Nadal slam career... Clay and other surfaces...

beard

Legend
Nadal started career as great clay counter, winning only clay slams, but soon he started winning grass and hard court slams, beating great Federer...

Till end of 2010 Nadal won all slams... He had 5 FO's and 4 other slam... It's skewed resume, I know, but not that bad...

But, from 2011 he started winning super predominantly clay slams over hard court and grass... He won 8 clay slams, and only 3 others, of which 0 grass and 3 USO's (2013 is great, and two easy draw slams, IMO)... He haven't won Wimbledon for 11 years and SO for 12 years... o_O

So:
2005-2010... 5 clay slams + 4 other
2011-2021... 8 clay slams + 3 other


My basic question in this thread is why is Nadal's resume more and more skewed in time? We say/know that as player gets older it's harder to win clay and relatively easier to win grass and hard... And with Nadal it's opposite... We know he is monster on clay, but why he doesn't translate this success to other surfaces?

My first thought is that Novak that Great emerged, and off course Nadal was often injured off clay... Any other opinion and explanation?
 

Strale

Semi-Pro
He does not have a competition on clay and that's it ...

Majority of players train on hard courts and develop their style there.

Look at Medvedev for example...He cant even beat me on clay but he moped the floor with Novak in USO final...

ATP tour is hard court dominant and players are adjusting themselves accordingly...

Imagine if tour is played on clay(two slams) and grass (1 slam) while AO is the only hardcourt slam...I could easily imagine Novak with like 15 AO titles since majority of the field would adjust themselves to clay.

In that case it would be even harder for both Novak and Nadal to win clay slams...Nadal might end up with like 9 or 10 FO and few USO while Novak manages to snatch 1 or 2...


That is my opinion on the subject...

Edit: Nadal is godlike on clay and i didn't meant to disrepct him...He could dominate in same fashion or win like 50 percent less.It is open for interpretation.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
He does not have a competition on clay and that's it ...

Majority of players train on hard courts and develop their style there.

Look at Medvedev for example...He cant even beat me on clay but he moped the floor with Novak in USO final...

ATP tour is hard court dominant and players are adjusting themselves accordingly...

Imagine if tour is played on clay(two slams) and grass (1 slam) while AO is the only hardcourt slam...I could easily imagine Novak with like 15 AO titles since majority of the field would adjust themselves to clay.

In that case it would be even harder for both Novak and Nadal to win clay slams...Nadal might end up with like 9 or 10 FO and few USO while Novak manages to snatch 1 or 2...


That is my opinion on the subject...

Edit: Nadal is godlike on clay and i didn't meant to disrepct him...He could dominate in same fashion or win like 50 percent less.It is open for interpretation.

I think most modern players can play on clay, more so than they can on grass.

Nadal has gotten his best grass results in years into his 30s, and theres no way that should be happening. Nor should Federer be making Wimbledon finals at almost 40.

Clay isnt as weak for the youngsters as grass.
 

Strale

Semi-Pro
I think most modern players can play on clay, more so than they can on grass.

Nadal has gotten his best grass results in years into his 30s, and theres no way that should be happening. Nor should Federer be making Wimbledon finals at almost 40.

Clay isnt as weak for the youngsters as grass.
I can agree with this,also we tend to forget that big 3 is one of a kind...If there is anyone that can reach finals or win slams past 30 it is them...
 

Madinolf

Rookie
The reason is that for him beating Federer (best player until 2010) is easier than beating Djokovic (best player since 2011).

Slam h2h outside clay:

vs Federer until 2010 --> 2-2
vs Djokovic since 2011 --> 1-5
 

Rogerer

Rookie
Nadal started career as great clay counter, winning only clay slams, but soon he started winning grass and hard court slams, beating great Federer...

Till end of 2010 Nadal won all slams... He had 5 FO's and 4 other slam... It's skewed resume, I know, but not that bad...

But, from 2011 he started winning super predominantly clay slams over hard court and grass... He won 8 clay slams, and only 3 others, of which 0 grass and 3 USO's (2013 is great, and two easy draw slams, IMO)... He haven't won Wimbledon for 11 years and SO for 12 years... o_O

So:
2005-2010... 5 clay slams + 4 other
2011-2021... 8 clay slams + 3 other


My basic question in this thread is why is Nadal's resume more and more skewed in time? We say/know that as player gets older it's harder to win clay and relatively easier to win grass and hard... And with Nadal it's opposite... We know he is monster on clay, but why he doesn't translate this success to other surfaces?

My first thought is that Novak that Great emerged, and off course Nadal was often injured off clay... Any other opinion and explanation?
Two of four slams won in an era of transition. It more correct talk to 2008-2013 than 2005-2010. In 2013 reached his hardcourt peak, in 2012 he did the AO12 and as style of game there are three nadal:2005-2008,2010-2013,2017-2019
 

UnforcedTerror

Hall of Fame
Crazy that he won only 3 titles off clay in a whole decade, 2 of them were because he had cupcake draws.

He couldn't win a single AO or Wimbledon title in Djokovic's era while Djokovic demolished him twice at RG o_O
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
Don’t forget from 2005-2010 Djokovic was nowhere to be seen as a serious rival. Djokovic was in comparison a late developer. When Djokovic peaked, Nadal had been playing elite tennis for six whole seasons! That’s a prime right there. So the reason it is skewed is that Nadal had already peaked by 2011 and at that time another player peaked, and that player happened to be one of his great career rivals. It is a testament to Nadal that he was still able to win 3 more USOs and 8 more RG titles and have two more stints at No.1 post 2011.
Two kindly reminders, as well, to all- Nadal won 9 slams and dethroned Federer before Djokovic had gotten himself together, bar AO 2008. Also, Clay is still a tennis surface.
 

beard

Legend
The reason is that for him beating Federer (best player until 2010) is easier than beating Djokovic (best player since 2011).

