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

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
Federer era: 2004-early 2010

Nadal era: 2008-2013

Djokovic era: 2011-2016 or early 2016.

I think that's about it.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
^^it's widely known that the depth of the field was shallower in the past, that's why so often the same players made the finals.

as for Nadal's competition on clay, it's hard to think of stronger clay courters than Feder and DJ in modern times. Nadal just always defeated them. yeah it would have looked like a stronger clay era, had he let them win more often, too bad
Replace clay era with era in general and your statement can literally apply to any era. So thete should be no weak eras.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
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
It was probably Nadal then Djokovic then Federer until the last few years were Nadal has the weakest indivudal slam wins and Djokovic has won quite a bit more than Federer since 2016. It is closer now. I would say Nadal winning years 2005-2013 were the best because he was sandwiched in the middle of both of them at prime level apart from 2010 maybe which is insane.
 
Last edited:

zagor

Bionic Poster
Competition depends on a wide variety of factors, it's not just names and numbers. Put Nadal on a low bouncing court against Fed and he's almost no competition for the latter, put them on a high bouncing court and it's vice versa.

I think Nadal had a lot of things going for him in this era, slowing down of the courts, shifting the game towards topspin and angles due to equipment and balls used, his main rivals being better on HC/grass compared to clay (yes, even taking Nadal out of the equation), better longevity thanks to advancement in sport medical technology (of course, other players benefit from this too) etc. etc.

I sincerely doubt he'd win 4-5 USOs and 10+ FOs in any other era for example (or make 5 Wimbledon finals for that matter) so on the whole I don't think he got shafted, quite the opposite. I think his game suits this era arguably more than any other player on tour so it's no surprise he's likely gonna end with the most slam titles. Look at how much player struggle with his average rally ball in today's condiitons, he wins most matches by keeping the ball in play without taking risks or going even slightly out of his comfort zone.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It was probably Nadal then Djokovic then Federer until the last few years were Nadal has the weakest indivudal slam wins and Djokovic has won quite a bit more than Federer since 2016. It is closer now. I would say Nadal winning years 2005-2013 were the best because he was sandwiched in the middle of both of them at prime level apart from 2010 maybe which is insane.
Things have pretty much evened out. It's thanks to several weaker periods that Djokodal are even close to Fed's GS record:

Nadal: 2010 and 2017-present

Djokovic: 2015-present
 

Fiero425

Legend
Federer era: 2004-early 2010

Nadal era: 2008-2013

Djokovic era: 2011-2016 or early 2016.

I think that's about it.

This is why it's hard for me to give Nadal props for being "The GOAT!" Even when he passes Fed, his resume's spotty! His dominant era was so broken up, all we have to do is look at weeks at #1! He was able to finally get to 200 weeks recently after all these years, but it's consecutive weeks I look at and Nadal's name is not in the top 10! No matter how well he's played, he's never really been able to hold that top rank for any length of time! He had a few good Fall seasons, but for the most part he used up all his skill, energy, and luck early; esp. during the clay seasons! He just couldn't keep it up; sans '08, '10. & '13! That was his best stretch, but unfortunately for him Fedovic were able to supplant him at #1, Djokovic owning him in 2011! :unsure:
 

RS

Bionic Poster
Competition depends on a wide variety of factors, it's not just names and numbers. Put Nadal on a low bouncing court against Fed and he's almost no competition for the latter, put them on a high bouncing court and it's vice versa.

I think Nadal had a lot of things going for him in this era, slowing down of the courts, shifting the game towards topspin and angles due to equipment and balls used, his main rivals being better on HC/grass compared to clay (yes, even taking Nadal out of the equation), better longevity thanks to advancement in sport medical technology (of course, other players benefit from this too) etc. etc.

