Rafael Nadal on clay - Utter dominance or a weak era for clay court players?

[Down_the_line]

This thread is sort of an extension of the "Weak Era" thread.

A lot of people suggest that Federer's era in general was fairly weak, leading some others to suggest that by the same rationale would apply to the last decade for clay court players specifically.

Major clay court titles during the Nadal era:

'Major clay court titles' include the French Open, Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters, Hamburg Masters (2005-2008 ), Mutua Madrid Open (2009-present) and the Internazionali BNL d'Italia.

Rafael Nadal - 28
Novak Djokovic - 5
Roger Federer - 5
Tommy Robredo - 1
Stan Wawrinka - 1


What do you all think? Is Nadal quite simply a one of a kind clay court player who dominated the field or has he just been the best of a bunch of sad sack clay court players in the last decade?

Whichever side you're on, the fact that only 4 players outside of Nadal have won a significant clay court title during the last decade, two of which won 1 single title, is astonishing!

 

[NatF]

This thread is sort of an extension of the "Weak Era" thread.

A lot of people suggest that Federer's era in general was fairly weak, leading some others to suggest that by the same rationale would apply to the last decade for clay court players specifically.

Major clay court titles during the Nadal era:

'Major clay court titles' include the French Open, Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters, Hamburg Masters (2005-2008 ), Mutua Madrid Open (2009-present) and the Internazionali BNL d'Italia.

Rafael Nadal - 28
Novak Djokovic - 5
Roger Federer - 5
Tommy Robredo - 1
Stan Wawrinka - 1


What do you all think? Is Nadal quite simply a one of a kind clay court player who dominated the field or has he just been the best of a bunch of sad sack clay court players in the last decade?

Whichever side you're on, the fact that only 4 players outside of Nadal have won a significant clay court title during the last decade, two of which won 1 single title, is astonishing!

Federer has 7 of those titles, he has 4 Hamburg, 2 Madrid and a FO.

 

[Down_the_line]

Federer has 7 of those titles, he has 4 Hamburg, 2 Madrid and a FO.

I only accumulated titles from 2005 on, aka the Nadal era. Sorry, should have been more clear on that.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Nadal came right after Kuerten, Coria, Gaudio, Ferrero, etc.

There are no other good specialists on crushed brick since 2005.

This could be due to a drastic decline in popularity of tennis in latin America. There are really no good players from there anymore except Del Potro.

 

[NatF]

I only accumulated titles from 2005 on, aka the Nadal era. Sorry, should have been more clear on that.

Ok I see, I wouldn't say it was a weak clay era too. Clearly though if Federer's era of 2003-2007 was weak then the clay era is also weak. I don't believe beating hard court and grass champions over and over makes your clay competition extra strong

 

[Down_the_line]

Ok I see, I wouldn't say it was a weak clay era too. Clearly though if Federer's era of 2003-2007 was weak then the clay era is also weak. I don't believe beating hard court and grass champions over and over makes your clay competition extra strong

Exactly. I'm a Federer fan but I prefer to give credit to Nadal for his unbelievable clay court dominance. Anyone who sees it differently, in this discussion and the Federer discussion, is just discrediting these champions and diminishing the history we're witnessing. That's just my opinion though.

 

[NatF]

Exactly. I'm a Federer fan but I prefer to give credit to Nadal for his unbelievable clay court dominance. Anyone who sees it differently, in this discussion and the Federer discussion, is just discrediting these champions and diminishing the history we're witnessing. That's just my opinion though.

I think both era's are pretty medium, some strong years and some lesser years. But overall neither are weak.

 

[Mayonnaise]

The people who diminish Federer's achievements by claiming the field was weak in 2004-2007 can't have it both ways. If that field was weak, the Claycourt field is just as weak, if not weaker. Even Federer did not dominate Tennis in 2004-2007 as much as Nadal has Clay. Like I said, you can't eat the cake and have it too. If Federer's 11 Slams from 2004-2007 were against weak competition, so are Nadal's 9 Slams at the French Open.

 

[Game Set Match Mr.Federer]

Are you guys kidding? Because Federer, Djokovic, Ferrer, Robredo, as well as Gasquet, Verdasco, and Tsonga are not Jaw dropping clay court players?

