Was 2005-07 Nadal a clay specialist?

[clout]

Of course, Rafa has promptly shed this label ever since by experiencing an abundance of all-court success later on in his career. But, in your opinions, was a young Rafa in his first few years on tour (approx. around 2005-07) still considered a clay specialist?

Some points for Rafa being a clay specialist:
- he won zero majors off clay
- he never made it past the quarters at a HC Slam
- Only 10 wins vs top 10 players on HC and Grass
- never spent a week at number one; let alone finish a year at number one (partly due to the fact that he couldn't get enough accumulated points on other surfaces)
- his technical game was still not good enough to win on faster courts
Some points against Rafa being a clay specialist:
- He made two Wimbledon finals (losing to Fed both times)
- He won 3 HC Masters Titles in this span
- He scored a couple HC wins over Federer in this span

What do you guys think?

 

[Deleted member 743561]

He’s not a specialist in defending titles off clay.

 

[metsman]

Rafa was young and inexperience and still the clear #2 in this period. Tells you all you need to know about the type of CRAPOLA Fed was beating to win his slams. Nole and Rafa put a quick end to that once they went through puberty.

 

[zverev2018]

Rafa was young and inexperience and still the clear #2 in this period. Tells you all you need to know about the type of CRAPOLA Fed was beating to win his slams. Nole and Rafa put a quick end to that once they went through puberty.

Salty

 

[Jonas78]

I didnt follow Nadal closely back then, but ive read some posters say Nadal was a very good and pretty aggressive HC player as a young teenager, before Toni turned his game into a more defensive clay specialized game. When this didnt work on HC/grass, he started to revert back to a more similar style he played when he was younger.

 

[Noleberic123]

Rafa was young and inexperience and still the clear #2 in this period. Tells you all you need to know about the type of CRAPOLA Fed was beating to win his slams. Nole and Rafa put a quick end to that once they went through puberty.

I'm not sure if your recent comments are sarcasm or not.

 

[tennisaddict]

Rafa was young and inexperience and still the clear #2 in this period. Tells you all you need to know about the type of CRAPOLA MUGS Fed was beating to win his slams. Nole and Rafa put a quick end to that once they went through puberty.

Added a crucial word to make the sentence more complete

 

[TheAssassin]

I'm not sure if your recent comments are sarcasm or not.

90's Clay is missed badly and metsman is doing a fine job at keeping his spirit with us to this day.

 

[TheFifthSet]

05/06, to an extent. He was still excellent off clay, though.

2007, absolutely not. Won Indian Wells without losing a set (beating Djokovic and Roddick en route) and was a set away from winning Wimbledon after getting through a tough draw of Fish, Soderling, Youzhny, Berdych and Djokovic. No shame losing to prime Federer in 5 sets. He was pretty good in some of the HC tournaments he lost but just ran into top-notch competition: Djokovic in Miami and Canada (eventual winner of both), Nalby twice in the indoor season, Fed in the semis of the YEC, Gonzo in the QF’s of the AO. Of those five losses, four are pretty explainable on paper (as Nadal is Djoko and Fed’s inferior on HC, likewise with Nalby indoors) whereas Fernando played well above his average level in the 07 QF’s.

 

[Noleberic123]

90's Clay is missed badly and metsman is doing a fine job at keeping his spirit with us to this day.

Metsman used to be a good poster

 

[clout]

I'm not sure if your recent comments are sarcasm or not.

I wasn't around yet during the "glorious" 90's clay (AKA 60's Weed) era on this forum, but if metsman is willing to take the torch and run with being the new 90's clay (which he seems to be willing to do) then I'll happily take that

 

[Jonas78]

I wasn't around yet during the "glorious" 90's clay era (AKA 60's Weed) on this forum, but if metsman is willing to take the torch and run with being the new 90's clay (which he seems to be) then I'll happily take that

Its so much irony and sarcasm around here now, i cant keep up

 

[Sport]

No. He was a clay-grass player. But he still wasn't at his peak on grass, he was virtually a teenager in his 20-21 and still needed more experience.

2008 is his first all-around peak year: won RG, won WB, and also the Olympic Gold in singles on HC.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

He still is.

 

[TheAverageFedererFan]

I wouldn't say completely because he did have some successes. He began to progress well on Grass and eventually to Hard Court.

 

[Mustard]

Clay is just Nadal's best surface.

 

[Mainad]

Clay is just Nadal's best surface.

Whoever would have guessed?