Slam h2h outside clay:

vs Federer until 2010 --> 2-2
vs Djokovic since 2011 --> 1-5
I said in OP that Novak might be a reason... You materialized that theory...
 

beard

Legend
Why do we have to take clay away every day on this board? Omg lol
No one takes clay away, Nadal is awesome at clay, but how's possible that goat contender didn't translate clay greatness to other surfaces? And clay skewness growed in time which isn't logical because clay is harsh on old men...
 

Mustard

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't get these people who focus relentlessly on Nadal's clay resume compared to other surfaces, while they never say a word about those who win so much on hardcourts compared to clay. In early 1996, when Muster became world number 1, a lot of whinging about Muster on clay, yet hardly anything about all of Agassi's titles in the previous year being on hardcourt.
 

beard

Legend
I don't get these people who focus relentlessly on Nadal's clay resume compared to other surfaces, while they never say a word about those who win so much on hardcourts compared to clay. In early 1996, when Muster became world number 1, a lot of whinging about Muster on clay, yet hardly anything about all of Agassi's titles in the previous year being on hardcourt.
Off course, and you are welcomed to make thread on those interesting topics so we can discuss... I would gladly, as his fan, talk on Novak's clay resume...
 

beard

Legend
Crazy that he won only 3 titles off clay in a whole decade, 2 of them were because he had cupcake draws.

He couldn't win a single AO or Wimbledon title in Djokovic's era while Djokovic demolished him twice at RG o_O
Fact. But Nadal is too good that to happen, I mean he dismantled Novak at USO 13 after all, he is great on hard... And he won 2 Wimbledon titles, against Federer once, just to disappear totally, and in the meantime Novak won 6 titles... Strange...
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Fact. But Nadal is too good that to happen, I mean he dismantled Novak at USO 13 after all, he is great on hard... And he won 2 Wimbledon titles, against Federer once, just to disappear totally, and in the meantime Novak won 6 titles... Strange...
And as long as Novak has been playing, he only has 2 FO and 3 USO :unsure: all of them have places they aren't exactly amazing at, relax.
 

nachiket nolefam

Hall of Fame
No one takes clay away, Nadal is awesome at clay, but how's possible that goat contender didn't translate clay greatness to other surfaces? And clay skewness growed in time which isn't logical because clay is harsh on old men...
Nadal is not one trick pony but he has less tricks than other ATGs maybe which is why it became harder and harder over time.
 

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
Nadal is not one trick pony but he has less tricks than other ATGs maybe which is why it became harder and harder over time.
Rafa without clay....

Olympics Gold (Djoker nor Fed have), 7 slams, 11 masters... for a total of 26 no clay titles... in an era with the two best HC players and the two best grass players...

What. The. Hell. Are. You. Talking. About.

Propaganda artists.

 

nachiket nolefam

Hall of Fame
Rafa without clay....

Olympics Gold (Djoker nor Fed have), 7 slams, 11 masters... for a total of 26 no clay titles... in an era with the two best HC players and the two best grass players...

What. The. Hell. Are. You. Talking. About.

Propaganda artists.

That puts him way below big 3. Djokovic, Federer and Sampras.
 

Autodidactic player

Professional
If you take away his clay majors he’d still be 13th in the ATG majors winners list. He’s no one trick pony.
True! If you took away his clay majors and his hard court majors he'd still be automatic for the Hall of Fame. (2 Wimbledon titles, 36 masters titles, 5 Davis cups, Olympic gold in singles and doubles, etc.) He's the greatest clay court player of all time but even without clay he'd be in the top 50 of all time.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Crazy that he won only 3 titles off clay in a whole decade, 2 of them were because he had cupcake draws.

He couldn't win a single AO or Wimbledon title in Djokovic's era while Djokovic demolished him twice at RG o_O
And Djokovic never won RG or Wimbledon during Nadals prime.

We can all play this game.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
As players get older they become more dependent on their strengths and more vulnerable in their weaknesses. Djokovic and Federer also relied more on their favored surfaces as their careers went along, Djokovic’s scenario just looks different because he got comfortable on grass later in his career and there’s been no competition on the surface for years. Whereas you have to either peak (Nadal AO09) or get lucky with circumstances or draw (Fed RG09, Novak RG21, Nadal’s recent USOs) to win where you’re not at your natural advantage
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
so you are saying 2011, 18, 19 was not Rafa prime,
End of Nadal’s prime was first half of 2014

End of movement peak was Madrid 09. He had a further drop off with the hamstring injury in 2011, then a bigger one around 2014. Since his movement was the main weapon that allowed him to hang with Fedovic off clay, that’s why he hasn’t beaten either of them off the surface in years
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
Im saying exactly that.

Everyone knows his best years were pre 2010.

Just because he won important tournaments after then, doesnt mean he was still the best version of himself.

Go look at videos from 2006 and compare with 2011 if you dont believe me.
Ok so I can say Novak was out of prime outside 2011 and was never in prime after or before that, so Rafa in short never defeated prime Novak
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
End of Nadal’s prime was first half of 2014

End of movement peak was Madrid 09. He had a further drop off with the hamstring injury in 2011, then a bigger one around 2014. Since his movement was the main weapon that allowed him to hang with Fedovic off clay, that’s why he hasn’t beaten either of them off the surface in years
Anybody who finish year end number one with 2 slam will always be in his prime, you can say not his peak but not prime lol
 
Top