So if Nadal never had an era of his own, does that mean he actually had the toughest competition of the big three?

Nadal's true era is post 2009. Same as Djokovic. End of story.

By all accounts of what is accepted to constitute an era Nadal doesn't have his own era. There is almost always a leading player in any extended stretch in time who has the privilege to have that time assigned to him as his own era. That player after 2010 is Djokovic.

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
Sssshhhh.... Don't tell any of these couch potatoes who think clay is a marginalised surface with no competition and a "weak field" (lol) that the majority of pro tennis is played on clay.

Or that for the last 20 years any domestic/private tennis development organisation worth a **** has been developing players with clay as a priority training surface to teach best-practice stroke mechanics and point construction.

You honestly believe the clay field is strong? Just curious.

Yours truly
Couch Potato
 

Tostao80

Rookie
Age wise, Nadal is with Djokovic. Nadal simply started winning slams earlier. Don't forget that in 2007, Djokovic was no 3 in the rankings.

None of that proves that 2008 wasn't part of Rafas era. He beat Fed at Wimbledon, destroyed him at RG and Rafa ended the year as number 1. He even won gold at the Olympics. Its one of Rafas best ever years.
 

StrongRule

Talk Tennis Guru
What is common amongst Rublev, Busta, Anderson, Berrettini , Medvedev ???
LOL at the attempts from trolls to call Medvedev an easy opponent. That was the best USO final in long time, IMO a better one than in 2009. (and for sure better than any USO final since then)
 
Last edited:

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
OP is absolutely correct. For Nadal to be on the cusp of equalling the slam record is remarkable.

Any tennis fan, whos not trolling, can admit this. Nadal unfortunately for him, was sandwiched right in the middle of these 2 ATGs primes.

They all suffered to a degree, at the hands of each other. But Nadal certainly had the toughest road.
 

Krish0608

G.O.A.T.
I actually consider 2008-2010 as Nadal’a era. Yes he did have a subpar 2009, but he became an all court champion in that phase. So, he does have his own era. Just that it’s not as sprawling, consistent and well defined as Fed’s or Nole’s.
 

Nadal_King

Hall of Fame
Djokovic won most of his slams between 2015-2019. Nadal was a non-factor in most of them. Nadal was mostly a rival to Djokovic in Paris. So yeah...clown era is where Djokovic has been winning most of his Slams.
Lol
Djokovic in that period won 9 slams and nadal won 5 , 5 is non factor then what is factor please tell(also nadal was better in 2017-19 stretch than djokovic which is like 3 of the 5 years)
Regarding paris thing nadal won 2 Uo and djokovic also won 2 Uo so don't even why this paris thing came up.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Lol
Djokovic in that period won 9 slams and nadal won 5 , 5 is non factor then what is factor please tell(also nadal was better in 2017-19 stretch than djokovic which is like 3 of the 5 years)
Regarding paris thing nadal won 2 Uo and djokovic also won 2 Uo so don't even why this paris thing came up.

only Djokovic was injured both times and there's nothing suggesting current Nadal could beat a healthy & fit Djokovic anywhere but clay :)
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
You honestly believe the clay field is strong? Just curious.

Yours truly
Couch Potato
How about the “grass field”?
It’s seriously so weak that it cannot even be called a field. It’s like one great grass player that loves grass and a bunch of clay players.
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
How about the “grass field”?
It’s seriously so weak that it cannot even be called a field. It’s like one great grass player that loves grass and a bunch of clay players.

Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are all considered great grass players. Obviously not the best grass players the world has seen, but at least there has been a distribution of Wimbledon titles between the four (8, 5, 2, 2) and two of them are great grass champions.

