coincided with changes in the tennis landscape at that time. We'll never know which one of these contributed more to Djokovic's success.

Yeah, I actually remember people saying it was a mistake at first to bring Becker in because their first full year together was very underwhelming. 2015-2016 saw most of the top 10 gradually start to get heavily declined. Combine that with the #LostGen taking a massive step back compared to their “breakout year” in 2014 and it was the perfect storm for a still peak Joker to dominate.

 

[D.Nalby12]

2010 - 12 were supposed to be Nadal' dominant years. But Djokovic ruined it.

 

[fedfan24]

Only difference was Nadal injury. But Nadal was also not fully there between 2012 to 2013. He missed virtually 3/4 slams in this time.

Becker made Nole unbeatable. Apart from 1 RG he won in 2016, Becker was responsible for him to start Wimbledon domination. That has been major factor for Nole's current status.

Before Becker 1 Wimbledon title.
During Becker run 2/3 Wimbledon titles.

After Becker's run between 2018 to 2022, 4/4 Wimbledon titles.

Someone like Becker is perfect player to improve Djokovic's attacking game.

To be fair, 2015-2016 Djokovic never faced an opponent on the same level as 2012 AO Nadal, 2012 W Federer, 2013 W Murray, 2012-2013 RG Nadal. His lower quality opposition certainly helped as well as improvements he made under Becker.

 

[nolefam_2024]

To be fair, 2015-2016 Djokovic never faced an opponent on the same level as 2012 AO Nadal, 2012 W Federer, 2013 W Murray, 2012-2013 RG Nadal. His lower quality opposition certainly helped as well as improvements he made under Becker.

2013 Wimby Murray is surpassed by Federer in 2014.

2012 AO Nadal Djokovic won anyway so it doesn't matter at all.

2012 Wimby Federer was slightly higher than 2014 Federer.

Yes in 2015/2016 Djokovic didn't face a Nadal calibre player in RG. That's only thing we agree on.

 

[mike danny]

Is it really so clearly? Djok was on an absolute roll in 2011-early 12 and overall far more dominant than Ned was in 2008. When Nadal started turning it around with FO 12, he was 25 years old, when Fed lost AO 09, he was 27, not such a big difference and by no means too old for Fed to win that match and turn it around after the two losses in 08 (in fact he was the clear favourite going into that match).

Of course one advantage Nadal had to turn it around was that he caught Novak on his beloved clay, while Fed didnt get Nadal in USO 08 or Wimbledon 09 where his changes would have been better (however, the circumstances of the AO 09 final were already very favourable for him).

Anywho, my point is more that extending Fed's era to beginning 2010 does not sound so much more cogent to me than extending Ned's era to beginning 2014. Both had years in between where they weren't the best or at least not clearly the best (Nadal more so than Fed admittedly but the difference is not gigantic).

I was talking after AO 2009 which is the equivalent of Nadal’s loss at AO 2012, i.e. the 3rd slam final loss for both.

After that, Nadal had his own troubles and so they didn’t meet again in the next 4 slams. Then Fed exited his prime slightly and the next time they would meet would be 2.5 years later when he’s almost 30.

Plus, you forget that Nadal’s problems against Fedovic did start after age 27, so there is a difference.

 

[mike danny]

Thread?

I mean, we all know the Djoko fans will attribute everything to Becker so why even try?

 

[mike danny]

Yeah, I actually remember people saying it was a mistake at first to bring Becker in because their first full year together was very underwhelming. 2015-2016 saw most of the top 10 gradually start to get heavily declined. Combine that with the #LostGen taking a massive step back compared to their “breakout year” in 2014 and it was the perfect storm for a still peak Joker to dominate.

Pretty much. It’s why it will always be an unanswered question. He hired Becker to help him deal with Nadal but since Nadal was out of the picture that wasn’t necessary anymore.

He didn’t overcome Murray on grass either to see the effect. He did beat old Fed, but was that really Becker’s assistance or just Fed getting old which meant Djoker would’ve beaten him anyway thanks to his age advantage?

 

[djokovic the conqueror]

2015-2016. He played at a really high level but unfortunately for him, Djokovic was better than him on every surface.

 

[RS]

I mean, we all know the Djoko fans will attribute everything to Becker so why even try?

You can try it might be get a good discussion.

 

[mike danny]

You can try it might be get a good discussion.

More like another fan war. Since baiting is your specialty, I'm passing on this duty to you

 

[RS]

More like another fan war. Since baiting is your specialty, I'm passing on this duty to you

People would probably avoid the thread if they saw it was me who opened it.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Pretty much. It’s why it will always be an unanswered question. He hired Becker to help him deal with Nadal but since Nadal was out of the picture that wasn’t necessary anymore.