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Are you guys kidding? Because Federer, Djokovic, Ferrer, Robredo, as well as Gasquet, Verdasco, and Tsonga are not Jaw dropping clay court players?

Almagro is the most significant other clay specialist of this era and he has made the semis of a masters exactly once... he can't even make it out of the 1st or 2nd round consistently.

That says it all right there.

Ferrer is a bit of a clay specialist but he has been a pigeon to every top player his entire career.

 

[agreed]

Djoko will dominate on every surface. It doesn't matter what Rafael lost early at slams, etc. and cancelled slams and masters1000 that he knew he'd lose to djoko at. Djoko is the rival. Not federer. Djoko dealt with his illness and injuries with courage while fed cried buckets because nadal didn't get sick and exhausted.

 

[monfed]

Weak clay era. No CC specialists.

 

[bullfan]

Djoko will dominate on every surface. It doesn't matter what Rafael lost early at slams, etc. and cancelled slams and masters1000 that he knew he'd lose to djoko at. Djoko is the rival. Not federer. Djoko dealt with his illness and injuries with courage while fed cried buckets because nadal didn't get sick and exhausted.

Omg, are you serious?

 

[kiki]

In his first years of dominance, he had solid or great cc opposition, Coria,Ferrero,Gaudio were better than the current croop of Ferrer,Soderling and Almagro.It has gotten worse 5-6 years ago but in his first years it was almost as good as the 90´s.

 

[tennisaddict]

In his first years of dominance, he had solid or great cc opposition, Coria,Ferrero,Gaudio were better than the current croop of Ferrer,Soderling and Almagro.It has gotten worse 5-6 years ago but in his first years it was almost as good as the 90´s.

Is it 'in his first years' or 'in his first year' ?...

 

[drm025]

People claiming fed dominated in a weak era are referring to a 4-year period where hewitt and roddick were roughly among the best 4 players at the top of the game. After this period, the big 4 emerged and all big titles were won by them. Thus, the era somewhat changed. Nadals clay dominance has lasted for 10 years across this change in era. I dont know how a weak era can span 10 years, but ok. The top players are changing over this time period. The same cant be said for federer's period of dominance, he only dominated one field. Pretty convenient that his prime only lasted for one field of players.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Is it 'in his first years' or 'in his first year' ?...

Ferrero was washed up by 2005. His prime was 2000-2004, but still managed to beat hardcore peak Nadal on clay in 2008.

Gaudio was only relevant a couple years and Coria's career was done after 2005.

So, in fact, he didn't have to deal with them at all. Just Coria for a year who retired because he forgot how to serve. And Gaudio in 3 matches from 2005-2006 in masters and lower level tournaments.

 

[-snake-]

Weak era.
10 chars.

 

[tennisaddict]

Like I said, you can't eat the cake and have it too. If Federer's 11 Slams from 2004-2007 were against weak competition, so are Nadal's 9 Slams at the French Open.

QFT."...".....

 

[WhiskeyEE]

People claiming fed dominated in a weak era are referring to a 4-year period where hewitt and roddick were roughly among the best 4 players at the top of the game. After this period, the big 4 emerged and all big titles were won by them. Thus, the era somewhat changed. Nadals clay dominance has lasted for 10 years across this change in era. I dont know how a weak era can span 10 years, but ok. The top players are changing over this time period. The same cant be said for federer's period of dominance, he only dominated one field. Pretty convenient that his prime only lasted for one field of players.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=502124

 

[Mayonnaise]

People claiming fed dominated in a weak era are referring to a 4-year period where hewitt and roddick were roughly among the best 4 players at the top of the game. After this period, the big 4 emerged and all big titles were won by them. Thus, the era somewhat changed. Nadals clay dominance had lasted for 10 years across this change in era. I dont know how a weak era can span 10 years, but ok. The top players are changing over this time period. The same cant be said for federer's period of dominance, he only dominated one field.

