Since 2011, RNadal No Longer The Best Of His Generation

[Smasher08]

A superior distribution of trophies, imo. Not to mention numerical superiority

 

[Clarky21]

Good for Fed. I only posted that pic because Trasher08 is a colossal troll and deserved it.

 

[mistik]

ROFL, the moment your previous assertion is destroyed, you're off on your next Fed-hating troll post! :lol:

Funny how you don't feel the same about Nads' win at USO!! :lol:

They have never played in USA. Why should ı feel like it ??? He defeated toughest match up for him USA.,Which is Djokovic. Fed is just a give me player for Rafa on outdoors.

 

[Towser83]

Agreed on both counts, but I think Nole was almost running on fumes.

And to put everything in perspective, bear in mind that Sampras had Agassi nipping at his heels for the majority of his career (occasionally there was a guy called Krajicek), Nads has now been overtaken on a day-in-day-out basis by Nole and Murray. But no-one from that generation clawed back Fred.

That's not a knock against any of the other guys, but a testament to just how good the boy from Basel is.

(and btw, "Smasherer" gave me the best giggle!)

i got carried away with my "er"s and though, ah why not? Federer, Smasherer.. had a good ring lol

 

[zagor]

They have never played in USA. Why should ı feel like it ??? He defeated toughest match up for him USA.,Which is Djokovic. Fed is just a give me player for Rafa on outdoors.

Actually, the toughest USO match-up would be in-form Delpo who beat him 6-2 6-2 6-2, he was injured in 2010.

Novak was overall having a terrible year and was very low on confidence, certainly wasn't at his best that USO, next year he set things straight.

 

[Smasher08]

Good for Fed. I only posted that pic because Trasher08 is a colossal troll and deserved it.

:lol: Yeah right, whatever. :lol: The Nadochists sure don't like me, but that's their problem. And if you think I'm a "colossal troll" and you're not, that's just wonderful irony!! :lol:

 

[Smasher08]

Actually, the toughest USO match-up would be in-form Delpo who beat him 6-2 6-2 6-2, he was injured in 2010.

Novak was overall having a terrible year and was very low on confidence, certainly wasn't at his best that USO, next year he set things straight.

I remember the USO '09 matches well. First man to beat both Fred and Nads in a slam -- that's no small accomplishment.

Given his form this year, I wouldn't at all be surprised if he added another slam to his trophy cabinet in the next year or so.

 

[mistik]

Actually, the toughest USO match-up would be in-form Delpo who beat him 6-2 6-2 6-2, he was injured in 2010.

Novak was overall having a terrible year and was very low on confidence, certainly wasn't at his best that USO, next year he set things straight.

He was good enough to reach the final beating Fed saving match points. He cant be all that low confidence playing that badly,what ever you want to believe.

 

[RNadal]

If he's not the best, then who is? Of course he is.

 

[Smasher08]

He was good enough to reach the final beating Fed saving match points. He cant be all that low confidence playing that badly,what ever you want to believe.

He got lucky saving those MPs. Even he admits it. He didn't then have the confidence that he had after winning the Davis Cup.

The point is indisputable and obvious.

 

[Smasher08]

If he's not the best, then who is? Of course he is.

Sorry, RNadal. No matter what your kindly Tio tells you, you're no longer the in-form player of your generation.

You accomplished much and you will always have golf and fishing, but Nole is good now, no?

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Fed was the best of his generation until 07, since then he has mostly had to rely on Nadal injuries to snag some opportunistic slams.

 

[Smasher08]

Fed was the best of his generation until 07, since then he has mostly had to rely on Nadal injuries to snag some opportunistic slams.

Again, they're not the same generation. Nadal never had the chance to play Sampras, for example.

Or experience Wimbledon on fast grass.

 

[Omega_7000]

Fed was the best of his generation until 07, since then he has mostly had to rely on Nadal injuries to snag some opportunistic slams.

What did I just read? :shock:

Nadal was injured in all of the following majors???
2008 US Open
2009 FO
2010 AO
2012 Wimbledon

 

[Smasher08]

What did I just read? :shock:

Nadal was injured in all of the following majors???
2008 US Open
2009 FO
2010 AO
2012 Wimbledon

Lol absolutely! According to his apologists, every time he doesn't win a major it's because he's injured!! :lol:

 

[Omega_7000]

Lol absolutely! According to his apologists, every time he doesn't win a major it's because he's injured!! :lol:

Absolutely ridiculous! So he is injured all the time...This way basically if he wins, he comes out as a warrior and if he loses then, oh it's his knee...What a win-win situation created by the Nadal PR team to brainwash the masses...