I sincerely doubt he'd win 4-5 USOs and 10+ FOs in any other era for example (or make 5 Wimbledon finals for that matter) so on the whole I don't think he got shafted, quite the opposite. I think his game suits this era arguably more than any other player on tour so it's no surprise he's likely gonna end with the most slam titles. Look at how much player struggle with his average rally ball in today's condiitons, he wins most matches by keeping the ball in play without taking risks or going even slightly out of his comfort zone.
How much Nadal wins in other eras has no relevance to his thread and the competition they faced . His favourite surfaces make up for 30% of the tour if anything medium-slow/medium HC is most of the tour which favours Djokovic a bit more if anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

mike danny

Bionic Poster
This is why it's hard for me to give Nadal props for being "The GOAT!" Even when he passes Fed, his resume's spotty! His dominant era was so broken up, all we have to do is look at weeks at #1! He was able to finally get to 200 weeks recently after all these years, but it's consecutive weeks I look at and Nadal's name is not in the top 10! No matter how well he's played, he's never really been able to hold that top rank for any length of time! He had a few good Fall seasons, but for the most part he used up all his skill, energy, and luck early; esp. during the clay seasons! He just couldn't keep it up; sans '08, '10. & '13! That was his best stretch, but unfortunately for him Fedovic were able to supplant him at #1, Djokovic owning him in 2011! :unsure:
Nobody is perfect.

If Nadal passes Fed, he is the GOAT in my eyes.
 

Slightly D1

Professional
Most of the fanatics on this forum are clueless. First they say Federer is a joke who played in a joke era where he racked up countless Slams against scrubs. Then they say Nadal and Djokovic are the true all time greats despite the fact that they both are also winning their Slams in an equally pathetic era of scrubs! :-D No different to Federer's era. The only competition they have is old grandpa Federer who, according to them, was never that good to begin with. So where's the competition then?? :rolleyes:
Nadal played against prime Federer from the start of his career and prime Djokovic throughout the prime of his career. Djokovic has faced the same. Federer did rack up 12 majors before Nadal was even 22. It's ignorant to pretend that Federer faced anybody during his 2003-2007 stretch that even remotely compares to a prime Nadal or Djokovic. Much less, two ATG's challenging him during his pre-2008 stretch. Nadal and Djokovic have been challenged by 2 other all time greats their entire career, not just during their prime or tail end. Even in this 2017-current era, Nadal and Djokovic are still facing each other and Federer had been resurgent.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal played against prime Federer from the start of his career and prime Djokovic throughout the prime of his career. Djokovic has faced the same. Federer did rack up 12 majors before Nadal was even 22. It's ignorant to pretend that Federer faced anybody during his 2003-2007 stretch that even remotely compares to a prime Nadal or Djokovic. Much less, two ATG's challenging him during his pre-2008 stretch. Nadal and Djokovic have been challenged by 2 other all time greats their entire career, not just during their prime or tail end. Even in this 2017-current era, Nadal and Djokovic are still facing each other and Federer had been resurgent.

Nadal won 8 slams not facing prime Federer/Djokovic. All 2010 and 2017+ slams. 2010 Djokovic not bad but entirely beatable, 2019 Federer not worth considering off grass at all.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Nadal won 8 slams not facing prime Federer/Djokovic. All 2010 and 2017+ slams. 2010 Djokovic not bad but entirely beatable, 2019 Federer not worth considering off grass at all.

Some of Federer's early opponents certainly compare to prime Fed and Djok on clay as well...
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
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).
Actually think the point is, if there is one, that HE thinks he needs the gamemanship to win.

I suppose I'm not typical in this forum in that tennis for me is just free entertainment. I enjoy tennis the most when I watch two good players and don't care who wins. For instance, yesterday I had no preference between Monfils and FAA and only wished for a more competitive match.

For me who wins a tennis match is usually not important, with some irrational exceptions. I felt sick for hours after Fed won AO 2017 and vowed never to get caught up like that in a tennis match again. Other than that I reserve anger and frustration at wrong things that happen to my friends and family, and I'm a million times more concerned about Trump.
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
I'm content to see what happens when the careers of the Big 3 are over. We can debate then about who is/was better, and why.
[/QUOTE]
 
Actually think the point is, if there is one, that HE thinks he needs the gamemanship to win.

