Stronger year: 2013 vs. 2014?

[The Guru]

Yeah a lot of people tend to exclude 2010 I guess.

Don’t know how AO 2007 viewed as a slam actually. AO 2007 Gonzo is rated very highly too some say his QF/SF were up with the best big 3 matches and even his final performance has been rated at like a Fed AO 08/11 SF and Murray AO 13 F tier.

Yeah and Zverev AO 21 is rated high by some people too who cares. Some people will say anything. I'm sure you can find some people who think the USO 20 F was great.

 

[RS]

Yeah and Zverev AO 21 is rated high by some people too who cares. Some people will say anything. I'm sure you can find some people who think the USO 20 F was great.

lol. Haas match was 40 plus winners to like 3-4 UE’s which is partly why it got rated high. And nearly taking the first set in the final as Fed AO 07 who is rated in a similar tier to Djok AO 08/11/13

 

[Poisoned Slice]

What kind? I assume you pick

School is out for summer. I can remember your suggestion.

 

[NatF]

Yeah a lot of people tend to exclude 2010 I guess.

Don’t know how AO 2007 viewed as a slam actually. AO 2007 Gonzo is rated very highly too some say his QF/SF were up with the best big 3 matches and even his final performance has been rated at like a Fed AO 08/11 SF and Murray AO 13 F tier.

Not sure this is the case at all. Dislike how you present what amounts to one off takes (which you probably can't even remember who from) as something more - just reeks of baiting.

Probably the AO's Fed won in 06 and 07 were the weak link in his reign, either in terms of form like 2006 (though a bit underrated) or 2007 which was a pretty uncompetitive slam (though Fed's form was sublime). Pretty much all his other wins were at least average IMO, even slams which seem weaker like Wim 2005 I think the case can be made that Fed just made it look weaker than it actually was.

 

[mike danny]

lol you do that all the time though

As in when Djokovic started amassing most of his majors, but I don't put an equal sign between the 2 periods.

 

[duaneeo]

Because winning slams was much tougher back then.

Nole won 3 slams in 2011 and 2015. He failed to win multiple slams in 2012/2013/2014 not because it was "much tougher", but because he didn't bring the mental game.

 

[RS]

Not sure this is the case at all. Dislike how you present what amounts to one off takes (which you probably can't even remember who from) as something more - just reeks of baiting.

Probably the AO's Fed won in 06 and 07 were the weak link in his reign, either in terms of form like 2006 (though a bit underrated) or 2007 which was a pretty uncompetitive slam (though Fed's form was sublime). Pretty much all his other wins were at least average IMO, even slams which seem weaker like Wim 2005 I think the case can be made that Fed just made it look weaker than it actually was.

Rated a bit worse than them but not overly so IMO. Not saying there is anything wrong with it though since it's subjective.

I agree with you that's probably how Fed fans and others close to that circle view Wim 2005 and AO 2006. AO 2006 sometimes get's rated favourably pre final or for Davy and Hewitt Wim 2005 and even Rod Wim 2005 is probably a bit underrated.

 

[dapchai]

Murray is considered to have been better in Wimbledon 2012 than 2013? What does it tell us?

It tells us that if someone loses to Federer then he's at his very best.

 

[StrongRule]

Nole won 3 slams in 2011 and 2015. He failed to win multiple slams in 2012/2013/2014 not because it was "much tougher", but because he didn't bring the mental game.

2011 was the exception, not the rule. That was his absolute peak, and he wasn't going to play like that every year. I have no idea why you bring 2015, which was a weak year. He would have won much more in 2012-2014 if old Federer was his main rival at the slams.

 

[duaneeo]

2011 was the exception, not the rule. That was his absolute peak, and he wasn't going to play like that every year.

Exactly, and that has been my criticism of Nole for years. As an ATG who many now call the GOAT, he should've been able to play like that during those peak years of 2012-2014. I don't at all agree with the suggestion that the competition was too exceptional during that period.

 

[fedfan24]

2011 was the exception, not the rule. That was his absolute peak, and he wasn't going to play like that every year. I have no idea why you bring 2015, which was a weak year. He would have won much more in 2012-2014 if old Federer was his main rival at the slams.

he got kinda lucky as well. tsonga did him a favour at wimbledon, then the 40-15 debacle. few points here and there and it’s another 2008/2012 for him.

 

[Holmes]

I think 2011-2013 > 2007-2009 > 2014-2016 >>>>>>>>>> 2004-2006 seems about right IMO

FFY

 

[RS]

FFY

I am surprised you didn't rate 2014-16 over 2007-09.