EDIT: 8
 
Last edited:

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are all considered great grass players. Obviously not the best grass players the world has seen, but at least there has been a distribution of Wimbledon titles between the four (7, 5, 2, 2) and two of them are great grass champions.
There are tons of clay players. It’s rare to hear any player say they prefer grass. Season so short it makes no point to gun for grass and they hardly get any practice on it. Low level overall. Back in the days grass was cool. You don’t hear any of these up and coming players saying all they want is to win Wimbledon. And no one besides the tennis primadonnas have the opportunity to train sufficiently on grass. Rest have to play tons of tournament cause of rules. Even Caspers dad been talking about this. It’s completely screwed. Clay is good, many tournaments and many that love clay.
 

junior74

Bionic Poster
There are tons of clay players. It’s rare to hear any player say they prefer grass. Season so short it makes no point to gun for grass and they hardly get any practice on it. Low level overall. Back in the days grass was cool. You don’t hear any of these up and coming players saying all they want is to win Wimbledon. And no one besides the tennis primadonnas have the opportunity to train sufficiently on grass. Rest have to play tons of tournament cause of rules. Even Caspers dad been talking about this. It’s completely screwed. Clay is good, many tournaments and many that love clay.

https://www.**************.org/tenn.../stefanos-tsitsipas-i-want-to-win-wimbledon-/




I agree grass season should be longer.
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
Lol
Djokovic in that period won 9 slams and nadal won 5 , 5 is non factor then what is factor please tell(also nadal was better in 2017-19 stretch than djokovic which is like 3 of the 5 years)
Regarding paris thing nadal won 2 Uo and djokovic also won 2 Uo so don't even why this paris thing came up.
Djokovic lost several Slams to other players. Not to Nadal. Check out RG2015, USO2016, USO2019, RG2019, AO2017, AO2018, Wimb2017, Wimb2016,, etc. He didn't play USO2017.
Djokovic and Nadal had their own issues with their health that affected their play.
I'm talking about the actual competition of the tour around them. The era that they're playing in. Not their respective slumps and health issues.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Is not the Nadal era considered 2008 to present. He has won most Majors in that period.

Federer era was 2004-2018. First slam to last slam.

The overlap is why Nadal and Federer have a rivalry that trangressed the sport.

Djokovic has not had an era as he does not lead any statistic.

Nadal has won 16 slams from 2008 to present, Djokovic has won 17 slam from 2008 to present, 17 is greater than 16...and if Djokovic does not have an era, then why does he lead Nadal in that very 2008 to present era you stated in total slam count? I don't even need to bring in weeks at number one into the equation here.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal's overall "era" is 2008-2013. His best years coincided with some of the best years of Federer and Djokovic, but it doesn't mean he was usually the 2nd thoughest opponent during his era. Nadal was the overall thoughest opponent in 2008, early 2009, 2010 and 2013, so it's not like he usually was "the 2nd thoughest opponent" in 2008-2013. And specifically on clay, he has been the thoughest opponent from 2005 to 2019 (excluding 2015). Nadal's clay era (2005-2019) is certainly impressive, no one had a longer era of dominance on any surface.
“Thoughest” :D
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Negative.
Last 10 years Nadal and Djokovic were worthy competitors for each other.
Imagine number of 2010-2020 Nadal slams in tour without Djokovic.
Imagine number of 2010-2020 Djokovic slams in tour without Nadal.
Between 2015--present when Djokobic won most of his slams, Nadal was competition for him in exactly 1 slam.

Tough competition alright.
 
Last edited:

Spider

Hall of Fame
It just means he wasn't dominant enough as compared to Fed or Djokovic throughout the year.

His best years are worse than Fed or Djokers best years. Fact.
 
I often read a few of Nadal's detractors saying that unlike Federer and Djokovic, Nadal didn't have an era of his own. Federer is often cited to have 2004 to 2009 and Djokovic from 2011 to 2016, with Nadal making hay during the one year gap between those two periods. This then begs the question, does that not mean then that Nadal had the toughest time of the big three? He had to deal with Federer during the 2004 to 2009 period, an ATG during the height of his powers, and then had to deal with Djokovic from 2011 to 2016 period, another ATG during the height of his powers also. That is basically ten years dealing with an ATG during his prime, while fighting to be an ATG himself.

And Nadal completed an epic career slam while beating the top two guys of their era for each of those wins. AO 2009 Federer, RG 2013 Djokovic, W 2008 Federer, USO 2013 Djokovic
Dear Hitman,

I hope to convince you with the following essay that Nadal has indeed had an era. As a matter of fact, to convince you that Nadal's era is the longest tennis era in the history and that we are still living it, no?