I suppose I'm not typical in this forum in that tennis for me is just free entertainment. I enjoy tennis the most when I watch two good players and don't care who wins. For instance, yesterday I had no preference between Monfils and FAA and only wished for a more competitive match.

For me who wins a tennis match is usually not important, with some irrational exceptions. I felt sick for hours after Fed won AO 2017 and vowed never to get caught up like that in a tennis match again. Other than that I reserve anger and frustration at wrong things that happen to my friends and family, and I'm a million times more concerned about Trump.

I'm content to see what happens when the careers of the Big 3 are over. We can debate then about who is/was better, and why.

Yes, he certainly does, and from my experience on a tennis court, his tactics are highly effective: the more the opponent relies on the rules to protect him from ill intention, the better for the person using those tactics. That is the genius of Toni Nadal, who designed these tactics for exactly that purpose. Since you mentioned the AO 2017 final: if you haven't noticed, Federer complained about Nadal's tactics there too when he (Federer) was trailing in the fifth. Nadal never won another game after that.

Other than that, I agree 100% with your assessment and priorities. I actually am pretty impartial about the name of the winner, but rather more invested in seeing a good match with (preferably) the style I prefer to watch. I admit that, for example, Djokovic-Murray matches are not for me.

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
 
The concept of an era is a little tricky for Nadal when 75% of the slams are played outside his best surface, but he has done well enough for himself. The man has 5 YE #1, has as many slams outside clay as the total count of many tennis greats, and his H2H in slams against Fedovic is very favorable, even though his peak straddles the peak of the other two (which can't be said of them.)

If Nadal ends at the top of the slam count it will be fun to consider he hasn't had an era, no? ;)
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
For me I think it seems his career was sandwiched between 2 of the greatest ever, so while he was always dominating on clay, they were able to dominate the other two surfaces simultaneously. So when you look at the big picture, Nadal won 12 Slams on clay to their 1, but they won 19 and 16 Slams on the other two surfaces to his 7 and reeled off multiple big tournaments throughout the year on hardcourt, and on indoor as well.

Their most common rank is #1 (310 for Federer and 277 for Djokovic) and Nadal's most common rank is #2 (334). So that's why his era seems to be the shortest between the 3 while long stretches belonged to them because they were #1 longer.

As far if he had it the toughest, I still retain my view that it was Djokovic overall. Reason is because Nadal's breakthrough happened in 2005 on clay and 2006 on grass, when both the clay and grass fields were waning and he only had one dominant player to worry about. He was able to get to the 2006 Wimbledon final without having to play any great grass players or any top players at all really. This is not to say he didn't it have really tough later on with peak Djokovic and a well playing Federer because he did.

Compare that to Djokovic whose breakthrough on all surfaces happened in 2007, he had both peak Federer and peak Nadal on clay and grass to deal with. Then when he won his maiden Slam, he went through Federer on hardcourt to win it, but still would be further blocked by Federer at the USO for the next couple of years and when he finally beat Federer at the USO, he had peak Nadal waiting in the final.

Top 5 players played in Slams
Federer - 55 (421 total matches)
Djokovic - 51 (330 total matches)
Nadal - 42 (314 total matches)

Top 10 players played in Slams
Federer - 99
Djokovic - 79
Nadal - 67

Overall matches between the big 3 in Slams
Djokovic - 32
Federer - 31
Nadal - 29
 

RS

Bionic Poster
@NoleFam
2005 had a very good clay field though. Look at all the big events on clay that year it was packed. You had Fedal,Coria,Gasquet,Davydenko,Puerta,Moya,Ferrer,Canas,Roberdo and Gaudio and probably others i am missing out all having some sort of a good run that season. Very tough clay field.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
@NoleFam
2005 had a very good clay field though. Look at all the big events on clay that year it was packed. You had Fedal,Coria,Gasquet,Davydenko,Puerta,Moya,Ferrer,Canas,Roberdo and Gaudio all having some sort of a good run that season. Would not say Nadal had a easy breakthough.