 

[RS]

2011 was the exception, not the rule. That was his absolute peak, and he wasn't going to play like that every year. I have no idea why you bring 2015, which was a weak year. He would have won much more in 2012-2014 if old Federer was his main rival at the slams.

Mate why are all your posts about Djokovic these days?

 

[RS]

School is out for summer. I can remember your suggestion.

Imagine if we started doing football games. 105 mins to 130 mins on and off analysis

 

[NatF]

Rated a bit worse than them but not overly so IMO. Not saying there is anything wrong with it though since it's subjective.

I agree with you that's probably how Fed fans and others close to that circle view Wim 2005 and AO 2006. AO 2006 sometimes get's rated favourably pre final or for Davy and Hewitt Wim 2005 and even Rod Wim 2005 is probably a bit underrated.

Fed had a bunch of dips in intensity at the AO in 2006 but he was still obviously better than say any Murray at the AO

Probably the last four opponents Fed beat at Wim in 2005 would have chances to take a bunch of sets off many winners and finalists the past 20 years, Fed just made them look very ordinary.

 

[Hitman]

Mate why are all your posts about Djokovic these days?

These days?

 

[mike danny]

What I will also add about 2013 is that Nadal somehow didn't face the entire roster of players that year, but Djokovic did.

Nadal didn't face in form Delpo in a slam, Djokovic did.
Nadal didn't face in form Murray, Djokovic did.
Nadal didn't face in form Stan either, Djokovic did twice. Yes, I know he beat Stan at the FO, but I'd argue Stan played at a higher level at the AO and USO that year and wasn't coming off a 9-7 in the 5th win at those.

 

[TheNachoMan]

What I will also add about 2013 is that Nadal somehow didn't face the entire roster of players that year, but Djokovic did.

Nadal didn't face in form Delpo in a slam, Djokovic did.
Nadal didn't face in form Murray, Djokovic did.
Nadal didn't face in form Stan either, Djokovic did twice. Yes, I know he beat Stan at the FO, but I'd argue Stan played at a higher level at the AO and USO that year and wasn't coming off a 9-7 in the 5th win at those.

Nadal got Gasquet in the USO SF. lol

 

[NatF]

Nadal got Gasquet in the USO SF. lol

Djokovic had very tough competition in 2013, rough draws at every major.

 

[StrongRule]

Nadal got Gasquet in the USO SF. lol

Had it been the other way around, we would be hearing that Gasquet was the stronger opponent, because unlike Wawrinka, he already had a slam semifinal in the past. It's easy to act like this now, but in 2013 there was no reason to think Wawrinka is a tougher opponent than Gasquet at all. Nadal would have beaten Wawrinka in 3-4 sets anyway. They met 4 times that year, and Nadal won all 4 meetings in straight sets.

 

[TheNachoMan]

there was no reason to think Wawrinka is a tougher opponent than Gasquet at all.

lol

 

[StrongRule]

lol

You know it's true. Who was Wawrinka anyway in 2013? That USO was his first slam semifinal. Again, had it been the other way around, Nadal would have beaten Wawrinka in 3-4 sets, and then you and others would be saying Gasquet was the tougher opponent. It's just that idea on this forum that Djokovic always has tough draws while Nadal always has easy draws, no matter what. Just like Berrettini was a mug in USO 2019 and AO 2022, but somehow in 2021 he was some hell of an opponent according to this forum.

 

[Hitman]

Had it been the other way around, we would be hearing that Gasquet was the stronger opponent, because unlike Wawrinka, he already had a slam semifinal in the past. It's easy to act like this now, but in 2013 there was no reason to think Wawrinka is a tougher opponent than Gasquet at all. Nadal would have beaten Wawrinka in 3-4 sets anyway. They met 4 times that year, and Nadal won all 4 meetings in straight sets.

Wawrinka was seen as tougher, he backed up that epic match with Djokovic at AO 2013 with an equally epic match in which he beat Gasquet at RG in the fourth round. Wawrinka was looking clearly to be on the rise in 2013, Gasquet wasn't.

 

[StrongRule]

Wawrinka was seen as tougher, he backed up that epic match with Djokovic at AO 2013 with an equally epic match in which he beat Gasquet at RG in the fourth round. Wawrinka was looking clearly to be on the rise in 2013, Gasquet wasn't.

He was seen as tougher because he was Djokovic's opponent. Don't remember anyone calling him tough when Nadal faced him 4 times that year. It's the usual BS on this forum that Djokovic always has the toughest draws no matter what, while Nadal has the easiest, even if they beat the same opponents.