First of all, I think it is a given that Nadal's supremacy and unprecedented domination of clay tennis is not what is being discussed here, as that is beyond any doubt. Instead, it is his achievements outside clay which should be qualified and quantified insomuch as it is in the light of those achievements that we must appraise his overall importance in tennis history. Rather than construct a set of paragraphs to bore everybody and make me think too hard (or think at all) I will provide some bullet points below for your consumption.

1. Nadal has 7 slams in his worst surfaces, in an era where he had to compete with two GOATs in those surfaces. Neither Federer nor Djokovic even approach those achievements against Nadal at Roland Garros, where he has been largely untouchable. So while you might argue that 7 non-clay slams is an unimpressive tally, it is rather the opposite when put it into context.

2. Nadal suffered the blunt force of Federer and Djokovic's peak games. You could strive to argue the same in the case of Federer and Djokovic, but there are subtle differences. Federer had already won 10 or 12 slams before Nadal and Djokovic came into their own and started competing at the top of their game. Djokovic didn't succeed against peak Federer at Wimbledon the same Nadal did in the 2007 and 2008 championships. And Nadal did actually compete against the peak versions of both of his main rivals when he was also at or near the peak of his game. For example, Nadal's true grass peak is undeniably the second half of the 2000s which overlaps with Federer's peak there. The same can be said of 2011, where Nadal had to face the arguably best version of Djokovic ever.

3. Nadal has had short periods of extraordinary performance in his worst surfaces. His runs in 2008 on grass (Queens and Wimby) and 2013 in the Summer HC season (Cincinnatti, Canada, and the USO), for example, have nothing to envy the best of Federer and Djokovic. As a matter of fact, his triplet in 2013 is unmatched by either Fed or Djokovic, who are better HC players than Nadal overall. Nadal has also made great runs outside clay in other occasions, but those are the ones that stand above the rest. Although it is true that Djokovic has had great runs on clay, none of them approach those periods of dominance by Nadal on grass and HC.

4. Nadal has been thwarted the most by injuries. Djokovic now is a very close second, and Federer is not even close to bother mention. TBH, at this point Djokovic is so close in that area that it could be considered a negligible factor. Still, it's unfortunate to see in a player be bothered by injuries, specially when it prevents him from defending titles at his worst surfaces at the times when he was a favorite, as was the case for Nadal a few times in his career.

5. Nadal started winning slams the youngest of the three, and he has been YE #1 the oldest of the three. His consistency overall (not on his worst surfaces) is unquestionable.

Lastly, if you are not convinced...

 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Dear Hitman,

I hope to convince you with the following essay that Nadal has indeed had an era. As a matter of fact, to convince you that Nadal's era is the longest tennis era in the history and that we are still living it, no?

First of all, I think it is a given that Nadal's supremacy and unprecedented domination of clay tennis is not what is being discussed here, as that is beyond any doubt. Instead, it is his achievements outside clay which should be qualified and quantified insomuch as it is in the light of those achievements that we must appraise his overall importance in tennis history. Rather than construct a set of paragraphs to bore everybody and make me think too hard (or think at all) I will provide some bullet points below for your consumption.

1. Nadal has 7 slams in his worst surfaces, in an era where he had to compete with two GOATs in those surfaces. Neither Federer nor Djokovic even approach those achievements against Nadal at Roland Garros, where he has been largely untouchable. So while you might argue that 7 non-clay slams is an unimpressive tally, it is rather the opposite when put it into context.

2. Nadal suffered the blunt force of Federer and Djokovic's peak games. You could strive to argue the same in the case of Federer and Djokovic, but there are subtle differences. Federer had already won 10 or 12 slams before Nadal and Djokovic came into their own and started competing at the top of their game. Djokovic didn't succeed against peak Federer at Wimbledon the same Nadal did in the 2007 and 2008 championships. And Nadal did actually compete against the peak versions of both of his main rivals when he was also at or near the peak of his game. For example, Nadal's true grass peak is undeniably the second half of the 2000s which overlaps with Federer's peak there. The same can be said of 2011, where Nadal had to face the arguably best version of Djokovic ever.

