Nadal in ‘07 vs Nadal in ‘08

[TheFifthSet]

Here’s a contention that’s sure to ruffle a few feathers: I’ve always felt that Nadal in 2007 was about 95% as good as he was in 2008. The chief difference is that 2007 Nadal lost a Wimbledon final by razor-thin margins, whereas 2008 Nadal won a Wimbledon final by even thinner margins. Both finals were spectacular, and I daresay Nadal may have played even better in 2007.

Beyond that, he was leading the points race up to that point in 2007, had (to this day) one of his very best clay court seasons, won Indian Wells without the loss of a set, and navigated through a murderers row of Fish, Soderling, Youzhny, Berdych and Djokovic to reach the Wimbledon final.

The match stats from the start of the year to Wimbledon are a near-match, too:

2007: 51-7, 88.5% SGW, 33.9% RGW, 1.38 DR, 55.2% TPW
2008: 52-6, 87.4% SGW, 35.7% RGW, 1.38 DR, 55.3% TPW.

2008 Nadal was able to sustain that glittering form for a few more weeks, and won Canada/The Olympics, but faded away after that. 2007 Nadal was weaker in the summer hard court season, but redeemed himself during the indoor season, making the Paris final and the YEC semi’s, losing to in-form players Nalby and Fed.

Sounds like the difference, outside of the two fifth sets from both years, is fairly negligible. Unfortunately, acknowledging as much would mean conceding that Federer could, in fact, dominate in one of Nadal’s peak years, because he won 3 slams that year.

Open to having my view changed here, but have never heard any compelling arguments as to why the storied ‘Strong Era’ starts in 2008 rather than 2007, when Nadal was essentially the same player in 2007 and Djokovic, while not close to his peak, was better in 2007 than he was in 2009-2010.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

2007dal was a beast.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Weak era would have lasted a year or two longer had Fed won two more points.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Weak era would have lasted a year or two longer had Fed won two more points.

Yes, thank goodness Nadal saved that BP late in the 5th set of ‘08. I shudder at the thought of Federer continuing his weak era haul.

 

[malbaker86]

Always felt that 2007 Nadal was the better version but i can see why 08 is a better pick

 

[Sport]

Nadal was definitely not at his peak in 2007. His hard court game was still non-peak, while in 2008 he won the Olympic Gold in singles on hard courts.

Nadal was only 21 in 2007, so of course he was still unable to win Majors outside clay. Federer didn't win his first Major outside grass until he was 22.

It is common knowledge that Federer started his peak at age 22, when he won 3 GS in 2004. The same applies to Nadal, who started his peak at age 22, when he won RG, WB and the OG in singles in 2008.

P.S.: we can't demand Nadal to win GS outside clay before being 22, when Federer didn't win any GS outside grass before being 22. That would be double standard logic.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Not a bad argument from OP, but I think Nadals results at HC slams after 07/08 vs before bely the contention he was better in 07. His game was still on an ascent on non clay surfaces till 09

 

[NatF]

Not a bad argument from OP, but I think Nadals results at HC slams after 07/08 vs before bely the contention he was better in 07. His game was still on an ascent on non clay surfaces till 09

Only difference at the AO was running into a GOAT opponent a round earlier in 2007, his play in IW and Miami in 2007 was actually better. He was injured in the summer HC swing so hard to know how well he would have done - also if he had carried the momentum of beating Federer at Wimbledon forward it might have made a difference too.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Double post.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Only difference at the AO was running into a GOAT opponent a round earlier in 2007, his play in IW and Miami in 2007 was actually better. He was injured in the summer HC swing so hard to know how well he would have done - also if he had carried the momentum of beating Federer at Wimbledon forward it might have made a difference too.

Na he was def better at ao 09

 

[NatF]

Na he was def better at ao 09

Question was vs 2008 no?

 

[Tennisanity]

Nadal was better in 2007. He dipped a little in 2008. But Nadal appeared to achieve more in 2008 mainly due to a big dip in Fed's performance. Check the stats, 2008 was one of Fed's worst years on record since he began winning slams.