 

[Hitman]

He was seen as tougher because he was Djokovic's opponent. Don't remember anyone calling him tough when Nadal faced him. It's the usual BS on this forum that Djokovic always has the toughest draws no matter what.

He was seen as tougher period. Even at WTF, both those sets that Nadal won were tie break sets. Wawrinka was starting to pick up steam in 2013, it was clear after his coaching change things were coming together.

Gasquet was seen as being past his best in 2013, his best tennis seemed long in the past. This isn't BS, this is absolutely true.

 

[StrongRule]

He was seen as tougher period. Even at WTF, both those sets that Nadal won were tie break sets. Wawrinka was starting to pick up steam in 2013, it was clear after his coaching change things were coming together.

Gasquet was seen as being past his best in 2013, his best tennis seemed long in the past. This isn't BS, this is absolutely true.

But this is not the only example, this happens all the time. Like Berrettini being a mug in USO 2019 and AO 2022, but some hell of an opponent when Djokovic faced him in 3 slams in 2021.

WTF is a much worse tournament for Nadal than USO, and yeah, he still beat Wawrinka there. He surely wouldn't need 5 sets in USO.

 

[Hitman]

But this is not the only example, this happens all the time. Like Berrettini being a mug in USO 2019 and AO 2022, but some hell of an opponent when Djokovic faced him in 3 slams in 2021.

Who built him up as a world beater for Djokovic in 2021? Djokovic's three slam run was constantly trashed upon by Fedal fans, and still is. Inflation, vulturing, mugs....you have heard it all. You know this also.

WTF is a much worse tournament for Nadal than USO, and yeah, he still beat Wawrinka there. He surely wouldn't need 5 sets in USO.

And what exactly had Wawrinka done at WTF before then anyway? Nadal got to the final, he wasn't that bad. Now who is taking credit away?

Nadal would have likely beaten Wawrinka yes, but you have to be blind to think that Wawrinka wouldn't give a heck of a lot more resistance than Gasquet did to Nadal. Gasquet had no weapons, Wawrinka was finally putting it together, he also took out Murray that event, who though was still drunk on the W victory, was still the champion.

No matter how you cut it, trying to say that Wawrinka 2013 is the same league at Gasquet 2013 is really pushing it.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Only StrongRule could build up Gasquet, who is 0-9020 against Nadal as a tough opponent. Amazing.

 

[RS]

Nadal not playing AO and losing early in Wim makes it look worse on him for competition when he didn't make a deep run while Djokovic did. If he made a deep run he would have likely faced the competition Djokovic did and he did beat Djokovic fair and square at two slams that year.

 

[mike danny]

He was seen as tougher because he was Djokovic's opponent. Don't remember anyone calling him tough when Nadal faced him 4 times that year. It's the usual BS on this forum that Djokovic always has the toughest draws no matter what, while Nadal has the easiest, even if they beat the same opponents.

Stan would have posed a tougher challenge than Gasquet, period, even if Nadal still wins in the end.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal not playing AO and losing early in Wim makes it look worse on him for competition when he didn't make a deep run while Djokovic did. If he made a deep run he would have likely faced the competition Djokovic did and he did beat Djokovic fair and square at two slams that year.

He did, but Djokovic faced more of the competition overall.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal got Gasquet in the USO SF. lol

Nadal's projected USO draw was easy from the start. Craperer in the quarters and Ferrer in the semis. It somehow got even easier LOL.

 

[NatF]

Nadal not playing AO and losing early in Wim makes it look worse on him for competition when he didn't make a deep run while Djokovic did. If he made a deep run he would have likely faced the competition Djokovic did and he did beat Djokovic fair and square at two slams that year.

If Nadal played the AO and lost who knows how the rest of his HC campaign goes, particularly if he lost to Djokovic in the SF in Ferrer's place. Likewise a deeper run at Wimbledo may have affected him in the NA HC swing, he lost a lot of steam after the USO. Sort of gives 2017 Fed vibes with the losing early/ducking parts of the calendar keeping him fresh to win more often when he did show up.

 

[Sephiroth]

2013 by a landslide.

No one in the history of the game, past, present or future would've stopped 5th set RG 22+ winners Nadal and the unbeatable USO swing Nadal.

Other than Nadal himself. He had Djokovic reconsidering his life choices during that swing.

 

[Hitman]

Nadal's projected USO draw was easy from the start. Craperer in the quarters and Ferrer in the semis. It somehow got even easier LOL.

Exactly.