People claiming Nadal dominated in a weak field are referring to one surface where non-French Open champions like Coria and Djokovic were at the top of their game. It can be argued that it's not a coincidence that Nadal has achieved relatively little outside that weak Claycourt field. Federer's dominance spanned multiple surfaces and not just clay. I dont know how a weak era can span multiple surfaces for 8 years, from 2000-2007. Slam Champions who were surface-specialists like Safin (2-time Hardcourt Slam Champion) , Hewitt (Wimbledon and US Open Champion), Roddick (US Open Champion), Agassi (Career Slam), and even Nadal (GOAT Claycourter) were competing in this time across different surfaces. The same can't be said for Nadal's dominance on Clay, where he only dominated a Claycourt field full of people who didn't have any success on Clay.

 

[Mayonnaise]

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=502124

LOL, great point.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

People claiming Nadal dominated in a weak field are referring to one surface where non-French Open champions like Coria and Djokovic were at the top of their game. It can be argued that it's not a coincidence that Nadal has achieved relatively little outside that weak Claycourt field. Federer's dominance spanned multiple surfaces and not just clay. I dont know how a weak era can span multiple surfaces. Slam Champions who were surface-specialists like Safin (2-time Hardcourt Slam Champion) , Hewitt (Wimbledon and US Open Champion), Roddick (US Open Champion), Agassi (Career Slam), and even Nadal (GOAT Claycourter) were competing in this time across different surfaces. The same can't be said for Nadal's dominance on Clay, where he only dominated a Claycourt field full of people who didn't have any success on Clay.

The thread I posted addressed the issue that the alleged weak era should extend back to at least 2000. But Fed haters only bring up 2004-2007 since that's when Federer was winning everything.

The big 4 dominance emerged because of surface homogenization. Before that, there were surface specialists and less consistency. It doesn't mean the competition at each individual event was weak. Definitely the opposite in certain cases like on grass and clay.

 

[Mayonnaise]

The thread I posted addressed the issue that the alleged weak era should extend back to at least 2000. But Fed haters only bring up 2004-2007 since that's when Federer was winning everything.

The big 4 dominance emerged because of surface homogenization. Before that, there were surface specialists and less consistency. It doesn't mean the competition at each individual event was weak. Definitely the opposite in certain cases like on grass and clay.

I was just spinning the timeframe argument to the surfaces. I think it's a very flawed argument.

 

[octogon]

Nobody buys the weak clay era theory. Nadal has dominated the red stuff for close to a decade. It only takes a bit of common sense to come to the conclusion that he'd dominate clay in any era.

This is why you never hear anything about "weak clay era" in the mainstream media or among ex-pros. You do hear about the general "weak era" in regarded to Fed's first couple of years of dominance, for obvious reasons. Fed couldn' t sustain dominance over a stronger field, wheras Nadal remains the best clay court player on the planet, year in, year out.

Or maybe Rafa just has the longest "prime" in tennis history, as some like to claim, and Fed the shortest. But I kind of doubt it

 

[Mayonnaise]

Fed couldn' t sustain dominance over a stronger field, wheras Nadal remains the best clay court player on the planet, year in, year out.

Nadal couldn't sustain dominance over a stronger surface, whereas Federer dominated Grass and Hardcourts.

 

[drm025]

The thread I posted addressed the issue that the alleged weak era should extend back to at least 2000. But Fed haters only bring up 2004-2007 since that's when Federer was winning everything.

The big 4 dominance emerged because of surface homogenization. Before that, there were surface specialists and less consistency. It doesn't mean the competition at each individual event was weak. Definitely the opposite in certain cases like on grass and clay.

You talk about surface homogenization like its a fact. Look at nadal's results the last couple of years... The big 4 are just amazingly consistent and impressive tennis players, the surface doesnt matter. It still doesnt change the fact that Fed probably dominated for the shortest amount of time of any all-time great. And this period coincidentally ended with the emergence of the big 4. Its just all too convenient for me.

 

[drm025]

Nadal couldn't sustain dominance over a stronger surface, whereas Federer dominated Grass and Hardcourts.

he dominated them for 4 years against one field of players. After winning 11 of 12, he went on to win 4 of the next 19.

 

[Mayonnaise]

You talk about surface homogenization like its a fact. Look at nadal's results the last couple of years... The big 4 are just amazingly consistent and impressive tennis players, the surface doesnt matter. It still doesnt change the fact that Fed probably dominated for the shortest amount of time of any all-time great. And this period coincidentally ended with the emergence of the big 4. Its just all too convenient for me.