 

[TheFifthSet]

@Sport

He was definetely not peak. His hard court game was still non-peak, while in 2008 he won the Olympic Gold in singles on hard courts.


I think his playing level was higher in ‘07 Indian Wells than any HC tournament in 2008, Olympics included.

Nadal was only 21 in 2007, so of course he was still unable to win Majors outside clay.

He was unable to because Federer prevented him in 2007, by playing a magical 5th set. That’s the point. It’s not that Nadal couldn’t win. It’s that he DIDN’T win. In a roundabout way, people are penalizing Federer for winning in ‘07.

What if he converted that BP in the 5th set of 2008, and then served out the match? Would you have still said Nadal was incapable of winning? Or are those just the breaks of the game?

Federer didn't win his first Major outside grass until he was 22.

1. His first grass and HC majors are seven months apart.

2. There are perhaps dozens of tennis players that were more precocious/early-blooming than Federer, Nadal included. Perhaps it is unwise to act as if their career trajectories ought to be identical?

It is common knowledge that Federer started his peak at age 22, when he won 3 GS in 2004. The same applies to Nadal, who started his peak at age 22, when he won RG, WB and the OG in singles in 2008.

The difference between the 2003 version of Federer and next years iteration was massive. The difference between 2007 and 2008 Nadal was minuscule, for reasons that I’ve already gone over.

PS: we can't demand Nadal to win GS outside clay before being 22, when Federer didn't win any GS outside grass before being 22. That would be double standard logic.

Only if one expects all tennis players to age uniformly.

As already mentioned, there are a great many players that were more accomplished than Federer was before their 22nd birthdays.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Not a bad argument from OP, but I think Nadals results at HC slams after 07/08 vs before bely the contention he was better in 07. His game was still on an ascent on non clay surfaces till 09

Fair point, and I’ve considered that, but ultimately it’s not as if Nadal had to beat any world-beaters to reach the semis of either HC major in 2008. I consider his win over Murray at the 2007 AO better than any of his HC major wins in 2008.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Question was vs 2008 no?

No my point was that his general game off clay was on a rise till about 2010

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Fair point, and I’ve considered that, but ultimately it’s not as if Nadal had to beat any world-beaters to reach the semis of either HC major in 2008. I consider his win over Murray at the 2007 AO better than any of his HC major wins in 2008.

Yeah he might have had better results or win on HC in 07 but thats chance due to injury etc which might sound like an excuse but its the same thing as saying 07 grass was better, Federer just played worse in 08.

Ultimately, the overall results were better in 08 and if were gonna play a subjective game Id say the evidence is overall his game off clay was rising until 2010.

Sorry im on my phone, I apologize if this was slightly incomprehensible

 

[TheFifthSet]

Yeah he might have had better results or win on HC in 07 but thats chance due to injury etc which might sound like an excuse but its the same thing as saying 07 grass was better, Federer just played worse in 08.

Ultimately, the overall results were better in 08 and if were gonna play a subjective game Id say the evidence is overall his game off clay was rising until 2010.

Sorry im on my phone, I apologize if this was slightly incomprehensible

Oh I agree, I’d say his results were certainly better in ‘08, and he may have improved as a player ever so slightly. But I think the improvement is so small that it makes little sense to call ‘07 a weak year while regarding ‘08 to be the dawn of a strong era, as is so often done here.

The main (not only, but main) difference between the two Nadal’s is that 07dal lost a close, high-quality Wimby final while 08dal won. Everything else is close to a dead heat. Which is important, because the prevailing narrative is used as a convenient way to denigrate Federer by arbitrarily starting at ‘08. Hindsight bias. Nadal was actually having the better year in 2007 going into that Wimbledon final, and he was a few games away from essentially usurping Federer as the games best (at least momentarily).

Also agree that Nadal kept improving off HC’s right up until 2013, but he was also past it on grass after 2011.