3. Nadal has had short periods of extraordinary performance in his worst surfaces. His runs in 2008 on grass (Queens and Wimby) and 2013 in the Summer HC season (Cincinnatti, Canada, and the USO), for example, have nothing to envy the best of Federer and Djokovic. As a matter of fact, his triplet in 2013 is unmatched by either Fed or Djokovic, who are better HC players than Nadal overall. Nadal has also made great runs outside clay in other occasions, but those are the ones that stand above the rest. Although it is true that Djokovic has had great runs on clay, none of them approach those periods of dominance by Nadal on grass and HC.

4. Nadal has been thwarted the most by injuries. Djokovic now is a very close second, and Federer is not even close to bother mention. TBH, at this point Djokovic is so close in that area that it could be considered a negligible factor. Still, it's unfortunate to see in a player be bothered by injuries, specially when it prevents him from defending titles at his worst surfaces at the times when he was a favorite, as was the case for Nadal a few times in his career.

5. Nadal started winning slams the youngest of the three, and he has been YE #1 the oldest of the three. His consistency overall (not on his worst surfaces) is unquestionable.

Lastly, if you are not convinced...


Appreciate the effort for sure. :)
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
These are old players now. Times have changed. No younger player put in a lot of effort on grass, therefore not great competition there anymore. Back in the days younger players would win Wimbledon as their first slam. Now only 30 pluss players reach the final. Clay is way more competitive. It’s an unfair surface as it’s not easy for young players to get any practice on it anymore. That’s why these old players who doesn’t need to play many tournaments a year, they have time to practice and they also have the experience.
ATP and ITF should go back to their previous rules and not give these elder players special treatment.
 
Last edited:

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
These are old players now. Times have changed. No younger player put in a lot of effort on grass, therefore not great competition there anymore. Back in the days younger players would win Wimbledon as their first slam. Now only 30 pluss players reach the final. Clay is way more competitive. It’s an unfair surface as it’s not easy for young players to get any practice on it anymore. That’s why these old players who doesn’t need to play many tournaments a year, they have time to practice and they also have the experience.
ATP and ITF should go back to their previous rules and not give these elder players special treatment.

Are you saying that grass season carries so much points that old players don't need to play much tournament?

Novak and Rafa almost each year play only Wimbledon. They can lose before SF which will have less points than winning a 500. Roger is the only one who plays 3 tournaments and its best part of the season for majority.

Dimitrov and Raonic have made QF/SF/F of Wimbledon or won a 500. They are not old players at least right now. Zverev has reached finals for both 250 and 500 on grass, Thiem has too.

And clay has 2 obscure 500s where the youngsters are shining at Hamburg and Rio. In main clay tournaments, I see much less dominance of young players in semis and finals.

Next gen absolutely doesn't give a damn about grass, it's their fault. All are exhausted or injured before grass begins.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I often read a few of Nadal's detractors saying that unlike Federer and Djokovic, Nadal didn't have an era of his own. Federer is often cited to have 2004 to 2009 and Djokovic from 2011 to 2016, with Nadal making hay during the one year gap between those two periods. This then begs the question, does that not mean then that Nadal had the toughest time of the big three? He had to deal with Federer during the 2004 to 2009 period, an ATG during the height of his powers, and then had to deal with Djokovic from 2011 to 2016 period, another ATG during the height of his powers also. That is basically ten years dealing with an ATG during his prime, while fighting to be an ATG himself.

And Nadal completed an epic career slam while beating the top two guys of their era for each of those wins. AO 2009 Federer, RG 2013 Djokovic, W 2008 Federer, USO 2013 Djokovic
Hitman, I think people should take a really close look at Nadal's return stats. Just about everyone here assumes his movement is inferior, and that he's slower. But that should show directly in return games won. There is an obvious peak on clay in 2008. How can you beat a guy on clay who wins around 50% of all return games. To put that into perspective, if you win 50% of return games, winning 75% of service games pushes you well over 60% of games. But even on clay he has had ups and downs that are not linear.

