Strobe Lights
Semi-Pro
I'd say the fact that he is 7-0 against both Federer and Djokovic in best-of-5 set clay court matches answers this question. Uniquely incredible on a single surface unlike any other player in tennis history.
Rafael Nadal on clay - Utter dominance or a weak era for clay court players?
- Thread starter Down_the_line
- Start date
I'd say the fact that he is 7-0 against both Federer and Djokovic in best-of-5 set clay court matches answers this question. Uniquely incredible on a single surface unlike any other player in tennis history.
Down_the_line
G.O.A.T.
Uh, it's a different situation but the same principle! There's no fallacy at all. Nadal dominated on clay for a decade because he was unquestionably on another level from the rest of his competition, not necessarily because his competition was mediocre. Federer dominated and won a whack of Slams during his prime because he was unquestionably on another level from his peers, not because his peers were mediocre.
Or, Nadal fans, did Nadal have an easy ride to 9 French Open titles? You choose.
Down_the_line
G.O.A.T.
I agree. The whole premise of this thread is completely rhetorical, by the way.
Mayonnaise
Banned
3 years vs 10 years..... Sure Nadal lost a handful of times but hey, apples to oranges
Mayonnaise
Banned
Not 3 years. It was the same field from 2000-2007. That's 8 years.
Personally, I don't take any credit away from Federer for his 17 majors. He won them all fair and square. What I have more of a problem with is people putting emphasis on weeks at no.1 to compare Federer to Nadal. That's where the comparatively weak era has to be mentioned, imo. It's just harder to be the number one player starting in 2008 or so. I don't know how you can argue that there isn't currently more competition for the number 1 ranking than there was from 2004-2007. When you have 4 top guys going deep at a majority of the big tournaments you can't slip for even a moment or someone will take the number 1 ranking. How does Andy Murray deserve 0 weeks at number 1 when both Hewitt and Roddick have been there. The competition today is just too steep.
Last edited:
Down_the_line
G.O.A.T.
I'll give you this, simply because it's obvious the current field is more 'top heavy' with 3 - I don't know if Murray is one of the Big 4 anymore - great champions dominating the game and jockeying for the #1 position. Yes, Federer is getting older, but it's also clear he started to face more resistance when Djokovic entered the equation and Nadal started developing into the all time great he is now (ie. from 2008 on).
Civility. Compromise. I love it!
I'll give you this, simply because it's obvious the current field is more 'top heavy' with 3 - I don't know if Murray is one of the Big 4 anymore - great champions dominating the game and jockeying for the #1 position. Yes, Federer is getting older, but it's also clear he started to face more resistance when Djokovic entered the equation and Nadal started developing into the all time great he is now (ie. from 2008 on).
Civility. Compromise. I love it!
Thanks for the kind words
And yes, that is my main argument that today the game is more top-heavy. Though people will argue that's because the entire field just got worse. Or surface homogenization... though I think that would help everyone? Either way, it's nearly impossible to prove a strong vs. a weak era. If there is any difference, it is miniscule. But when talking about the GOAT, or just the greatest of this era, we have to look at everything under a microscope. It's crazy how close it is between the 2 of them.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Wow, best way I've seen it put. I agree 100%.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
And one must now ask themselves, WHY are these guys always getting to the late stages of majority of tournaments? Because they're all consistently playing high level tennis. Where was that from 04-07?
You won't have Ljubicic and Blake in top 4 that's for sure. Ferrer only gets there from Nadal being out injured for 7 months and Murray being out from back surgery in conjunction with Federer finally declining in 2013.
Let's face it, we know the competition from 08-present is stronger than 04-07. Fed fans just can't admit it because it makes it look like Fed's not as good as they claim.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
You are saying as if RFederer wasn't consistent during '04-'07. He made atleast SF/F of almost every tournament he used to enter and the competition outside the top 4 was actually much higher than what it is now, therefore more chances of being upset before a SF and still he maintained his consistency across ALL surfaces all round the year.
TBH, if RFederer were in his prime now I have very little doubt he wouldn't be No. 1 in this era. Maybe the point difference would be close, but that's it!
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Yes old Federer and Murray, who has only ever made more than 2 slam semis in a season during the surface homogenization era twice in his career, should be strong competition for the #1 ranking.