 

[NoleFam]

Good analysis from the OP and point of view but I will have to stick with 2008 as being a higher level. 2008 was the 1st year, and surprisingly the last, where Nadal reached the SF at all 4 Slams. You could sense him starting to make strides on hardcourt and I just feel he took his game overall to higher heights that year. He completely destroyed everyone at RG that year in straight sets and only Djokovic was able to make a respectable showing. His summer hardcourt run was great as well by winning the Olympics, Canada and getting to the SF of the USO. I think it's arguable to say Nadal played as well or maybe slightly better in the 2007 Wimby final but I think overall he clearly had taken his game up a notch in 2008.

 

[Hawaiian grip]

Nadal was very good in 2007 but in 2008 he was his best EVER both on clay and on grass IMO. He got his third RG trophy without dropping a single set and then won Queen's rather convincingly right before storming through to the final at W, losing only one set on his way there.

I mean, I got the OP's point but 2008 was better.

 

[Fedforever]

I think a Martian watching them play and looking at the statistics might conclude that they were both wonderful players and that it was hardly surprising that both matches were extremely close and that a few points settled the issue. Either could easily have won both, they could have won them the other way round and one each was probably a fair result.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Good analysis from the OP and point of view but I will have to stick with 2008 as being a higher level. 2008 was the 1st year, and surprisingly the last, where Nadal reached the SF at all 4 Slams.

Doesn't say much when you look at his AO and USO draws that year. He was of course exposed when he met good players in the SFs.

 

[NoleFam]

Doesn't say much when you look at his AO and USO draws that year. He was of course exposed when he met good players in the SFs.

His AO and USO draws to the SF were rather weak but it was his summer hardcourt run that showed me what he was capable of. He beat Djokovic, Murray and Gonzalez during that time and that's when I thought Djokovic would defeat him and get to the gold medal match.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Good analysis from the OP and point of view but I will have to stick with 2008 as being a higher level. 2008 was the 1st year, and surprisingly the last, where Nadal reached the SF at all 4 Slams. You could sense him starting to make strides on hardcourt and I just feel he took his game overall to higher heights that year. He completely destroyed everyone at RG that year in straight sets and only Djokovic was able to make a respectable showing. His summer hardcourt run was great as well by winning the Olympics, Canada and getting to the SF of the USO. I think it's arguable to say Nadal played as well or maybe slightly better in the 2007 Wimby final but I think overall he clearly had taken his game up a notch in 2008.

This is true, but just to add to this. Nadal got blown of the court by Gonzalez in AO 2007 and Tsonga in AO 2008. The fact one was a quarter and the other a semi is only because of where he played them. It could easily be the other way round.

USO 2007 he was clearly injured, he collapsed in pain during the Ferrer match on the court, holding his knees. He was done, because he made the mistake of playing more clay events after Wimbledon to chase down Federer's number one ranking. He overplayed, knees gave out, and it cost him a deeper run in NYC.

His performance at IW 2007 was one of his most dominant runs to any HC title, he was exceptional that week. Miami and Montreal he lost to an emerging Djokovic, if you look back now, those were not bad losses. He made the Paris Indoor finals also. IMO he also outplayed a peak Federer on grass off of the ground in W 2007, it was Federer's clutch play on BP and his incredible serving that saw him win that match, and mentally Federer was much stronger than he was in W 2008, Nadal still outplayed him from the ground.

 

[NoleFam]

This is true, but just to add to this. Nadal got blown of the court by Gonzalez in AO 2007 and Tsonga in AO 2008. The fact one was a quarter and the other a semi is only because of where he played them. It could easily be the other way round.

USO 2007 he was clearly injured, he collapsed in pain during the Ferrer match on the court, holding his knees. He was done, because he made the mistake of playing more clay events after Wimbledon to chase down Federer's number one ranking. He overplayed, knees gave out, and it cost him a deeper run in NYC.

His performance at IW 2007 was one of his most dominant runs to any HC title, he was exceptional that week. Miami and Montreal he lost to an emerging Djokovic, if you look back now, those were not bad losses. He made the Paris Indoor finals also. IMO he also outplayed a peak Federer on grass off of the ground in W 2007, it was Federer's clutch play on BP and his incredible serving that saw him win that match, and mentally Federer was much stronger than he was in W 2008, Nadal still outplayed him from the ground.