So you're saying it was a weak era from 2000-2007? 8 years?

 

[octogon]

You talk about surface homogenization like its a fact. Look at nadal's results the last couple of years... The big 4 are just amazingly consistent and impressive tennis players, the surface doesnt matter. It still doesnt change the fact that Fed probably dominated for the shortest amount of time of any all-time great. And this period coincidentally ended with the emergence of the big 4. Its just all too convenient for me.

Quoted For The Truth.

 

[Mayonnaise]

he dominated them for 4 years against one field of players

Just like Nadal dominated one surface, and that's it.

 

[Mayonnaise]

It still doesnt change the fact that Fed probably dominated for the shortest amount of time of any all-time great.

Federer dominated for 4 years. Nadal dominated for 1 year, in 2010 Or are you saying Nadal is not an all-time great?

 

[drm025]

So you're saying it was a weak era from 2000-2007? 8 years?

Im saying that in comparison to 2008 and on, for sure. Federer's birthday set him up well.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

You talk about surface homogenization like its a fact.

It is a fact.

Look at nadal's results the last couple of years... The big 4 are just amazingly consistent and impressive tennis players, the surface doesnt matter.

It still doesnt change the fact that Fed probably dominated for the shortest amount of time of any all-time great. And this period coincidentally ended with the emergence of the big 4. Its just all too convenient for me.

Federer holds the record for slams won after 26. Who had a longer period of dominance on more than 1 surface? Just Sampras, but his USO slams were more dispersed. It isn't like he won 8 in a row.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Im saying that in comparison to 2008 and on, for sure. Federer's birthday set him up well.

So 2000-2007 can be a weak field, but 2005-2014 can't be a weak field on one surface? :-?

 

[Federator]

The truth of the matter is that Federer actually dominated quite a strong era on hard and grass, and Nadal dominated an extremely weak clay era.

Proof? In 2010, Nadal's best year, Nadal was beaten by a bunch of guys from Federer's era, Ljubicic, Roddick, Davydenko and others. And not only that, these guys were old, way past their prime and they still beat peak Nadal. If those guys were at their best, they would have destroyed Nadal many times, just like they did from 2005-2007, which is why Nadal did not win any slams off clay in that time. Come 2008, Federer and those guys were old and past their prime, which allowed the likes of Nadal, Murray and company to start winning more.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

The truth of the matter is that Federer actually dominated quite a strong era on hard and grass, and Nadal dominated an extremely weak clay era.

Proof? In 2010, Nadal's best year, Nadal was beaten by a bunch of guys from Federer's era, Ljubicic, Roddick, Davydenko and others. And not only that, these guys were old, way past their prime and they still beat peak Nadal. If those guys were at their best, they would have destroyed Nadal many times, just like they did from 2005-2007, which is why Nadal did not win any slams off clay in that time. Come 2008, Federer and those guys were old and past their prime, which allowed the likes of Nadal, Murray and company to start winning more.

Don't forget weak era slam finalist Baghdatis who beat Nadal in Cinci a couple weeks before Nadal won USO.

Of course, at 2010 USO, he avoided all of these "weak era" guys who were cleaning peak Nadal's clock on HC even in old age.

 

[Mayonnaise]

The truth of the matter is that Federer actually dominated quite a strong era on hard and grass, and Nadal dominated an extremely weak clay era.

Proof? In 2010, Nadal's best year, Nadal was beaten by a bunch of guys from Federer's era, Ljubicic, Roddick, Davydenko and others. And not only that, these guys were old, way past their prime and they still beat peak Nadal. If those guys were at their best, they would have destroyed Nadal many times, just like they did from 2005-2007, which is why Nadal did not win any slams off clay in that time. Come 2008, Federer and those guys were old and past their prime, which allowed the likes of Nadal, Murray and company to start winning more.

LOL, you raise a good point. People say, "it's not a coincidence Federer stopped dominating with the emergence of the big 4." What if I say, "it's not a coincidence that Nadal/Djokovic started dominating with the decline of Federer, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, and Davydenko."

 

[WalterWhite]

so I guess now Nadal is not the Clay King..weak era guys lmao

 

[WhiskeyEE]

LOL, you raise a good point. People say, "it's not a coincidence Federer stopped dominating with the emergence of the big 4." What if I say, "it's not a coincidence that Nadal/Djokovic started dominating with the decline of Federer, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, and Davydenko."