In Murray's best season, he made 3 semis or better (with 1 slam win), but didn't win a single masters. He actually only made it past the quarters of 2 masters series that year. Murray was never serious competition for #1. Not for Federer or Nadal. And old Federer should not be competition. The fact that he obtained the #1 ranking in 2012 after Wimbledon is a black mark on Nadal.
Nadal has never had more than 1 legitimate threat for the #1 ranking. And he has only himself to blame for hardly ever winning anything off clay.
In Murray's best season, he made 3 semis or better (with 1 slam win), but didn't win a single masters. He actually only made it past the quarters of 2 masters series that year. Murray was never serious competition for #1. Not for Federer or Nadal. And old Federer should not be competition. The fact that he obtained the #1 ranking in 2012 after Wimbledon is a black mark on Nadal.
Nadal has never had more than 1 legitimate threat for the #1 ranking. And he has only himself to blame for hardly ever winning anything off clay.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I say a little of both, because Nadal has stopped players like Federer and Djokovic from becoming multiple French Open champions. Without him would it be a strong era? Think about it.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Oh really?
RFederer and NDjokovic on clay has a total of 1 slam and many of you claim it was a fluke, so that's equivalent to 0 slam.
OTOH, LHewitt and ARoddick has a combined two slams on HC and one on grass.
Plus the competition on HC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on clay. It's clear as a crystal, its not even debatable.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Murray constantly stopped by Federer, Nadal or Djokovic.
If he had Hewitt, Roddick and a cripple old Agassi as comeptition, he'd dominate. Sound familiar?
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Then please enlighten me why the critics tear down RFederer? Without him, LHewitts, ARoddicks, MSafins would be sitting at 4-6 slams each.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
When did Murray constantly stop anybody? I only ever remember him winning slam finals against Novak, who can't win a slam final to save his life these days.
Mental midget with no weapons being a part of the "big 4" is a testament to how weak this era is.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
You don't count the slams they've won.
Roddick is a better grass courter than Djokovic, yet Djokovic has a Wimbledon title.
If not for Nadal, those 2 would both have 4-5 RG titles EACH.
Would Hewitt and Roddick have 4-5 HC titles each if not for Federer? Of course not, despite there being more opportunities with 2 HC majors and only 1 clay.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
What's that got to do with it? I could easily see Murray taking WIM10 if not for Nadal. Or AO10 if not for Federer, or AO11 and 13 if not for Novak.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
So if you remove 3 players from Murray's era, he'd end up with a few more slams?
Lets count how many slams Roddick would have if we removed Federer and Hewitt from his generation.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
I was talking about overall slams, not just HC. How many Wimbledon titles would ARoddick have without RFederer? Same goes for USO and AO.
And trust me, no offense to AMurray or NDjokovic, but if they played during '04-'07 they wouldn't have won any Wimbledon either. The same goes for USO.
AO is debatable since the surface was rebound ace. I will give you '06, but no was stopping the '04 or '07 version or MSafin version in '05.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
So you couldn't answer my question? Cool.
I originally (and quite clearly) said Federer and Djokovic >>>>>>> Hewitt and Roddick on HC. Not my fault you can't read.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
For sure. Federer would have obliterated them both at Wimbledon in his prime.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Just like he obliterated Nadal. Oh wait, hang on a sec he barely won 07 and lost 08...
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Please. Hewitt, Roddick or Safin wouldn't be sitting at that many slams. Hewitt would have 3 maybe 4, Roddick 3 maybe 4 and Safin at about 2 or 3. Nadal and Djokovic would eventually come along, Hewitt is still going to decline rapidly, Safin is still going to be injury prone and not motivated, and Roddick is still not going to be as good as Nadal and Djokovic. Maybe he could sneak in a slam if Nadal fell early and he happened to have Djokovic in the final, apart from that he'd have no chance against that duo. Add to the fact that Murray would be getting stronger and would eventually beat Roddick himself.
People overexaggerate the weakness of Federer's earlier competition but none of them were GOAT contenders that's for sure.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal is a different match-up. Djokovic and Murray would have been no match for prime Federer at Wimbledon, come on! Murray is basically the Hewitt of this era, at least so far.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Weak Andy Murray couldn't beat Federer in a slam until grandpa was 32 years old.
He couldn't win a single set against post-prime Federer in their slam matches in 2008 and 2010. Even Baghdatis did better than that :lol: He had to wait until his 2012 peak to get 1 set off of 31 year old Fed.