Yea this is all true and definitely could be argued in favor of the OP. I really don't think there was much difference from AO 2007 to AO 2008 from Nadal and felt the improvement happened later after Wimbledon. I thought his Olympic run was really impressive and I think another tournament we are all leaving out was Nadal's Queen Club run in 2008 where he beat Karlovic, Roddick and Djokovic in the last three rounds. So from Queen's Club through the SF of the USO, Nadal was very impressive in 2008, and why I would rate it over 2007.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yea this is all true and definitely could be argued in favor of the OP. I really don't think there was much difference from AO 2007 to AO 2008 from Nadal and felt the improvement happened later after Wimbledon. I thought his Olympic run was really impressive and I think another tournament we are all leaving out was Nadal's Queen Club run in 2008 where he beat Karlovic, Roddick and Djokovic in the last three rounds. So from Queen's Club through the SF of the USO, Nadal was very impressive in 2008, and why I would rate it over 2007.

Yes, Nadal's RG-Queen-W run was really impressive. However, take a look at his clay court run in 2007, he was on his 81 match winning streak, won MC, Barcelona, Rome and made it to the final of Hamburg, then won RG...He played the maximum number of matches possible. He was not winning Queens after that, he said the overplaying nearly made his head explode. In 2008, he lost his opening match at Rome 2008, so essentially, he played only three clay events leading into RG, he was much fresher and it carried over to the grass.

For me his Olympic run was impressive, but I wouldn't rate it higher than his IW 2007, which was an incredible display from him. One of his best ever anywhere outside of clay.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Comparing tournament by tournament...

Chennai: 07 = 08
Lost SF to Malisse in 07. Fought in epic fashion not to lose SF to Moya in 08, won that but spent himself and got destroyed by Youzhny in the final. Same thing, really.

AO: 08 >= 07
Lost QF decisively to peak Gonzo in 07. Lost SF decisively to peak Tsonga in 08. Went 5 sets against Murygoat in 07, didn't struggle pre-semi in 08, though not facing anyone as good as Murray early on. Slight edge to 08 I guess, wouldn't change 07 result.

Dubai: 08 >= 07
Lost both times in QF with a similar scoreline, but the 07 loss was to Youzhny and the 08 loss was to Roddick, who went on to win the tournament. Slight edge to 08.

IW: 07 > 08
Won 07 in straight sets beating Roddick and Djokovic - one of Nadl's best BO3 HC perfs. In 08, struggled against Tsonga and Blake, then got pasted by Djokovic in SF.

Miami: 07 = 08
In 07, drew ascending Djokovic in QF and lost quite easily, Djok playing a great match and eventually winning his first masters there. In 08, made it to the F and lost to Davydenko just as easily. Probably same thing, just the draw factor makes the difference.

MC: 07 > 08
Won both in straights, but in 07 every match was dominant and Nadal was unbroken in SF (v Berdych) and F (v Federer), whereas in 08 he struggled against Federer, who was a break up in either set and ended up losing 5-7 5-7 (mug).

Barcelona: 07 > 08
Won 07 in straight sets, lost a set in 08 F to Ferrer. He beat Ferrer in 07 SF as well, in straights. So 07 it is.

Rome: 07 > 08
Won in 07, lost 2R in 08 to JCF with bad blisters.

Hamburg: 08 >= 07
Lost one set before the final in both years. In 07, took the first set vs Federer 6-2, but Fed roared back decisively. In 08, was on the verge of losing the first set against Federer 1-6, unfortunately Fed choked terribly, which made most of the difference. Still I don't think 08Hamburgdal would've gotten bagelled, so slight edge to him.

RG: 08 > 07
Dominated before the final except for one TB. The final was a big difference, but so was Federer's level. Nadal still better in 08, though not as much as the scoreline indicates.

Queen's: 08 > 07
Lost QF to Mahut in 07, won in 08 beating Karlovic, Roddick and Djokovic. Very good stuff.

Wimbledon: 08 >= 07
More dominant in 08 up to the final. Final was similar level, slightly better from Nadl and slightly worse from Fedr, 5th set made the difference in terms of fedr failing to goat in crunch time. Edge to 08.