 

[Milehigh5280]

Not at all. The 3 hc masters and 2 Wimbledon finals prove he was more than just a clay courter even if he hadn't peaked on other surfaces yet.

 

[KINGROGER]

Nadal was at his peak across all surfaces from 2005. It’s just he lost to strong era opponents Hewitt, Blake, Gonzalez, peak Federer etc on HCs so he had no chance. He needed the field to decline.

 

[thrust]

Nadal was at his peak across all surfaces from 2005. It’s just he lost to strong era opponents Hewitt, Blake, Gonzalez, peak Federer etc on HCs so he had no chance. He needed the field to decline.

Nonsense! He was NOT at his peak hard court or on grass till 07=08. To say otherwise, it to make Federer's competition better than it was then.

 

[EloQuent]

TTW logic:

Nadal at 20-21 was just a kid, those slams just mean it was a weakera.

Denis Shapovalov should be winning slams on all surfaces or else.

 

[Meles]

Nonsense! He was NOT at his peak hard court or on grass till 07=08. To say otherwise, it to make Federer's competition better than it was then.

For hard it was really 2010. Just because he was trouble for Fed does not mean he was in his hard court prime.

One of the weirdest hard court peak/prime is Murray whose late 2008 into 2009 stats are 2nd only to his year in 2016. One wonders just how much of a toll Murray's back/hip issues were over his entire career.

 

[Meles]

Said yes because he was just too young for hard courts then. His early clay success just shows how much that surface seems to work for younger players.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

For hard it was really 2010. Just because he was trouble for Fed does not mean he was in his hard court prime.

One of the weirdest hard court peak/prime is Murray whose late 2008 into 2009 stats are 2nd only to his year in 2016. One wonders just how much of a toll Murray's back/hip issues were over his entire career.

So RAFA at his hc peak only won one hc slam and an ATP500?

 

[KINGROGER]

Nonsense! He was NOT at his peak hard court or on grass till 07=08. To say otherwise, it to make Federer's competition better than it was then.

Nah strong era opponents were too good for Nadal. Roddick, Hewitt, Blake etc

 

[Meles]

So RAFA at his hc peak only won one hc slam and an ATP500?

2010 was the start of his prime which has now been extended with the Moya 2nd serve. In a few years its possible that hard will be his best surface when he really gets long in the tooth.

 

[clout]

2010 was the start of his prime which has now been extended with the Moya 2nd serve. In a few years its possible that hard will be his best surface when he really gets long in the tooth.

I mean he's been among the top 2/3 players in the world since 2005 when he was VERY young, however his overall technique is certainly way better than before. Literally every part of his game has improved since the days where he was a physical grinder

 

[mike danny]

Said yes because he was just too young for hard courts then. His early clay success just shows how much that surface seems to work for younger players.

What about grass, then?

 

[EloQuent]

Said yes because he was just too young for hard courts then. His early clay success just shows how much that surface seems to work for younger players.

lol, you really gonna go with that?

Forgetting the indoor HC win in Madrid in 05, or Djokovic winning AO at 20, or the complete lack of evidence that younger players do better on clay

 

[Meles]

What about grass, then?

He peaked early on grass for sure, but how much of this was his little match up advantage with Fed. As 2 seed he had some pretty good draws.

For me Nadal's early success on clay versus the dominance of the veterans really has me stumped. My treasured stats on grass, well I don't even bother gathering them for the most part because just not enough matches in a year to make them reliable.

For multiple years I like grass stats so let's give 2006-2008 plus maybe 2010 Nadal a whirl.... Nadal won 53.6% of points from 2006-2008 (not that amazing especially compared to Fed). 2010-2011 basically the same. To me this puts him squarely below both Murray and Djoko on grass.

 

[Meles]

lol, you really gonna go with that?

Forgetting the indoor HC win in Madrid in 05, or Djokovic winning AO at 20, or the complete lack of evidence that younger players do better on clay

It holds for most players on points won for the season. Djokovic had some great runs like Miami/IW swing in 2007 with great stats, but then you look at the draw and he had it pretty easy (Fed a no show.) Djokovics serve stats don't even hit prime until 2012-2015. 2011 was legendary returning. His numbers and returning even in 2007/2008 weren't as good. Again these are points stats for the season. I'd argue Djoko's prime was on clay starting as early as 2008 and of course his crazy match with Nadal at 2009 Madrid started Nadal's downfall in 2009 and helped Fed's last great year until recent times. Djoko is hard to really study because he clearly was having health issues holding him back a touch with the gluten free spiel.