Hewitt and Roddick at least won sets against him. And they did it against peak Federer. And Safin managed to beat him once.
And you think this mental midget pusher would dominate tennis in any era?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Well seeing that JC Ferrero took a set from him in 07 and Rochus almost beat him in Halle 06, I'd say they'd have a chance if they play their best.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Lol really? 2012 says hi :lol:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Weak Andy Murray couldn't beat Federer in a slam until grandpa was 32 years old.
He couldn't win a single set against post-prime Federer in their slam matches in 2008 and 2010. Even Baghdatis did better than that :lol: He had to wait until his 2012 peak to get 1 set off of 31 year old Fed.
Hewitt and Roddick at least won sets against him. And they did it against peak Federer. And Safin managed to beat him once.
And you think this mental midget pusher would dominate tennis in any era?
He'd dominate Hewitt and Roddick. They might get a few wins against him here and there, but majority of the time Murray would own their punk arses. Think back to WIM06, what happened to your champion Roddick when he faced pre-pube Murray?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Yeah 2012 where Murray embarrassed Federer on center court says hi.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
ARoddick 4 slams? Let's see:
Wimbledon '04, '05, '09 (and maybe '03)
USO '06
That's 5 slams there.
Ofcourse none of them are GOAT contenders (its a no brainer) but neither are NDjokovic or AMurray
Last edited by a moderator:
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Who cares about taking a set? All great players lose sets. Didn't Nadal almost lose to Isner at the FO a couple of years ago? Also, who cares about a tune-up like Halle. It means nothing. Djokovic and Murray would have had NO chance vs Federer between 2004-2007 at Wimbledon. I can't believe you are actually trying to make a cogent argument to the contrary.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
And guess what, which tournament was it? and how long was the SF?
Forget all that, was RFederer in the same shape as he was in '04-'07?
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
About the same thing that happened when several years post-prime Roddick owned Murray at Wimbledon in 2009. The difference being that Roddick actually had a chance at winning Wimbledon after beating Murray.
Murray's status in this era is inflated because everyone below the big 4 has been a joke for so long. Him making 2 RG semis while never beating a top 20 player on clay in his career is a joke in itself.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Murray wouldn't dominate either of them. Murray is not a better player than Hewitt and is slightly better than Roddick. In terms of play, they are also on a similar level, and many people forget the fact that Safin was better than either Hewitt or Roddick and he could beat Murray a lot of the time too.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
What about wimbledon '09 when the opposite thing happened?
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
The 31 year old Federer you mean? The fact of the matter is that Murray and Djokovic have no business losing to ancient Federer EVER. It is embarrassing that they both still lose to him at all.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
The name of the tournament doesn't matter. The grass on center court remains the same pal.
All I'm saying is, on a good day both Novak and Murray would have a chance. Fed wasn't always playing his best at WIM, he's just lucky the level of competition was so weak that he won all his matches comfortably anyway.
Until of course, Nadal started entering the Wimbledon picture...
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He's not beating Philippoussis in 2003 or Hewitt in 2005 at Wimbledon. That's 4 slams total.ARoddick 4 slams? Let's see:
Wimbledon '04, '05, '09 (and maybe '03)
USO '06
That's 5 slams there.
Ofcourse none of them are GOAT contenders (its a no brainer) but neither are NDjokovic or AMurray
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Peak 23 year old Federer almost lost to 34 year old ancient Agassi, so be careful what you say, you might wreck yourself...
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
The difference is that 31 yr old actually beat AMurray in a slam (and then lost in Olympics) but AAgassi never beat a prime RFederer.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
And the difference is AAgassi is ELEVEN YEARS older than RFederer.
AMurray and NDjokovic are not ELEVEN YEARS younger than RFederer.
Also RFederer was playing his peak level tennis in that tournament. NDjokovic and AMurray were not in WIM12...
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
He would've won both of those.
Roddick is 3-0 against Hewitt on grass. In 2004, he straight setted Hewitt in Queens. He was by far the 2nd best grass courter from 2003-2005. He would've won all 3 of those without Federer. Nevermind 2009.
Last edited:
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, Murray and Djokovic are great competition these days. Losing in slams to 90 year old Federer and a Nadal who was off in the Twilight Zone for seven months and then returned. Djokovic and Murray are in a different league to Federer and Nadal. Don't make Djokovic and Murray out to be some kind of superior competition to great players in previous eras. They aren't.