Canada: 08 > 07
In 07, lost two sets until SF, which he lost to Djokovic in straights. In 08, lost only one set and that was a very close tiebreak against Gasquet. Didn't face anyone as good as 07Canadovic in 08, but played better regardless, I think.

Cincinnati: 08 > 07
In 07, retired injured vs Monaco. In 08, made SF without losing a set and lost to Djokovic in straights.

Olympics: N/A due to no Olympic in 07, but 08dal gets a bonus for a good winning performance.

USO: 08 > 07
Both losses were rather meh, but in 08 he lost to a better player (Murray in SF vs Ferrer in 4R).

Madrid: 08 >= 07?
In 07 Nadal lost badly, but that was GOATbandian so it's tough to say. In 08 he lost an epic semi against Simon.

Paris: 07 > 08
In 07, Nadal made the F (for the only time in his career), losing to GOATbandian again. In 08, he retired hurt vs Davydenko in QF and missed the rest of the season.

YEC: 07 > 08
Made semi in 07, losing to Federer. Skipped in 08 due to injury.


Conclusion: in 08, Nadal was better by any significant margin in RG (won both times), Queen's, Canada, Cincinnati (still lost), USO (still lost). In 07, he was better by any significant margin in IW, MC (won both times), Barcelona (won both times), Paris (never won), YEC (never won).

In 08, Nadal was overall better in the majors, which is why that was a better year for him. As far as it concerns the Fedal rivalry, though, different results in Hamburg and Wimbledon had as much or more to do with Federer playing worse as they did with Nadal playing better - there wasn't a jump in match quality. So positing a big difference between 07 Nadal and 08 Nadal against Federer means either underrating 07 Nadal or overrating 08 Nadal as an opponent of Federer.

 

[Hawaiian grip]

Say what you want, but the truth is he was better in 2008 at every major. Both his runs at RG and Wimbledon were impressive. That was a man on a mission.

 

[NoleFam]

Yes, Nadal's RG-Queen-W run was really impressive. However, take a look at his clay court run in 2007, he was on his 81 match winning streak, won MC, Barcelona, Rome and made it to the final of Hamburg, then won RG...He played the maximum number of matches possible. He was not winning Queens after that, he said the overplaying nearly made his head explode. In 2008, he lost his opening match at Rome 2008, so essentially, he played only three clay events leading into RG, he was much fresher and it carried over to the grass.

For me his Olympic run was impressive, but I wouldn't rate it higher than his IW 2007, which was an incredible display from him. One of his best ever anywhere outside of clay.

Yea his 2007 IW run was really an amazingly high level from him. I would say that tournament was a more dominant hardcourt display than any hardcourt tournament win in 2008. He does get a bonus for the Olympics by winning 7 matches though. Either year could be argued in favor of the other but I always felt Nadal was a bit better in 2008.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yea his 2007 IW run was really an amazingly high level from him. I would say that tournament was a more dominant hardcourt display than any hardcourt tournament win in 2008. He does get a bonus for the Olympics by winning 7 matches though. Either year could be argued in favor of the other but I always felt Nadal was a bit better in 2008.

The Olympics was not a 128 man draw. It was a one week event.

I feel Nadal was better in 2008 also, but not as much as some try to make him out to be and that is my whole point. People say he was useless outside of clay pre-2008, I just showed that is a far from the truth.

 

[Hawaiian grip]

The Olympics was not a 128 man draw. It was a one week event.

I feel Nadal was better in 2008 also, but not as much as some try to make him out to be and that is my whole point. People say he was useless outside of clay pre-2008, I just showed that is a far from the truth.

He has hardly been useless outside of clay since 2006. That wasn't one of his best seasons and he still managed to beat Federer on HC (one of two players to beat Roger at all that season), made the semis at Indian Wells and made the final at WB taking a set off Federer, which wasn't exactly easy on the green stuff back in the day. He surely wasn't a GS-winning threat on HC yet, but he was far from useless before 2007. He'd have probably won Wimbly that year hadn't peak Federer been across the net that year.