He didn’t overcome Murray on grass either to see the effect. He did beat old Fed, but was that really Becker’s assistance or just Fed getting old which meant Djoker would’ve beaten him anyway thanks to his age advantage?

Exactly, and the problem is you and I don’t just look at results, but the circumstances that lead to said results. Joker was at the peak of his powers in 2012-2014 and was barely eking out a schlem a year in that timeframe. And the competition played a big role in his results. He brought in Becker to get over the hump, but by the time that partnership started paying dividends the “threats” were removed without Joker really having to do anything. RAFA went into a free fall in 2015-2016. You’re right that he never had to play Murray on grass again. And there’s an obvious distinction between 2012-2013 Lendlray vs post-back surgery 2015-2016 Murray. Ol’ Rog was a threat in BO3 but by that point lacked the physicality to deal with a peak ATG in BO5.

 

[StrongRule]

Exactly, and the problem is you and I don’t just look at results, but the circumstances that lead to said results. Joker was at the peak of his powers in 2012-2014 and was barely eking out a schlem a year in that timeframe. And the competition played a big role in his results. He brought in Becker to get over the hump, but by the time that partnership started paying dividends the “threats” were removed without Joker really having to do anything. RAFA went into a free fall in 2015-2016. You’re right that he never had to play Murray on grass again. And there’s an obvious distinction between 2012-2013 Lendlray vs post-back surgery 2015-2016 Murray. Ol’ Rog was a threat in BO3 but by that point lacked the physicality to deal with a peak ATG in BO5.

Exactly. I don't believe a different coach makes a big difference. The change of competition made a real difference though. But explaining these simple things to some TTW users is a waste of time. Some of them believe Djokovic was at his mental peak in 2023 based on wins over Tsitsipas and Ruud.

 

[Razer]

Is it really so clearly? Djok was on an absolute roll in 2011-early 12 and overall far more dominant than Ned was in 2008. When Nadal started turning it around with FO 12, he was 25 years old, when Fed lost AO 09, he was 27, not such a big difference and by no means too old for Fed to win that match and turn it around after the two losses in 08 (in fact he was the clear favourite going into that match).

Of course one advantage Nadal had to turn it around was that he caught Novak on his beloved clay, while Fed didnt get Nadal in USO 08 or Wimbledon 09 where his changes would have been better (however, the circumstances of the AO 09 final were already very favourable for him).

Anywho, my point is more that extending Fed's era to beginning 2010 does not sound so much more cogent to me than extending Ned's era to beginning 2014. Both had years in between where they weren't the best or at least not clearly the best (Nadal more so than Fed admittedly but the difference is not gigantic).

2003W to 2010AO

Federer - 16 Slams
Nadal - 6 Slams
Roddick/Gaudio/Safin/Djoker/JMDP - 1 Slam each

2010FO to 2014FO

Nadal - 8 Slams
Djokovic - 5 Slams
Murray - 2 Slams
Federer/Wawrinka - 1 Slam each

2014W to now

Djokovic - 18 Slams
Nadal - 8 Slams
Federer - 3 Slams
Wawrinka/Alcaraz - 2 Slams each
Cilic/Murray/Thiem/Medvedev - 1 Slam each

You could divide like this, or you could divide it from 03-07, 08-17, 18-today as 3 eras as well, but no matter how we divide we don't find Nadal dwarfing the tour like Federer or Djokovic do, thats why Nadal never having an era is the perception among the crowd because he indeed did not have any era of his own. We never felt he was the ruler of the tour because he never was.


Furthermore if we divide eras by uninterrupted stretches of dominance then :

03W - end of 2007

Federer - 12 slams
Nadal - 3 Slams
Roddick/Safin/Gaudio - 1 Slam each

2008-french open 2018

Nadal - 14 Slams
Djokovic - 12 Slams
Federer - 8 Slams
Murray/Wawrinka - 3 Slams each
Del Potro/Cilic - 1 Slam each

2018W till now

Djokovic - 12 Slams
Nadal - 5 Slams
Alcaraz - 2 Slams
Thiem/Medvedev - 1 Slam each

 

[fedfan24]

2013 Wimby Murray is surpassed by Federer in 2014.

2012 AO Nadal Djokovic won anyway so it doesn't matter at all.

2012 Wimby Federer was slightly higher than 2014 Federer.

Yes in 2015/2016 Djokovic didn't face a Nadal calibre player in RG. That's only thing we agree on.

2013 Wimby Murray is surpassed by Federer in 2014.

2012 AO Nadal Djokovic won anyway so it doesn't matter at all.

2012 Wimby Federer was slightly higher than 2014 Federer.

Yes in 2015/2016 Djokovic didn't face a Nadal calibre player in RG. That's only thing we agree on.