 

[6-3 6-0]

I think the ATP ranking tells us who is the best since 2011. NDjokovic is undoubtedly the best, closely followed by RNadal and AMurray.

Majors since 2011:
NDjokovic - 5
RNadal - 3
AMurray - 2
RFederer - 1

Plus, NDjokovic is ranked No. 1 for longer than any other player since 2011.

 

[cc0509]

As always, your state of denial is hilarious! :lol:

OMG, what IS that picture? Not the most masculine looking picture of either person. :twisted:

 

[Nitish]

Nadal and Fed same generation. Lendl and Borg had an even greater age difference. Mac and Borg were 3 years apart while Nadal and fed z4 years.

Nadal is just better than Frd..and quite frankly so is Murray and joker.

It's becoming
Sinfully obvious tha Feds 17 slams happened because he was at the tight place at the right tine

Nadal disagrees
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/te...al-reveals-fears-Novak-Djokovic-isnt-one.html

'The thing that surprises me is that, sometimes, it seems people think I have four or five years more than Andy and Novak,' said Nadal. 'But in one week I am 27 — only one year older than them. Probably, it is because I have had a lot of important matches against Roger that you put me in that generation. But he’s five years older than me; my generation is Andy and Novak, that is the reality.'

 

[Smasher08]

I think the ATP ranking tells us who is the best since 2011. NDjokovic is undoubtedly the best, closely followed by RNadal and AMurray.

Majors since 2011:
NDjokovic - 5
RNadal - 3
AMurray - 2
RFederer - 1

Plus, NDjokovic is ranked No. 1 for longer than any other player since 2011.

Indeed, now subtract the player who's not part of that generation and you arrive at the original thesis. Adjust to reflect total major finals reached since July 2012 and we're in complete agreement.

 

[CMM]

If we assume Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are part of the same generation, then the first one is the best and will continue to be until Djokovic or Murray win 12+ Grand Slams.

 

[CMM]

you're just using the Murray win to try and knock Nadal down a bit. There might be genuine discussion here, but the reason for the post is because you hate Nadal. Come on man, be honest..

But the Murray win is good for Rafa.

 

[terribleIVAN]

Nonsense. The backhand looked as good as I have ever seen it at RG this year.

He made some great shots, but usually it lacked lenght and wasn't flat enough.
It cost him big time vs Darcis.

If you can't see he's constantly trying to turn it ( even for first serves !!) then i have nothing more to add.

 

[terribleIVAN]

He got lucky saving those MPs. Even he admits it. He didn't then have the confidence that he had after winning the Davis Cup.

The point is indisputable and obvious.

What is indisputable and obvious is the fact luck is way overrated in Tennis.

It might be a factor in some matches, such as the net cord in favour of Becker vs Lendl, but reality is in order to get lucky, you first need to place yourself in the position to receive that luck.

Novak saved these match points with great shots; luck has nothing to do with it.

Federer doesn't always play well the important points.
Suck it up.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Indeed, now subtract the player who's not part of that generation and you arrive at the original thesis. Adjust to reflect total major finals reached since July 2012 and we're in complete agreement.

Why subtract? The haters say RFederer wouldn't have won in a "strong era" like this. Even in his 30+, he defeated 2 of the so called "big 4" to win the title. Not to mention he got back to world no. 1 for 17 weeks :lol:

 

[jg153040]

Nadal and Fed same generation. Lendl and Borg had an even greater age difference. Mac and Borg were 3 years apart while Nadal and fed z4 years.

Nadal is just better than Frd..and quite frankly so is Murray and joker.

It's becoming
Sinfully obvious tha Feds 17 slams happened because he was at the tight place at the right tine

I don't want to get into more debates with you for obvious reasons, but you got your facts way wrong.

How is 3 years difference greater than 4 years difference?

Also, Federer and Nadal are not 4 years apart. It's closer to 5.

Federer: August 8th 1981
Nadal: June 3rd 1986

You have to learn to count to have more credibility.

 

[jg153040]

From the age of roughly 22 and for a decade onwards, Roger Federer has been indisputably the best of his generation. He so obliterated all his contemporaries, he made contenders like Roddick and Hewitt look like chumps. In fact, he so lorded over his peers, only the very best of the next generation (ie players 5+ years younger) that could keep up. That's perfectly in keeping with generational changes in tennis.