Heck, you could even make a case for him not being useless outside of clay as far back as 2005. After all, he did win an indoor HC Master Series event that year.

 

[NoleFam]

The Olympics was not a 128 man draw. It was a one week event.

I feel Nadal was better in 2008 also, but not as much as some try to make him out to be and that is my whole point. People say he was useless outside of clay pre-2008, I just showed that is a far from the truth.

Oh you're right, it was 6 matches. My bad. I don't think Nadal was useless outside of clay before 2008 since he had started winning hardcourt Masters back in 2005, but I do think he was vulnerable to bigger hitters in a best of 5 on hardcourt. The word out was take it to Nadal on that surface and you can beat him and I've seen Tsonga, Blake, Gonzalez, etc. do that early on. I do think 2008 propelled Nadal to a higher level on hardcourt which set in motion his '09 AO and '10 USO runs.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

He has hardly been useless outside of clay since 2006. That wasn't one of his best seasons and he still managed to beat Federer on HC (one of two players to beat Roger at all that season), made the semis at Indian Wells and made the final at WB taking a set off Federer, which wasn't exactly easy on the green stuff back in the day. He surely wasn't a GS-winning threat on HC yet, but he was far from useless before 2007. He'd have probably won Wimbly that year hadn't peak Federer been across the net that year.

He wasn't useless outside of clay in 2005 either. Won TWO HC masters titles and was two points away from winning a third, thrown in a China Open for good measure.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Nadal was very good in 2007 but in 2008 he was his best EVER both on clay and on grass IMO. He got his third RG trophy without dropping a single set and then won Queen's rather convincingly right before storming through to the final at W, losing only one set on his way there.

I mean, I got the OP's point but 2008 was better.

Good post, but I actually think you missed my point, if only slightly


I stated from the get-go that Nadal was better in 2008, but by so little that the two years are close to interchangeable. If Federer drops that fifth set in ‘07, his accomplishments are worse but Nadal ends up looking like a better opponent and the ‘weak era’ ends a year early. Instead, Federer won it, playing sublime tennis from BP down. Of the 4 break points Federer fended off early in the deciding set, all of them were either saved with an unreturnable serve or after engaging in a very tense rally (one of which included a *********-tightening defensive forehand after a very heavy Nadal fh.)

Then to break, Federer played one of the best return games of his life, hitting a passing shot winner down the line, then two forehand winners to win the game. Nadal played the break point exceptionally, first guiding a deep backhand that caught the outside of the line, then another blistering BH to Federer's one hander that should have induced a weak reply. Instead, Federer hit one of the more incredible backhand slices he has ever hit given the circumstance, and the ball had so much underspin that it barely bounced on Nadals side, allowing Federer to massage an I/I forehand winner that hit the chalk to seal it.

After that followed a love service game with two aces and an unreturnable, then another break to cap the match.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Good analysis from the OP and point of view but I will have to stick with 2008 as being a higher level. 2008 was the 1st year, and surprisingly the last, where Nadal reached the SF at all 4 Slams. You could sense him starting to make strides on hardcourt and I just feel he took his game overall to higher heights that year. He completely destroyed everyone at RG that year in straight sets and only Djokovic was able to make a respectable showing. His summer hardcourt run was great as well by winning the Olympics, Canada and getting to the SF of the USO. I think it's arguable to say Nadal played as well or maybe slightly better in the 2007 Wimby final but I think overall he clearly had taken his game up a notch in 2008.

Agreed, he took it up a notch, but only just the one

I think if you trot out ‘08 Nadal in ‘07, little changes. Wimby would still be a pick-‘em/slight edge to Federer, and Federer would still be heavily favoured to win both HC majors.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Oh you're right, it was 6 matches. My bad. I don't think Nadal was useless outside of clay before 2008 since he had started winning hardcourt Masters back in 2005, but I do think he was vulnerable to bigger hitters in a best of 5 on hardcourt. The word out was take it to Nadal on that surface and you can beat him and I've seen Tsonga, Blake, Gonzalez, etc. do that early on. I do think 2008 propelled Nadal to a higher level on hardcourt which set in motion his '09 AO and '10 USO runs.