2014/2015 federer lesser opponents than 2012 fed/2013 Murray at W.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

2003W to 2010AO

Federer - 16 Slams
Nadal - 6 Slams
Roddick/Gaudio/Safin/Djoker/JMDP - 1 Slam each

2010FO to 2014FO

Nadal - 8 Slams
Djokovic - 5 Slams
Murray - 2 Slams
Federer/Wawrinka - 1 Slam each

2014W to now

Djokovic - 18 Slams
Nadal - 8 Slams
Federer - 3 Slams
Wawrinka/Alcaraz - 2 Slams each
Cilic/Murray/Thiem/Medvedev - 1 Slam each

You could divide like this, or you could divide it from 03-07, 08-17, 18-today as 3 eras as well, but no matter how we divide we don't find Nadal dwarfing the tour like Federer or Djokovic do, thats why Nadal never having an era is the perception among the crowd because he indeed did not have any era of his own. We never felt he was the ruler of the tour because he never was.


Furthermore if we divide eras by uninterrupted stretches of dominance then :

03W - end of 2007

Federer - 12 slams
Nadal - 3 Slams
Roddick/Safin/Gaudio - 1 Slam each

2008-french open 2018

Nadal - 14 Slams
Djokovic - 12 Slams
Federer - 8 Slams
Murray/Wawrinka - 3 Slams each
Del Potro/Cilic - 1 Slam each

2018W till now

Djokovic - 12 Slams
Nadal - 5 Slams
Alcaraz - 2 Slams
Thiem/Medvedev - 1 Slam each

Djokovic winning almost all his slams since 2014... not a good look

 

[fedfan24]

Djokovic winning almost all his slams since 2014... not a good look

12 slams in his 30s is it? Yikes. Really weird distribution. Guy performed better as he slowed down.

 

[Razer]

Djokovic winning almost all his slams since 2014... not a good look

He did not have the luxury of a weak era in his 20s, he faced strong era unlike Federer who did not have a few years older ATG blocking him to mature early or a same aged ATGs to cut into his slams.

 

[MichaelNadal]

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

He did not have the luxury of a weak era in his 20s, he faced strong era unlike Federer who did not have a few years older ATG blocking him to mature early or a same aged ATGs to cut into his slams.

I didn't even mention Federer. Its absolutely ridiculous this guy wins every slam after 2014 but can only win a few before then. That is sooo outrageous

 

[Razer]

I didn't even mention Federer. Its absolutely ridiculous this guy wins every slam after 2014 but can only win a few before then. That is sooo outrageous

You should mention Federer because Federer himself won a lot in 2000 and a lot of people back then called Fed winning outrageous, infact even before Federer won his 1st slam people were talking of Sampras's successor Hewitt not being as good as him. This was during the time when Hewitt-Safin-Roddick all were teenagers. People were already saying Sampras does not have next gen rivals just like we talk of Djokovic not having next gen rivals. So you have to look at the entire picture before blaming Djokovic.

 

[Dwell]

You should mention Federer because Federer himself won a lot in 2000 and a lot of people back then called Fed winning outrageous, infact even before Federer won his 1st slam people were talking of Sampras's successor Hewitt not being as good as him. This was during the time when Hewitt-Safin-Roddick all were teenagers. People were already saying Sampras does not have next gen rivals just like we talk of Djokovic not having next gen rivals. So you have to look at the entire picture before blaming Djokovic.

prehistory must've been such a fascinating time. thanks for sharing

 

[Razer]

prehistory must've been such a fascinating time. thanks for sharing

It is not prehistory for anyone in their 30s that has followed tennis from the beginning of the 21st century, so we've interacted with gen X & Boomers who were fans of the game in the 20th century, they have their own views on how upcoming talents were perceived.

You must be a teenager to call that era as prehistoric

 

[TheFifthSet]

Exactly, and the problem is you and I don’t just look at results, but the circumstances that lead to said results. Joker was at the peak of his powers in 2012-2014 and was barely eking out a schlem a year in that timeframe. And the competition played a big role in his results.

It sure did, but he definitely wasn’t at the peak of his powers even if we don’t appeal to the tired old results-based method of arguing for it.

He was good at Wimby ‘12, played poorly in a windy USO final (I suppose he was nominally near his peak, but the conditions were so extreme for that specific match that it was barely even tennis, may as well have had them play on ice), played well at AO ‘13 (though a step below both ‘11 and ‘12), stunk up the joint in the ‘13 Wimby/USO finals, played an average match against Wawa in the ‘14 AO quarters, was nowhere near his best at ‘14 RG (imo both him and Nadal were banged up in that final, Djokovic was literally blowing chunks) and played a very flat match against Nishi at the USO.