The same could be said of RNadal until the end of 2010. After that, his generational peers have not only caught up, but he's now been surpassed by two of them. Novak and Andy were almost as precocious as Nads, and as non-surface specialists, they didn't enjoy the early success at one slam. But since 2011 Novak has eclipsed Nads, and now Andy holds 2 of the last 4 slams.

Federer: the best of his generation, full stop.
Nadal: the best of his until about 24, then no longer.

Do you agree?

I think you are only about half right. Nadal is part of both generations. He is an exception, an early bloomer. Because his game is more simple and based on fitness and he has superior genetics, he was able to win slams form 2005.

So his prime is probably from 2005-2012. He was part of both generations even thought his age could say otherwise. But sometimes chronological age is different from physical age.

Feds prime is 2003-2010
Noles prime is 2007-(maybe 2014)

But he was ranked nr.2 in both generations. He was dominated overall from Fed and Nole. But he did dominate both generations on clay, but not good enough for being nr.1.

But, does this really matter? Depends how you spin things and how you define domination.

I think we should use only achievements, since those guys had different peaks and also you play tennis against entire field, Djokovic and Nadal aren't the only one here.

So, Nadal still has 12 majors, career slam. He still has more weeks being nr.1 than Nole. So I think this is what matters most. Who cares about the last years and age?

In contrast Fed is undisputed best of this era. 17 majors and 302 weeks.
But Nadal is still greater than Novak. You can't use the fact that he is too good on clay against him.

But you also can't use that he is too good on clay like he dominates everywhere. Off clay Novak is 12-6 vs Nadal, including 3-1 slam finals.

Going by only h2h, I would say Novak owns Nadal. But I don't use h2h, since atp doesn't use it. Also it's flawed. So Nadal is now still much greater than Nole.

 

[cronus]

Nadal and Fed same generation.

Exactly, Roger and Tony were from the same generation yet roger managed to win 7 of the only GS that matters and Tony got 2(one one of them against mono roger where he outlasted him due to age and fitness factor).

Like uncle toni says "**** Roger is better than you"

If it isn't for the super weak clay players **** would not have won more than one joke GS(FO).

 

[cronus]

As always, your state of denial is hilarious! :lol:

is tony wearing lip stick in this pic? :???:

 

[Fiji]

Suck it up, buttercup.

8 of those 12 at RG.

 

[Smasher08]

So, Nadal still has 12 majors, career slam. He still has more weeks being nr.1 than Nole. So I think this is what matters most. Who cares about the last years and age?

In contrast Fed is undisputed best of this era. 17 majors and 302 weeks.
But Nadal is still greater than Novak. You can't use the fact that he is too good on clay against him.

But you also can't use that he is too good on clay like he dominates everywhere. Off clay Novak is 12-6 vs Nadal, including 3-1 slam finals.

Going by only h2h, I would say Novak owns Nadal. But I don't use h2h, since atp doesn't use it. Also it's flawed. So Nadal is now still much greater than Nole.

You make fair points about their cumulative accomplishments. But I don't think you dispute the fact that, day in and day out, Nole is now the one to beat from that generation and Murray seems to be making his move.

AFAIK Tommy Haas is really the only one from Fed's generation who's still a factor at tournaments. But even then, The Hoss has yet to catch up to Fed.

 

[clayqueen]

Roddick and Hewitt was VASTLY inferior players to Nadal, Nole, and Murray soo... so what


I dont think anyone/anything caught up with Nadal other than injuries. When hes healthy hes far and away the best in the world (and has been for quite some time).

Couldn't agree more.

 

[clayqueen]

The year is not over and his titles were inflated by his southern swing. Had Djok or Muzz played some 250s, they would have likely won them as well.

Last year a different person won each slam. But Djoker was in the most finals. Djoker's also been in every slam final so far this year.

Nadal is #1 in the race. Enough said.

 

[Smasher08]

Couldn't agree more.

How fascinating! For months you post nothing, and then you suddenly go all prolific.

Almost like you were someone's alternate account! :lol:

 

[Smasher08]

Nadal is #1 in the race. Enough said.