It did but what happened the next year? They basically all fell off. Not that it would have mattered anyway since Nadal was always going to be the best clay player ever. I never said Nadal's breakthrough was easy. I just think Djokovic's was harder just because he had 2 at their peak when it happened compared to Nadal going against 1.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
It did but what happened the next year? They basically all fell off. Not that it would have mattered anyway since Nadal was always going to be the best clay player ever. I never said Nadal's breakthroigh was easy. I just think Djokovic's was harder just because he had 2 at their peak when it happened compared to Nadal going againat 1.
2006 was mainly about Fedal unlike 2005 but Mattieu played well at RG and so did Nalbandian and Rome was epic as we now.
I was only pointing out this out not about the Djokovic part i said my thoughts on this generally.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
2006 was mainly about Fedal unlike 2005 but Mattieu played well at RG and so did Nalbandian and Rome was epic as we now.
I was only pointing out this out not about the Djokovic part i said my thoughts on this generally.

Agreed and fair enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

RS

Bionic Poster
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
What is your opinion on the topic?
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
Nadal played against prime Federer from the start of his career and prime Djokovic throughout the prime of his career. Djokovic has faced the same. Federer did rack up 12 majors before Nadal was even 22. It's ignorant to pretend that Federer faced anybody during his 2003-2007 stretch that even remotely compares to a prime Nadal or Djokovic. Much less, two ATG's challenging him during his pre-2008 stretch. Nadal and Djokovic have been challenged by 2 other all time greats their entire career, not just during their prime or tail end. Even in this 2017-current era, Nadal and Djokovic are still facing each other and Federer had been resurgent.
Sure but Nadal was a stylistic problem for Federer. Djokovic didn't start beating Federer routinely until after Federer hit his 30s.
And the competition is a pile of sh*t even today that these 3 guys in their 30s are still up there. You got a bunch of clowns and mugs like Dimitrov, Monfils, Tsitsipas, Kyrgios etc who care more about partying and getting laid than actually trying to become great players.
 

swordtennis

G.O.A.T.
Sure but Nadal was a stylistic problem for Federer. Djokovic didn't start beating Federer routinely until after Federer hit his 30s.
And the competition is a pile of sh*t even today that these 3 guys in their 30s are still up there. You got a bunch of clowns and mugs like Dimitrov, Monfils, Tsitsipas, Kyrgios etc who care more about partying and getting laid than actually trying to become great players.
You left out selfies.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster

RS

Bionic Poster
That's a bit different though. He's talking about goat points which is something on the UTS site. Mine is totally based on top 5 and top 10 players played. I actually found out about the goat points a while ago, at least back in 2018.
That takes into account how well players did in big evens though. It is not exactly the same as the comment here but it shares your view about Djokovic era having the best oppenents in a different way.
I saw it in 2018 too when i learned more about UTS.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
That takes into account how well players did in big evens though. It is not exactly the same as the comment here but it shares your view about Djokovic era having the best oppenents.

No I said Djokovic had it the toughest overall not that he had the best opponents. He and Nadal baaically had the same oppponents their whole careers, just that their career arc is different and had a different dynamic when they broke through.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
No I said Djokovic had it the toughest overall not that he had the best opponents. He and Nadal baaically had the same oppponents their whole careers, just that their career arc is different and had a different dynamic when they broke through.
Fair enough. I meant like when Djokovic played the top oppenents they were best most often they obviously played the same oppenents but the amount they played them in different years were different were form changes.
 

duaneeo

Legend
Nadal and Djokovic have been challenged by 2 other all time greats their entire career, not just during their prime or tail end.

See post #30. The Fedal Era from 2005 - 2010 resulted in 21 slams (Fed 12, Rafa 9) and the career grand slam for both. This is all before Nole reached his peak in 2011.

Federer and Nadal were far from their all-time-great level tennis during Djokovic's 2011 - 2016 peak/prime years. Roger only won one slam! He was less a factor at the slams than Murray and Wawrinka, and no more a factor than Cilic. And, Nadal's all-time-great level tennis at Djokovic's favorite slams (Australian Open, Wimbledon) was stuck in the 2000s.
 

Subway Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Replace clay era with era in general and your statement can literally apply to any era. So thete should be no weak eras.