He was broadly prime-level for much of that period just as Nadal was in ‘11-‘13, but that’s about as far as anyone can take it imo.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I didn't even mention Federer. Its absolutely ridiculous this guy wins every slam after 2014 but can only win a few before then. That is sooo outrageous

Be outraged fedfan. Your game is open to all now.

 

[NeutralFan]

Yeah, before Becker arrived Djokovic was all lost and Nadal was having an edge due to that.

It's not just Becker but Nadal was never the same after 2014 and lost his movement and speed even more.

 

[fedfan24]

He did not have the luxury of a weak era in his 20s, he faced strong era unlike Federer who did not have a few years older ATG blocking him to mature early or a same aged ATGs to cut into his slams.

He did have 2014w-2016 period in his late 20s so he’s had his share of weak era which has continued since 2018 when he came back on top

 

[The Blond Blur]

It sure did, but he definitely wasn’t at the peak of his powers even if we don’t appeal to the tired old results-based method of arguing for it.

He was good at Wimby ‘12, played poorly in a windy USO final (I suppose he was nominally near his peak, but the conditions were so extreme for that specific match that it was barely even tennis, may as well have had them play on ice), played well at AO ‘13 (though a step below both ‘11 and ‘12), stunk up the joint in the ‘13 Wimby/USO finals, played an average match against Wawa in the ‘14 AO quarters, was nowhere near his best at ‘14 RG (imo both him and Nadal were banged up in that final, Djokovic was literally blowing chunks) and played a very flat match against Nishi at the USO.

He was broadly prime-level for much of that period just as Nadal was in ‘11-‘13, but that’s about as far as anyone can take it imo.

I meant his physical body. Age wise that should have been his most dominant period. Which is why it’s so frustrating watching these current day players who are in their physical primes getting smoked by a clearly physically declined Joker.

 

[Third Serve]

I think you could argue Federer was close but you're on drugs if you think Murray was better than Nadal in 2011.

certainly a fair assertion to make

 

[Third Serve]

Ned was decent on hard courts in 2005.

Couple of Masters wins including one indoors and he almost grabbed a third one over Fed in Miami. Decent run at the AO pushing a strong Hewitt to five in a somewhat high-quality match. US Open was bad and the Madrid Indoors win was a bit weak so the whole hard court season obviously isn’t up there with his very best but it was quite competent especially for his age. Grabbed an excellent win over Fed in Dubai early the next year, though I’d say he generally regressed on hard courts in 2006.

 

[StrongRule]

certainly a fair assertion to make

If Djokovic won 3 titles at some year, you would be the first person to say how bad he was. Hell, we are supposed to read on TTW how terrible he was in 2012-2014 when he "only" won 6-7 titles each year. And this doesn't come just from Djokovic fans.

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

Be outraged fedfan. Your game is open to all now.

Theres no way you can argue someone isn't severely inflated when they only win 5 slams in their prime and 18 in old age

 

[Kralingen]

If Djokovic won 3 titles at some year, you would be the first person to say how bad he was. Hell, we are supposed to read on TTW how terrible he was in 2012-2014 when he "only" won 6-7 titles each year. And this doesn't come just from Djokovic fans.

How could he possibly be worse than Murray given that he won a Slam and beat Murray H2H in 2 other Slams… I mean do you hear yourself.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Theres no way you can argue someone isn't severely inflated when they only win 5 slams in their prime and 18 in old age

There is no way to end prime at 27 for players in 2000s. Most players will play well into their 30s at the top.

 

[StrongRule]

How could he possibly be worse than Murray given that he won a Slam and beat Murray H2H in 2 other Slams… I mean do you hear yourself.

Murray won more titles, and got a win over Djokovic. RG 2011 was kind of an undeserved slam win.

 

[RS]

Who played at a higher level?

1. Djokovic AO 14 QF or Murray AO 12 SF
2. Federer RG 07 final or Roddick AO 03 QF
3. Djokovic AO 13 final or Agassi AO 03 final
4. Med USO 23 SF or Aynaoui AO 03 QF
5. Federer AO 12 SF or Murray Wim 13 final
6. Djokovic AO 15 final or Murray Wim 16 final

 

[Third Serve]

If Djokovic won 3 titles at some year, you would be the first person to say how bad he was. Hell, we are supposed to read on TTW how terrible he was in 2012-2014 when he "only" won 6-7 titles each year. And this doesn't come just from Djokovic fans.

I don’t actually rate 2011 Nadal as highly as some others do, but to claim he was worse than Murray is idiotic even by your standards, which—trust me—are in the gutter.

 

[RS]

Not many would have beaten 2011dal tbf

 

[Kralingen]

Murray won more titles, and got a win over Djokovic. RG 2011 was kind of an undeserved slam win.

2009 Murray > Nadal as well then?

Murray won more titles, and got a win over Djokovic. AO 2009 was kind of an undeserved slam win.