On HC, where most tennis is played, his results are baffling. This slower, poorer moving player is still maintaining his defensive level when he will soon be 34. So how?

Occam's razor says that since he's still winning as big as ever defensively, we have to assume he's taking up the slack with tactics. I think of the Big 3 he's the smartest re playing percentages, with Novak coming next and Fed the worst. Because only tactics/a smart game plan can explain how he still keeps those defensive numbers so high. I think people underestimate how cagey he is because they judge his intelligent on his English ability.
 
Last edited:

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Are you saying that grass season carries so much points that old players don't need to play much tournament?

Novak and Rafa almost each year play only Wimbledon. They can lose before SF which will have less points than winning a 500. Roger is the only one who plays 3 tournaments and its best part of the season for majority.

Dimitrov and Raonic have made QF/SF/F of Wimbledon or won a 500. They are not old players at least right now. Zverev has reached finals for both 250 and 500 on grass, Thiem has too.

And clay has 2 obscure 500s where the youngsters are shining at Hamburg and Rio. In main clay tournaments, I see much less dominance of young players in semis and finals.

Next gen absolutely doesn't give a damn about grass, it's their fault. All are exhausted or injured before grass begins.
Grass doesn’t even have a master 1000. That’s how little grass means these days.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Hitman, I think people should take a really close look at Nadal's return stats. Just about everyone here assumes his movement is inferior, and that he's slower. But that should show directly in return games won. There is an obvious peak on clay in 2008. How can you beat a guy on clay who wins around 50% of all return games. To put that into perspective, if you win 50% of return games, winning 75% of service games pushes you well over 60% of games. But even on clay he has had ups and downs that are not linear.

On HC, where most tennis is played, his results are baffling. This slower, poorer moving player is still maintaining his defensive level when he will soon be 34. So how?

Occam's razor says that since he's still winning as big as ever defensively, we have to assume he's taking up the slack with tactics. I think of the Big 3 he's the smartest re playing percentages, with Novak coming next and Fed the worst. Because only tactics/a smart game plan can explain how he still keeps those defensive numbers so high. I think people underestimate how cagey he is because they judge his intelligent on his English ability.

I agree. Nadal as an astute tactician for sure, I have seen it numerous times over his career.
 
Dear Hitman,

I hope to convince you with the following essay that Nadal has indeed had an era. As a matter of fact, to convince you that Nadal's era is the longest tennis era in the history and that we are still living it, no?

First of all, I think it is a given that Nadal's supremacy and unprecedented domination of clay tennis is not what is being discussed here, as that is beyond any doubt. Instead, it is his achievements outside clay which should be qualified and quantified insomuch as it is in the light of those achievements that we must appraise his overall importance in tennis history. Rather than construct a set of paragraphs to bore everybody and make me think too hard (or think at all) I will provide some bullet points below for your consumption.

1. Nadal has 7 slams in his worst surfaces, in an era where he had to compete with two GOATs in those surfaces. Neither Federer nor Djokovic even approach those achievements against Nadal at Roland Garros, where he has been largely untouchable. So while you might argue that 7 non-clay slams is an unimpressive tally, it is rather the opposite when put it into context.

2. Nadal suffered the blunt force of Federer and Djokovic's peak games. You could strive to argue the same in the case of Federer and Djokovic, but there are subtle differences. Federer had already won 10 or 12 slams before Nadal and Djokovic came into their own and started competing at the top of their game. Djokovic didn't succeed against peak Federer at Wimbledon the same Nadal did in the 2007 and 2008 championships. And Nadal did actually compete against the peak versions of both of his main rivals when he was also at or near the peak of his game. For example, Nadal's true grass peak is undeniably the second half of the 2000s which overlaps with Federer's peak there. The same can be said of 2011, where Nadal had to face the arguably best version of Djokovic ever.