Well his AO 2009, Verdasco was on the verge of doing it. Nadal played his greatest HC match IMO that day, anything less, he was losing to Verdasco. One of the greatest matches I have ever seen, and a personal favorite of mine. By the time his USO 2010 run happened, the landscape looked a little different. He played Simon who had just become a father and wanted to rush off home to see his newborn, then played three players, Youzhny, Verdasco and Djokovic all of who had played draining five setters the match before facing Nadal. It all just fell into place for him in 2010, plus no peak Del Potro and Davydenko, both who were at their highest level on HC and both had won their last three matches against Nadal, absent from the tour and USO 2010.

 

[NoleFam]

Well his AO 2009, Verdasco was on the verge of doing it. Nadal played his greatest HC match IMO that day, anything less, he was losing to Verdasco. One of the greatest matches I have ever seen, and a personal favorite of mine. By the time his USO 2010 run happened, the landscape looked a little different. He played Simon who had just become a father and wanted to rush off home to see his newborn, then played three players, Youzhny, Verdasco and Djokovic all of who had played draining five setters the match before facing Nadal. It all just fell into place for him in 2010, plus no peak Del Potro and Davydenko, both who were at their highest level on HC and both had won their last three matches against Nadal, absent from the tour and USO 2010.

Verdasco imo played at a higher level than guys who had beaten Nadal on hardcourt majors but I felt Nadal had a few more gears by then and edged out the win. True about his draw at the USO but all his 2010 GS draws were rather weak to me. He only had to play 5 top 10 players in RG, W and USO to win those Slams.

 

[clout]

Nadal was clearly a better player after 2008. Off clay he sorta had mild Zverev syndrome where he'd play well in bo3 but poorly in b05. 2008 is widely considered the year where he shed his "clay-specialist" label, as he began to have success at other majors and his game overall improved drastically too.What he did before 2008 was still pretty impressive though considering his age at the time. It sucks that this generation doesn't make youths like that anymore.

 

[metsman]

About time someone made this thread.

Nadal 07/08 were probably around equal from AO-Wimbledon and 07 would have had better results in that span if you switch the versions of Federer in the Wimbledon final.

 

[TheFifthSet]

About time someone made this thread.

Nadal 07/08 were probably around equal from AO-Wimbledon and 07 would have had better results in that span if you switch the versions of Federer in the Wimbledon final.

Agreed.

 

[KINGROGER]

About time someone made this thread.

Nadal 07/08 were probably around equal from AO-Wimbledon and 07 would have had better results in that span if you switch the versions of Federer in the Wimbledon final.

Exactly, and 07 Fed wins Hamburg in 08 too without all the horrific choking he did.

 

[mike danny]

Say what you want, but the truth is he was better in 2008 at every major. Both his runs at RG and Wimbledon were impressive. That was a man on a mission.

In 2008 at the AO he simply lucked out by getting his demolisher a round later than in 2007. That was all.

 

[tennis_pro]

Improved slightly on HC. Clay and grass pretty much the same.

But he beat Monorer at Wimbledon so no more weak era. /Nadal fan mode

 

[mike danny]

Nadal was clearly a better player after 2008. Off clay he sorta had mild Zverev syndrome where he'd play well in bo3 but poorly in b05. 2008 is widely considered the year where he shed his "clay-specialist" label, as he began to have success at other majors and his game overall improved drastically too.What he did before 2008 was still pretty impressive though considering his age at the time. It sucks that this generation doesn't make youths like that anymore.

In 2006 and 2007 he had success outside of clay too. His success beginning in 2008 is nothing but a myth spread by weak era theorists.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

I am sure all the weak era talk that depended on how good Federer's results were gets on your nerves (witnessed it myself a few years back ) but some of the insinuations that Nadal's or anybody's results depended on which version of Federer shows up in finals comes across the same way. Giving more credit to the victorious guy that isn't our own is something most of us lack.

PS: I am a Federer and Nadal fan.

______

Not directed really at you OP, you know you're awesome. This topic is an interesting one actually but as you said, it would have ruffled a few feathers guaranteed, as any similar one would.