Federer lasted a lot longer than his contemporaries.

People who expected Federer to keep posting multi-slam seasons in his late 20s are now (or will soon be) eating humble pie with Nadal's rapid decline.

 

[Mayonnaise]

so I guess now Nadal is not the Clay King..weak era guys lmao

Weak era is circular reasoning that is used by people to argue that a player who has achieved less is greater than a player that has achieved more because the competition of the less successful player has won more than the competition of the more successful player.

 

[Finesse4sum]

You talk about surface homogenization like its a fact. Look at nadal's results the last couple of years... The big 4 are just amazingly consistent and impressive tennis players, the surface doesnt matter. It still doesnt change the fact that Fed probably dominated for the shortest amount of time of any all-time great. And this period coincidentally ended with the emergence of the big 4. Its just all too convenient for me.

I still don't see a big 4 after 2008.

Djokovic didnt make another slam final until 2010 at the last slam of the year.

After Murray's first final in 2008 he only made 2 finals in the next 12 slams with no success accompanying those additional finals.

So basically we've had a true big 4 since 2012 a year where ******* beat 2 of the other big 4 to win Wimby and Murray snagged his first slam.

Fed's era being weak = Nadal's era being weak

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I still don't see a big 4 after 2008.

Djokovic didnt make another slam final until 2010 at the last slam of the year.

After Murray's first final in 2008 he only made 2 finals in the next 12 slams with no success accompanying those additional finals.

So basically we've had a true big 4 since 2012 a year where ******* beat 2 of the other big 4 to win Wimby and Murray snagged his first slam.

Fed's era being weak = Nadal's era being weak

2013 - present has been extremely weak as well with top players all around 30+ years old. Wawrinka winning his first slam at 29 and Ferrer making his first slam final at over 30.

The strong era maybe lasted from 2011-2012. And by then Federer was already old and a shell of his past self. He still managed to snag the #1 ranking at 31 in the supposed strongest era ever in 2012.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Utter dominance.

 

[Mayonnaise]

The strong era maybe lasted from 2011-2012. And by then Federer was already old and a shell of his past self. He still managed to snag the #1 ranking at 31 in the supposed strongest era ever in 2012.

Must not have been a strong era if 31 year-old weak era champion was #1

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Must not have been a strong era if 31 year-old weak era champion was #1

You're right. Just 2011 then.

But then again, in 2011 30 year old Federer beat Novak 2.0 (who according to some was playing the best tennis of any player ever) at RG and almost beat him again at USO. So I guess 2011 wasn't that strong either.

Maybe the strong era was just 2010, when world #3 Novak didn't beat a single top 10 player until USO. And when Berdych somehow made a slam final.

 

[Mayonnaise]

You're right. Just 2011 then.

But then again, in 2011 30 year old Federer beat Novak 2.0 (who according to some was playing the best tennis of any player ever) at RG and almost beat him again at USO. So I guess 2011 wasn't that strong either.

Maybe the strong era was just 2010, when world #3 Novak didn't beat a single top 10 player until USO. And when Berdych somehow made a slam final.

Indeed. Vamos Rafa!

 

[Down_the_line]

There are so many good points in this thread, I don't know where to begin. But you all know who you are!

Before anyone accuses me of making this thread because I'm a Nadal hater, think again. It's the opposite and I'm making a point with it! I choose to credit Nadal for being the greatest clay court player tennis has ever seen and dominating as such, just like Federer deserves credit for his all time record of 17 majors, instead of over analyzing the eras and the competition etc.

 

[bullfan]

There are so many good points in this thread, I don't know where to begin. But you all know who you are!

Before anyone accuses me of making this thread because I'm a Nadal hater, think again. It's the opposite and I'm making a point with it! I choose to credit Nadal for being the greatest clay court player tennis has ever seen and dominating as such, just like Federer deserves credit for his all time record of 17 majors, instead of over analyzing the eras and the competition etc.

Why is it either or nothing with you? Nadal is without question the best dirtballer. Fed has 17 true, but it's a fallacy to make an argument for Nadal as a basis as an argument for Fed!

 

[xFedal]

utter dominance!