Yes, your biases are quite clear -- now aren't they? :lol:

 

[Chanwan]

Roddick and Hewitt was VASTLY inferior players to Nadal, Nole, and Murray soo... so what


I dont think anyone/anything caught up with Nadal other than injuries. When hes healthy hes far and away the best in the world (and has been for quite some time).

did 2011 happen to you as well?

 

[1477aces]

If federer only won 12 slams like nadal, roddick, hewitt, and safin would be way better. Especially if he won only 4 slams off of clay in only a 3-year time span. Imagine that federer only won slams off of clay from 2005-2007 (his best years), at the 2005W, 2006AO, 2007W, and 2007USO (same pattern as nadal's slam wins off of clay). Then, Roddick would likely have won the 2003, 2004, and 2009W along with the 2006USO to end up with 5 slams. Hewitt would have additionally won the 2004USO and 2005W. Safin would have won the 2004AO too. Roddick or Gonzales (both Fed's contemporaries) would have won the 2007AO, and Baghaditis would likely have won the 2006AO. Agassi would have won the 2005USO. So, Roddick would have had 5 or 6 slams (roughly on par with novak), Hewitt would have 4 slams, and Safin would have 3 slams. Additionally, Baghaditis would have won a slam, and possibly fernando gonzales as well. That matches up pretty well with djokovic and murray career-wise. So, Federer's rivals looked so weak because federer was able to dominate them, whereas nadal's rivals only look so strong because of nadal's comparatively weaker accomplishments off of clay and short period of dominance off of clay.

 

[Smasher08]

did 2011 happen to you as well?

:lol: It's true -- Nadal was injured for the entirety of 2011, except for the two weeks of Roland Garros!! :lol:

 

[ScottleeSV]

Nadal is #1 in the race. Enough said.

He'll probably have to win at least 1 more Masters HC to stay there by year end. And that's at least.

 

[zagor]

:lol: It's true -- Nadal was injured for the entirety of 2011, except for the two weeks of Roland Garros!! :lol:

He was injured then as well, he just won despite it which further illustrates what an amazing humble warrior he is, bamos.

 

[pame]

Two of the most successful marketing ploys/mantras in tennis must be "weak era, no competition", and "only loses when injured". The success with which they have been inculcated into the tennis psyche is astonishing, and must be the envy of every professional marketer's dream.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Two of the most successful marketing ploys/mantras in tennis must be "weak era, no competition", and "only loses when injured". The success with which they have been inculcated into the tennis psyche is astonishing, and must be the envy of every professional marketer's dream.

Well said :lol:

 

[Omega_7000]

Two of the most successful marketing ploys/mantras in tennis must be "weak era, no competition", and "only loses when injured". The success with which they have been inculcated into the tennis psyche is astonishing, and must be the envy of every professional marketer's dream.

Like I said before,

Absolutely ridiculous! So he is injured all the time...This way basically if he wins, he comes out as a warrior and if he loses then, oh it's his knee...What a win-win situation created by the Nadal PR team to brainwash the masses...

 

[falstaff78]

If federer only won 12 slams like nadal, roddick, hewitt, and safin would be way better. Especially if he won only 4 slams off of clay in only a 3-year time span. Imagine that federer only won slams off of clay from 2005-2007 (his best years), at the 2005W, 2006AO, 2007W, and 2007USO (same pattern as nadal's slam wins off of clay). Then, Roddick would likely have won the 2003, 2004, and 2009W along with the 2006USO to end up with 5 slams. Hewitt would have additionally won the 2004USO and 2005W. Safin would have won the 2004AO too. Roddick or Gonzales (both Fed's contemporaries) would have won the 2007AO, and Baghaditis would likely have won the 2006AO. Agassi would have won the 2005USO. So, Roddick would have had 5 or 6 slams (roughly on par with novak), Hewitt would have 4 slams, and Safin would have 3 slams. Additionally, Baghaditis would have won a slam, and possibly fernando gonzales as well. That matches up pretty well with djokovic and murray career-wise. So, Federer's rivals looked so weak because federer was able to dominate them, whereas nadal's rivals only look so strong because of nadal's comparatively weaker accomplishments off of clay and short period of dominance off of clay.

brilliant brilliant post

 

[veroniquem]

From the age of roughly 22 and for a decade onwards, Roger Federer has been indisputably the best of his generation. He so obliterated all his contemporaries, he made contenders like Roddick and Hewitt look like chumps. In fact, he so lorded over his peers, only the very best of the next generation (ie players 5+ years younger) that could keep up. That's perfectly in keeping with generational changes in tennis.