3. Nadal has had short periods of extraordinary performance in his worst surfaces. His runs in 2008 on grass (Queens and Wimby) and 2013 in the Summer HC season (Cincinnatti, Canada, and the USO), for example, have nothing to envy the best of Federer and Djokovic. As a matter of fact, his triplet in 2013 is unmatched by either Fed or Djokovic, who are better HC players than Nadal overall. Nadal has also made great runs outside clay in other occasions, but those are the ones that stand above the rest. Although it is true that Djokovic has had great runs on clay, none of them approach those periods of dominance by Nadal on grass and HC.

4. Nadal has been thwarted the most by injuries. Djokovic now is a very close second, and Federer is not even close to bother mention. TBH, at this point Djokovic is so close in that area that it could be considered a negligible factor. Still, it's unfortunate to see in a player be bothered by injuries, specially when it prevents him from defending titles at his worst surfaces at the times when he was a favorite, as was the case for Nadal a few times in his career.

5. Nadal started winning slams the youngest of the three, and he has been YE #1 the oldest of the three. His consistency overall (not on his worst surfaces) is unquestionable.

Lastly, if you are not convinced...


What a waste of space.

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
 
Still more valuable than you, Tennis_Hakenkreuz. Can't wait for Nadal and Djokovic to leave Federer as 3rd in the race and to have you root for Zverev, no? :D

I root for many tennis players, unsurprisingly. That is what tennis fans do. On the other hand, people like you without a purpose on a tennis forum like to earn an approval by writing the most blatant stuff, chewed for years, and name it an "essay" to my (and I am sure others') amusement.

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
 
I root for many tennis players, unsurprisingly. That is what tennis fans do. On the other hand, people like you without a purpose on a tennis forum like to earn an approval by writing the most blatant stuff, chewed for years, and name it an "essay" to my (and I am sure others') amusement.

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
The most amusing thing is that you are unable to appreciate even the most obvious form of irony. Yes, "essay." :D

Sense of humor is not your people's strong suit, is it, Tennis_Hakenkreuz?
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Dear Hitman,

I hope to convince you with the following essay that Nadal has indeed had an era. As a matter of fact, to convince you that Nadal's era is the longest tennis era in the history and that we are still living it, no?

First of all, I think it is a given that Nadal's supremacy and unprecedented domination of clay tennis is not what is being discussed here, as that is beyond any doubt. Instead, it is his achievements outside clay which should be qualified and quantified insomuch as it is in the light of those achievements that we must appraise his overall importance in tennis history. Rather than construct a set of paragraphs to bore everybody and make me think too hard (or think at all) I will provide some bullet points below for your consumption.

1. Nadal has 7 slams in his worst surfaces, in an era where he had to compete with two GOATs in those surfaces. Neither Federer nor Djokovic even approach those achievements against Nadal at Roland Garros, where he has been largely untouchable. So while you might argue that 7 non-clay slams is an unimpressive tally, it is rather the opposite when put it into context.

2. Nadal suffered the blunt force of Federer and Djokovic's peak games. You could strive to argue the same in the case of Federer and Djokovic, but there are subtle differences. Federer had already won 10 or 12 slams before Nadal and Djokovic came into their own and started competing at the top of their game. Djokovic didn't succeed against peak Federer at Wimbledon the same Nadal did in the 2007 and 2008 championships. And Nadal did actually compete against the peak versions of both of his main rivals when he was also at or near the peak of his game. For example, Nadal's true grass peak is undeniably the second half of the 2000s which overlaps with Federer's peak there. The same can be said of 2011, where Nadal had to face the arguably best version of Djokovic ever.

3. Nadal has had short periods of extraordinary performance in his worst surfaces. His runs in 2008 on grass (Queens and Wimby) and 2013 in the Summer HC season (Cincinnatti, Canada, and the USO), for example, have nothing to envy the best of Federer and Djokovic. As a matter of fact, his triplet in 2013 is unmatched by either Fed or Djokovic, who are better HC players than Nadal overall. Nadal has also made great runs outside clay in other occasions, but those are the ones that stand above the rest. Although it is true that Djokovic has had great runs on clay, none of them approach those periods of dominance by Nadal on grass and HC.

