Nadals Best Seasons:

[clayman2000]

there have been many threads about Fed's best year, so I am going to rate Nadal's years since 05:

1. 2008
The obvious choice, won 2 slams, did the French-Wimby combo, semis in all slams, 3 Masters, Olympics, YE no 1

2. 2007
Won 3rd FO, maybe one of the best clay seasons ever, only 1 loss to Fed in final of Hamburg. 3 Masters, final at Wimby, semis at YEC.

3. 2009
Close to 07. Won a hardcourt slam, no 1 for half the year, 3 of 1st 4 Masters. Took 07 over this because of the Wimby final

4. 2005
Won the FO as a teen, won 4 Masters, 12 titles in total.

5. 2006
Won the FO, won 2 Masters, made Wimby final. Placed last because he did nothing of note after Wimby

 

[JoshDragon]

1. 2008
2. 2005
3. 2006
4. 2007
5. 2009

 

[CMM]

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

1. 2008
2. 2005
3. 2006
4. 2007
5. 2009

How was 06 better than 07? Rafa in 07 won 1 more masters title and pushed Federer closer in the Wimbledon final.

 

[JoshDragon]

How was 06 better than 07? Rafa in 07 won 1 more masters title and pushed Federer closer in the Wimbledon final.

Rafa won the majority of his matches against Roger in 2006 but not in 2007, not to mention 2007 was the beginning of his problems with Patellar tendinitis.

 

[anointedone]

1. 2008- no brainer

2. 2009- It still a special year as he was won his first hard court slam and was probably the best overall hard court player of the year, as much as I love Rafa something I doubt he will ever achieve again (not neccessarily the hard court slam but being the best hard courter overall of the year). Also while his clay court season wasnt up to his standards he still won Monte Carlo and Rome.

3. 2007- mostly because of Wimbledon and winning Indian Wells.

4. 2005- because of the hard court Masters success this year.

5. 2006- since no hard court Masters titles, and his Wimbledon while very impressive didnt compare to 2007 and 2008. I think he went undefeated on clay this year which was the only year he did, but still not enough to give the edge over other years.

 

[stapler]

1. 2008
2. 2007
3. 2005
4. 2009
5. 2006

 

[AM95]

1. 2008- no brainer

2. 2009- It still a special year as he was won his first hard court slam and was probably the best overall hard court player of the year, as much as I love Rafa something I doubt he will ever achieve again (not neccessarily the hard court slam but being the best hard courter overall of the year). Also while his clay court season wasnt up to his standards he still won Monte Carlo and Rome.

3. 2007- mostly because of Wimbledon and winning Indian Wells.

4. 2005- because of the hard court Masters success this year.

5. 2006- since no hard court Masters titles, and his Wimbledon while very impressive didnt compare to 2007 and 2008. I think he went undefeated on clay this year which was the only year he did, but still not enough to give the edge over other years.

buddy, what are you smoking?

Nadal won one slam, and one hc title. Federer made the finals of both hc slams, and the semi's of both IW and Miami. Not to mention that he won the "real slam", Cincinnati.

By far the best HC of the year was Murray, and thats coming from someone who cant stand the guy

 

[anointedone]

buddy, what are you smoking?

Nadal won one slam, and one hc title. Federer made the finals of both hc slams, and the semi's of both IW and Miami. Not to mention that he won the "real slam", Cincinnati.

By far the best HC of the year was Murray, and thats coming from someone who cant stand the guy

Murray went out 4th round in both hard court slams. It is a joke to call him the best hard court player of the year when he bombed majorly at the 2 biggest events of the year. Nadal is the best hard court player of the year for the simple fact he is the only one who won both a slam and a Masters title.

 

[Cyan]

1. 2008 Self explanatory
2. 2005 11 titles
3. 2009 Won a HC slam better than the usual clay slam
4. 2007 Better than 2006 because he won a Masters on HC
5. 2006 Won nothing important out of clay, Dubai is only mm

 

[akv89]

1. 2008
2. 2009
3. 2007
4. 2005
5. 2006

 

[pound cat]

1. 2008 Self explanatory
2. 2005 11 titles

4. 2007 Better than 2006 because he won a Masters on HC
5. 2006 Won nothing important out of clay, Dubai is only mm

3. 2009 Won a HC slam better than the usual clay slam, part of a DC team that won final , Part of a DC team of 4 winning players who won 5-0 for the first time since 1997, They are also the first country to successfully defend the title since the Swedes in 1998.

This guy is setting personal records all over the place.

I can't see Nadal, unlike Federer, trying to beat other peoples records ad infinitum. Different personalities.

 

[Mustard]

1. 2008
2 slams, 3 masters, an olympic gold and the world number 1 ranking, including a 32 match winning streak and doing the French Open/Wimbledon double for the first time since Borg in 1980.

2. 2005
11 tournament wins and an insane rise up the rankings in a very quick period of time. 1 slam and 4 masters titles.

3. 2007
1 slam and 3 masters titles, and pushing Federer very close in the Wimbledon final and was unfortunate to lose.

4. 2009
Up until mid to late May, 2009 looked on course to be Nadal's best year yet as he had already won a slam and 3 masters titles, but then suffered a big burnout, knee injuries and personal troubles at the most important time of the year, costing him the French Open, Wimbledon and the number 1 ranking.

5. 2006
Utterly dominant on clay and beat a peak Federer 4 times in a row. However, despite giving Federer a good game in the Wimbledon final and winning Dubai on hardcourt, his form elsewhere was a bit erratic and he won no title after the French Open as Federer cleaned up most tournaments.

 

[Mustard]

buddy, what are you smoking?

Nadal won one slam, and one hc title. Federer made the finals of both hc slams, and the semi's of both IW and Miami. Not to mention that he won the "real slam", Cincinnati.

By far the best HC of the year was Murray, and thats coming from someone who cant stand the guy

Nadal reached at least the quarter finals of every hardcourt tournament he played in 2009. Can Federer say the same? No. And Murray lost in the Round of 16 at the hardcourt slams, considerably worse performances than Nadal.

 

[TMF]

How can some of you put Rafa's 2005 > 2009? He's a better clay and hardcourt player than 2005. Sure, Rafa's had better results in 2005, but he's was such a one dimensional, there's alot for him to improve in 2005. If you had a 05 Rafa played in 2009, he would be slamless b/c I think the top ten players would be too much for him.

 

[OHBH]

Are behind him...

 

[Kunohara]

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

ha ha. Sure

 

[Mustard]

How can some of you put Rafa's 2005 > 2009? He's a better clay and hardcourt player than 2005. Sure, Rafa's had better results in 2005, but he's was such a one dimensional, there's alot for him to improve in 2005. If you had a 05 Rafa played in 2009, he would be slamless b/c I think the top ten players would be too much for him.

2005 was definitely a better year than 2009 for Rafa. Nadal won 79 matches in 2005 (Federer won 81), losing only 4 times for the rest of the year after starting his clay-court streak in Monte Carlo.

Nadal went 50-2 on clay in 2005, winning the French Open, Monte Carlo and Rome. In 2009, Nadal's gone 24-2 on clay, won Monte Carlo and Rome but failed to win the French Open. As for his 2005 hardcourt form, Nadal went 28-6 on hardcourt, won masters series titles in Montreal and Madrid and had what were then career best finishes at the Australian Open and the US Open. Hardly awful.