The same could be said of RNadal until the end of 2010. After that, his generational peers have not only caught up, but he's now been surpassed by two of them. Novak and Andy were almost as precocious as Nads, and as non-surface specialists, they didn't enjoy the early success at one slam. But since 2011 Novak has eclipsed Nads, and now Andy holds 2 of the last 4 slams.

Federer: the best of his generation, full stop.
Nadal: the best of his until about 24, then no longer.

Do you agree?

Er... get back to me when either Murray or Djoko have a winning head to head vs Nadal. Far from from it at the moment, so you're wrong.
As for your stats manipulation: all of Murray/Djoko/Nadal won 1 slam in 2012 and 1 slam in 2013, so they're pretty even. Of course one could say that Nadal was very precocious while Murray is a late bloomer, so they didn't have their best results at the same time. Or that Djoko's favorite surface is hard court while Nadal's favorite surface is clay and their respective results show that.
But overall I fail to see how 2 or 6 slam titles even begin to compare to 12 and how about 30 titles compare to almost 60.

 

[Emiliano55]

If federer only won 12 slams like nadal, roddick, hewitt, and safin would be way better. Especially if he won only 4 slams off of clay in only a 3-year time span. Imagine that federer only won slams off of clay from 2005-2007 (his best years), at the 2005W, 2006AO, 2007W, and 2007USO (same pattern as nadal's slam wins off of clay). Then, Roddick would likely have won the 2003, 2004, and 2009W along with the 2006USO to end up with 5 slams. Hewitt would have additionally won the 2004USO and 2005W. Safin would have won the 2004AO too. Roddick or Gonzales (both Fed's contemporaries) would have won the 2007AO, and Baghaditis would likely have won the 2006AO. Agassi would have won the 2005USO. So, Roddick would have had 5 or 6 slams (roughly on par with novak), Hewitt would have 4 slams, and Safin would have 3 slams. Additionally, Baghaditis would have won a slam, and possibly fernando gonzales as well. That matches up pretty well with djokovic and murray career-wise. So, Federer's rivals looked so weak because federer was able to dominate them, whereas nadal's rivals only look so strong because of nadal's comparatively weaker accomplishments off of clay and short period of dominance off of clay.

Some true points in there, mate.

 

[Clarky21]

The year is not over and his titles were inflated by his southern swing. Had Djok or Muzz played some 250s, they would have likely won them as well.

Last year a different person won each slam. But Djoker was in the most finals. Djoker's also been in every slam final so far this year.

Wrong.

 

[mellowyellow]

If federer only won 12 slams like nadal, roddick, hewitt, and safin would be way better. Especially if he won only 4 slams off of clay in only a 3-year time span. Imagine that federer only won slams off of clay from 2005-2007 (his best years), at the 2005W, 2006AO, 2007W, and 2007USO (same pattern as nadal's slam wins off of clay). Then, Roddick would likely have won the 2003, 2004, and 2009W along with the 2006USO to end up with 5 slams. Hewitt would have additionally won the 2004USO and 2005W. Safin would have won the 2004AO too. Roddick or Gonzales (both Fed's contemporaries) would have won the 2007AO, and Baghaditis would likely have won the 2006AO. Agassi would have won the 2005USO. So, Roddick would have had 5 or 6 slams (roughly on par with novak), Hewitt would have 4 slams, and Safin would have 3 slams. Additionally, Baghaditis would have won a slam, and possibly fernando gonzales as well. That matches up pretty well with djokovic and murray career-wise. So, Federer's rivals looked so weak because federer was able to dominate them, whereas nadal's rivals only look so strong because of nadal's comparatively weaker accomplishments off of clay and short period of dominance off of clay.

I understand the point you are trying to make but assuming Fed would lose only in the final is what makes this look so good, and somewhat discredits some of his semifinalist who could have equally been capable of winning those slams had it not been for FedExpress running them over.

 

[TennisCJC]

I know these things:

1. If I could swap careers with Fed, Nad, Mur, or DJ; I would swap with Fed and take the 17 majors and 6 EYC. And, the incredible consistency at majors 6 years straight semi, approximately 9 years of straight quarters. And, more major finals than all the others.
2. Fed, Mur, and DJ have won all the majors off clay since 2010 USO and Nad is not as good as them or the field off clay.
3. Nad is the best on clay ever - Borg is a very close 2nd

 

[Smasher08]

Wrong.