I think that is a fair point. A lot of the weak era remarks essentially punish players for their excellence in making fields "look" weak.

Serena, Roger, Rafa, Novak are all victims of the fallacy imo.
 

Tostao80

Rookie
See post #30. The Fedal Era from 2005 - 2010 resulted in 21 slams (Fed 12, Rafa 9) and the career grand slam for both. This is all before Nole reached his peak in 2011.

Federer and Nadal were far from their all-time-great level tennis during Djokovic's 2011 - 2016 peak/prime years. Roger only won one slam! He was less a factor at the slams than Murray and Wawrinka, and no more a factor than Cilic. And, Nadal's all-time-great level tennis at Djokovic's favorite slams (Australian Open, Wimbledon) was stuck in the 2000s.

You think that Rafa NA hard court if 13 and Aussie Open 12 is far from his best level on hard? How easy did Novak find Rafa in that Aussie final?
 

doparrained

New User
What defines an era exactly? If it is 3 consecutive years as best player even Djokovic never had an era.

Nadal was clear best player in 2008, 2nd best in 2009, clear best in 2010. 2008-2010 be considered an era depending on your perspective. Or Nadal was best player in 2017, very close 2nd best in 2018, best in 2019, that could also. Especialy since the best player of 2018 was not even 1 of the 6 best or so in 2017. Nadal was the best player in 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2nd best in 2009 and 2011, only not in 2012 when he was mostly injured. One could say 2008-2013 was overall his era depending on your perspective again.

The only ones with an obvious era in the last 30 years by any measure are Federer and Sampras. Federer 2004-2007 (or 2004-2009, again depending on your perspective) and Sampras 1993-1998. Everyone else could be disputed depending on your standards, including even Djokovic.
 

doparrained

New User
Federer era: 2004-early 2010

Nadal era: 2008-2013

Djokovic era: 2011-2016 or early 2016.

I think that's about it.

Yes that also makes sense. That creates overlapping eras which would be a problem for some people, but not for others (for me no problem but it is a matter of opinion). Again depends on perspective.

Djokovic is closer to having an unquestioned era than Nadal would be, but really only Federer does without those 3. The other two it depends on perimetres.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
I think what it shows is Nadal has always been the 2nd best to either Federer or Djokovic, more than that he had tougher competition. Post-prime Federer would be equal of pre-prime Djokovic, I think - someone who can give Djokovic tough time and even beat him(like younger Djokovic to Fed) but lose to Nole most of the times. Just like Federer had Nadal, young Djokovic and young Murray in his prime, Djokovic has had Nadal as 2nd best, old Federer and variable Murray(who, I believe, could've been his biggest rival during 2013-2016 without the surgery) in his prime. Murray was matching Novak in late 2012 to 2013 before his injury which was unfortunate and many people seem to forget that, but Murray is and exceptional talent who just underachieved due to his injury and surgery. I'm sure Murray could've won a couple more Wimbys and USO titles. Anyway, the Big 4 had to play in tough era because they have had to contend against each other and I think it was a Golden era of men's tennis. I've seen the era of McEnroe's, Wilander's, Lendl's and the rest, so at least I'm comparing the Golden Era with some other good eras. Nadal's competition has always been made of 1 better player than himself and couple others who are slightly below that 1 best throughout his career, I think.
 

GoldenMasters

Semi-Pro
If a player never finished back to back years as no.1 then he never had his own era. It's as simple as that. Nadal did well despite being 2nd in Federer and Djokovic eras and he will most likely finish with most slam titles and be regarded as GOAT, but lets not fool ourselves that he actually had his own era. :rolleyes:
 
Was du hier erzählst passt hinten und vorne nicht zusammen. Allerdings ist es gut, daß du dich nicht mehr versteckst. Gehst du noch zum Fitnessstudio um dich zu duschen? Ah, wie geil ist das Leben denn!

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
Mein Deutsch ist sehr rudimentär, aber was Sie sagen, macht keinen Sinn, mein kleiner Sitzpinkler.
 
Top