4. Nadal has been thwarted the most by injuries. Djokovic now is a very close second, and Federer is not even close to bother mention. TBH, at this point Djokovic is so close in that area that it could be considered a negligible factor. Still, it's unfortunate to see in a player be bothered by injuries, specially when it prevents him from defending titles at his worst surfaces at the times when he was a favorite, as was the case for Nadal a few times in his career.

5. Nadal started winning slams the youngest of the three, and he has been YE #1 the oldest of the three. His consistency overall (not on his worst surfaces) is unquestionable.

Lastly, if you are not convinced...


Nice write-up!
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Grass doesn’t even have a master 1000. That’s how little grass means these days.

It's true, unfortunately. Currently, it's not as important a surface as clay and hardcourt. I hope that changes back again one day, but I can't see it happening soon. Particularly now that Europe is essentially the "Superpower" in the game.

@Tennis_Hands is right in that the most prestigious tourney is still grass-based. Unfortunately, given the parity in majors, and no other "big title" grass events, Wimbledon alone is not enough incentive for people to prioritize grass.

There is too much to be gained elsewhere by orientating your game around clay and hardcourts to focus on grass. The talent pool is in hardcourts and clay, where the points, money and big titles are most plentiful.
 
Last edited:

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
It's true, unfortunately. Currently, it's not as important a surface as clay and hardcourt. I hope that changes back again one day, but I can't see it happening soon. Particularly now that Europe is essentially the "Superpower" in the game.

@Tennis_Hands is right in that the most prestigious tourney is still grass-based. Unfortunately, given the parity in majors, and no other "big title" grass events, Wimbledon alone is not enough incentive for people to prioritize grass.

There is too much to be gained elsewhere by orientating your game around clay and hardcourts to focus on grass. The talent pool is in hardcourts and clay, where the points, money and big titles are most plentiful.
Is still Wimbledon really the most prestigious slam? To me it seems to be worth less year by year. In the slam race AO is worth just as much and things have changed a lot in 20 years when it comes to what a slam is worth.
I will be bold to say the newer generation tennis players, many of them, not seeing Wimbledon as the slam to win, therefor not the most prestigious. It depends who you ask.

Im not sure I want grass to survive, mostly because I want tennis to be available for all classes and have more or less same opportunities. Wimbledon itself has a bit of a bitter aftertaste of arrogant upper class imperial times. The white dress up party, is a bit weird maybe for some in 2020. Specially for us who wasn’t that into tennis in the Wimbledon hey days, Borg and Becker times(not born or too young) Some that was into tennis those days are nostalgic almost ala Trumps 80s obsession and MAGA, want fast courts back and talks about Becker’s Wimbledon as the best ever.
 

gadge

Hall of Fame
Isn't nadal pretty much the same age as djokovic, stop making excuses if he can't dominate novak's era. It's simply because novak is better outside clay than rafa.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Yes, his career got sandwiched between two of most versatile, consistent and dominant players of all time. If there wasn't Federer around in 2005-07, he would be #1 for 4 straight years with 3 consecutive two Slam years. 2005-10 would have been his era. Same goes for 2010-13 period if you remove Djokovic from scene. Still I think his biggest concern wasn't two greats but his own (relative) lack of consistency, injury breaks etc. He wouldn't dominate any era like Fedovic did due to his own shortcomings.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree. Nadal as an astute tactician for sure, I have seen it numerous times over his career.
The problem is that some of his tactics are so frustrating to watch that for the most part I can't watch his live matches. It's one thing to assume he will make it under 30 seconds for the serve, but think how many times that 30 seconds is reset after a let or a fault. And he stretches everything that way. It drives me crazy, and that's why I always try to record his matches, to fast forward through it.

That said, he mostly plays within the rules. I know that he stretches those rules, and it makes many people furious, mostly people who hate him, and I rather like Rafa, whatever his faults. The thing is, even in the rule stretching (or some say rule breaking) there is a perverse logic. If your intent is to beat anyone across from you, using any tactic, why would you not delay each point as long as possible? In the modern game all the top players at times get gassed, and they need to get energy back, and I think delaying each point to the last second is probably smart.