 

[Hitman]

If Nadal played the AO and lost who knows how the rest of his HC campaign goes, particularly if he lost to Djokovic in the SF in Ferrer's place. Likewise a deeper run at Wimbledo may have affected him in the NA HC swing, he lost a lot of steam after the USO. Sort of gives 2017 Fed vibes with the losing early/ducking parts of the calendar keeping him fresh to win more often when he did show up.

Had Nadal played AO, he was certainly losing it. No way he wins that slam as his first tournament back after six months.

And Nadal was basically switched off from RG final to start of Montreal, which was about two month gap. His Wimbledon appearance was basically a cup of coffee....it was his worst showing ever there.

 

[NatF]

Had Nadal played AO, he was certainly losing it. No way he wins that slam as his first tournament back after six months.

And Nadal was basically switched off from RG final to start of Montreal, which was about two month gap. His Wimbledon appearance was basically a cup of coffee....it was his worst showing ever there.

He basically tanked Wimbledon, no intensity at all - and yes he wasn't winning the AO, I was just commenting on the benefit skipping it likely had on his confidence.

 

[MichaelNadal]

2013 Montreal was crispy af

 

[RS]

If Nadal played the AO and lost who knows how the rest of his HC campaign goes, particularly if he lost to Djokovic in the SF in Ferrer's place. Likewise a deeper run at Wimbledo may have affected him in the NA HC swing, he lost a lot of steam after the USO. Sort of gives 2017 Fed vibes with the losing early/ducking parts of the calendar keeping him fresh to win more often when he did show up.

I think Djokovic would have been too much at AO anyway but clay is always a bounce back and Djokovic struggled a bit at IW/Miami.

Grass may be that may have put a small damper on the Summer HC swing were Nadal won all 3. I doubt Nadal was going to make a deep run at Wimbledon anyway on 2nd thought.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I loved that Wimbledon 2013 kit

 

[Hitman]

He basically tanked Wimbledon, no intensity at all - and yes he wasn't winning the AO, I was just commenting on the benefit skipping it likely had on his confidence.

Yes, of course.

When I hear about Nadal had such a great HC that he was undefeated until September, the actual context behind it is missing. He had a great USO swing that year, yes, but had he played AO and Miami, he would have already had a loss to his name. He basically had only played IW on HC before August....

 

[Deleted member 779124]

2013 has the edge here for me. As far as the slams go I think only Wimbledon was stronger in 14 and unlike TS I don't put 14 Stan over 13 Stan in any meaningful way. I actually think 15>14 and I agree with TS that the 13 cutoff is a little arbitrary. 11-12 and 13-15 are more natural to lump with eachother imo. Or just lump 11-15 all together as there's much more pronounced drop from 15 to the years that followed than 13 or 14 to 15.

2013 is a middle year IMHO. A bit weaker than 11-12 but a bit stronger than 14-15.

 

[mike danny]

Yes, of course.

When I hear about Nadal had such a great HC that he was undefeated until September, the actual context behind it is missing. He had a great USO swing that year, yes, but had he played AO and Miami, he would have already had a loss to his name. He basically had only played IW on HC before August....

Basically if 2005 Fed had skipped the AO, he also would've been undefeated on HC all year after playing more matches on HC too than 2013 Nadal.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Basically if 2005 Fed had skipped the AO, he also would've been undefeated on HC all year after playing more matches on HC too than 2013 Nadal.

He lost to Nalbandian on HC that year too.

 

[mike danny]

He lost to Nalbandian on HC that year too.

The YEC was played on carpet, not HC.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Basically if 2005 Fed had skipped the AO, he also would've been undefeated on HC all year after playing more matches on HC too than 2013 Nadal.

He had injury problems for quite a bit of that year too. Possibly would have nabbed one of last two masters and the YEC if not for that IMHO.

 

[Hitman]

Basically if 2005 Fed had skipped the AO, he also would've been undefeated on HC all year after playing more matches on HC too than 2013 Nadal.

True. When you miss a slam, the whole statement really falls apart.

 

[StrongRule]

Only StrongRule could build up Gasquet, who is 0-9020 against Nadal as a tough opponent. Amazing.

I've never called him a tough opponent. I'm saying others would be calling him tough if he faced Djokovic. Just like I don't remember anyone calling him easy in Wimbledon 2015. Not to mention that Nadal never even dropped a set against Wawrinka back then.

 

[StrongRule]

Nadal's projected USO draw was easy from the start. Craperer in the quarters and Ferrer in the semis. It somehow got even easier LOL.

Yeah, and who was Djokovic supposed to face in the 1/4 finals? He faced an old Youzhny, LOL. In general, Djokovic path to the semifinal was a joke. As for Federer, there were actually some expectations from him after the Cincinnati 1/4 final.