 

[mike danny]

This thread is indeed full proof why the strong era starting in 2008 is way too convenient.

 

[MichaelNadal]

07 was epic for more than 1 reason. I feel he was better in 08 though

 

[eldanger25]

I agree that Nadal 2007 is underrated, but I think he was stronger in 2008. On top of all the usual stats - first multislam season, much improved HC record, 4 titles after RG (all non-clay) versus zero non-clay titles post-IW in '07, and a meaningfully better record against the top 10, I'll add this one to the list: it's Nadal's only season where he won 2 or more titles on all three surfaces, which is a rarer achievement than you'd think across the Open Era - from what I've seen:

Laver 1970 (don't have exact titles/surfaces #)
Rosewall 1972 (same)
Borg 1974 (4 clay, 2 grass, 2 hard)
Connors 1978 (5 hard, 2 clay, 2 carpet, 2 grass - including the Kent Championships, a prestigious 100 yr old invitational/Wimbledon tuneup not currently in the ATP titles list)
Federer 2004 (7 hard, 2 grass, 2 clay)
Nadal 2008 (4 clay, 2 grass, 2 hard)

That's a helluva list to be a part of.

 

[mike danny]

I agree that Nadal 2007 is underrated, but I think he was stronger in 2008. On top of all the usual stats - first multislam season, much improved HC record, 4 titles after RG (all non-clay) versus zero non-clay titles post-IW in '07, and a meaningfully better record against the top 10, I'll add this one to the list: it's Nadal's only season where he won 2 or more titles on all three surfaces, which is a rarer achievement than you'd think across the Open Era - from what I've seen:

Laver 1970 (don't have exact titles/surfaces #)
Rosewall 1972 (same)
Borg 1974 (4 clay, 2 grass, 2 hard)
Connors 1978 (5 hard, 2 clay, 2 carpet, 2 grass - including the Kent Championships, a prestigious 100 yr old invitational/Wimbledon tuneup not currently in the ATP titles list)
Federer 2004 (7 hard, 2 grass, 2 clay)
Nadal 2008 (4 clay, 2 grass, 2 hard)

That's a helluva list to be a part of.

The problem is, people don't care about that. They only use Nadal's improvement as a mean to belittle Fed's achievements and completely disregard everything he had achieved before 2008.

Of course Federer doesn't look as good if you take out 2004-2007. No top player is going to look as good if you take out their best years. Take out Nadal's 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2017 and he doesn't look so great anymore. Likewise for Djokovic if you take out 2011 and 2015.

 

[moonballs]

Nadal was definitely not at his peak in 2007. His hard court game was still non-peak, while in 2008 he won the Olympic Gold in singles on hard courts.

Nadal was only 21 in 2007, so of course he was still unable to win Majors outside clay. Federer didn't win his first Major outside grass until he was 22.

It is common knowledge that Federer started his peak at age 22, when he won 3 GS in 2004. The same applies to Nadal, who started his peak at age 22, when he won RG, WB and the OG in singles in 2008.

P.S.: we can't demand Nadal to win GS outside clay before being 22, when Federer didn't win any GS outside grass before being 22. That would be double standard logic.

I don’t think Olympic gold on hard is the hard court benchmark of professional tennis.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nadal was definitely not at his peak in 2007. His hard court game was still non-peak, while in 2008 he won the Olympic Gold in singles on hard courts.

Nadal was only 21 in 2007, so of course he was still unable to win Majors outside clay. Federer didn't win his first Major outside grass until he was 22.

It is common knowledge that Federer started his peak at age 22, when he won 3 GS in 2004. The same applies to Nadal, who started his peak at age 22, when he won RG, WB and the OG in singles in 2008.

P.S.: we can't demand Nadal to win GS outside clay before being 22, when Federer didn't win any GS outside grass before being 22. That would be double standard logic.

Losing to Andy Murray at the USO (who then got smacked black and blue by Fed) doesn't indicate peak levels. So I guess he was only peak when he won 2010 USO, 2013 USO and 2017 USO.