As a viewer I loathe it, but that rather cold logic also works. Novak's ball bouncing does the same. I hate that too, but it is logical, because for every second he keeps bouncing that ball he recovers more for the next point.

I like Fed's fast play and in fact always prefer a quick pace, but how many times have you seen Fed make a really awful shot choice that costs him a valuable BP? That's why I think of the Big 3 he is the weakest tactician, and with his incredibly natural talent that has cost him at least a couple majors.

I don't think you can say the same thing about Rafa now. In the past, I do think his stubbornness about changing his return position and his continual spin serves to the right hurt him, but I really don't think he can play smarter now. He can't be what he is not, so he can't transform his position to right on the baseline because he just does not have that game, just as Novak really can't suddenly transform his game to that of a constant net-rusher.
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Is still Wimbledon really the most prestigious slam? To me it seems to be worth less year by year. In the slam race AO is worth just as much and things have changed a lot in 20 years when it comes to what a slam is worth.
I will be bold to say the newer generation tennis players, many of them, not seeing Wimbledon as the slam to win, therefor not the most prestigious. It depends who you ask.

Im not sure I want grass to survive, mostly because I want tennis to be available for all classes and have more or less same opportunities. Wimbledon itself has a bit of a bitter aftertaste of arrogant upper class imperial times. The white dress up party, is a bit weird maybe for some in 2020. Specially for us who wasn’t that into tennis in the Wimbledon hey days, Borg and Becker times(not born or too young) Some that was into tennis those days are nostalgic almost ala Trumps 80s obsession and MAGA, want fast courts back and talks about Becker’s Wimbledon as the best ever.

Very good points. I'm so used to the verbal shorthand of "Yes, Wimbledon is most prestigious". You're right, it's definitely worth questioning, particularly with every passing year. Tennis has always thrived on change and transience and the status of tournaments is evolving. Indian Wells is an example of that.

Wimbledon IS in a tricky situation. It does represent some of the "stuffiness" (for want of a better word) of the good old bad old days. In some ways they have embraced it (making the white dress code even more strict) and the public has enjoyed some aspects of that, but it is a fine line.

I know you're way too young to have seen Borg, Becker and Co. I caught the end of the Becker era. Although clay is my favourite surface to watch, I'm also a big fan of these guys like Pat Rafter and Lopez. I would like to still see grass so we get to enjoy these contrasting styles in their "natural habitat".
 
Last edited:
The problem is that some of his tactics are so frustrating to watch that for the most part I can't watch his live matches. It's one thing to assume he will make it under 30 seconds for the serve, but think how many times that 30 seconds is reset after a let or a fault. And he stretches everything that way. It drives me crazy, and that's why I always try to record his matches, to fast forward through it.

That said, he mostly plays within the rules. I know that he stretches those rules, and it makes many people furious, mostly people who hate him, and I rather like Rafa, whatever his faults. The thing is, even in the rule stretching (or some say rule breaking) there is a perverse logic. If your intent is to beat anyone across from you, using any tactic, why would you not delay each point as long as possible? In the modern game all the top players at times get gassed, and they need to get energy back, and I think delaying each point to the last second is probably smart.

As a viewer I loathe it, but that rather cold logic also works. Novak's ball bouncing does the same. I hate that too, but it is logical, because for every second he keeps bouncing that ball he recovers more for the next point.

I like Fed's fast play and in fact always prefer a quick pace, but how many times have you seen Fed make a really awful shot choice that costs him a valuable BP? That's why I think of the Big 3 he is the weakest tactician, and with his incredibly natural talent that has cost him at least a couple majors.

I don't think you can say the same thing about Rafa now. In the past, I do think his stubbornness about changing his return position and his continual spin serves to the right hurt him, but I really don't think he can play smarter now. He can't be what he is not, so he can't transform his position to right on the baseline because he just does not have that game, just as Novak really can't suddenly transform his game to that of a constant net-rusher.

As you and Hitman already established, Nadal is a rather efficient entity on court, which leads us to the point that he needs the gamesmanship to win (otherwise he wouldn't be doing it).

Nice that a thread about Nadal's era inevitably reverted to what his "era" would have been known for, if it existed.

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
 
Top