What would you generally regard as the "Nadal era"

Nadal era overall was

  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
M

mattosgrant

Banned
I have seen this debated in numerous places, and this goes along with my own thread of debating eras. I had thought the consensus was 2008-2010 was the Nadal era. Even though Federer ended up #1 in 2009, generally this 3 year period Nadal was the best overall, and it was his era. However I have recently seen on MTF many insisting 2008-2013 overall was the Nadal era that since no player managed to maintain supremacy for more than 1 year and half, that Nadal having the most slams, most time at #1, and best overall results this overall period deserves that be to his era, not just 2008-2010. Yet here I have seen some Federer fans who insist the Federer era should be dragged out from 2004-2009, despite being firmly outdone by Nadal all of 2008, and the first 5 months of 2009, and Nadal's era is either only 2010 or no era. So which do you consider his era. I still stick to my overall medium answer of 2008-2010. I personally am not willing to give him 2008-2013 as an overall era, while I see the possible argument, nor willing to pigeon him to just 2010 either.
 
You want to award 2012-2014 for Novak , yet don't want to give 2009 to Fed, when he won 2 majors and reached the finals of 2 others. Seems right.

Why don't we all just accept

2004-2007 Fed
2008-2010 Rafa
2011-201x Novak
 
I don't know. I mean during 2008-2009 Nadal and Federer won the same amount of slams. Federer reached more slam finals. It is not as clear cut it was Nadal's era in 2009. 2004-2009 could have very well been Federer's era.. Just like, while 2013 was definetely Nadal's year, 2011-present still remains the Djokovic era.

2008-2013 was not Nadal's era. He was no.1 for only 3 years out of 6.
 
Tennis_Hands said:
Well, the definition of dominant is pretty clear (it is not mine) and Djokovic fits in it for both 2012 and 2014.

Many people confise dominant with totally/extremely dominant.

:cool:
Click to expand...

Well I am fine with regarding just being clear #1 as dominant, in which case I agree Djokovic was dominant in both 2012 and 2014. Just when you hear that exact word, many have a much higher definition of it.
 
mike danny said:
I don't know. I mean during 2008-2009 Nadal and Federer won the same amount of slams. Federer reached more slam finals. It is not as clear cut it was Nadal's era in 2009. 2004-2009 could have very well been Federer's era.. Just like, while 2013 was definetely Nadal's year, 2011-present still remains the Djokovic era.

2008-2013 was not Nadal's era. He was no.1 for only 3 years out of 6.
Click to expand...

On the other hand Federer didn't even win a Masters in 2008. Nadal actually won more Masters and tournaments than Federer in 2009 did he not, even if he was clearly #2. I do think the gap between Nadal and Federer was bigger in 2008 than 2009 overall still, and since Nadal had clearly overthrown Federer for not only the entirety of 2008 but roughly the whole first half of 2009 until the Soderling miracle swung things, to me it is a huge stretch to stretch the Federer era to 2009. That is my opinion though.

I agree with you that stretching the Nadal era to 2013 is silly, but many on MTF were doing this, which is why I presented the suggestion to see what others thought even though I strongly disagreed. Their exact explanation when I asked (more or less) was since nobody from 2008-2013 was the best for more than a year and half (which is true considering Fed took #1 for awhile from Djokovic in the middle of 2012, which is totally different than not being there for a large part of the year only since you didn't start a year there), that the person who achieved the most over that long period where nobody was the best for more than roughly a year and half owns the era. By that thinking yes it would clearly be Nadal, I just disagree with that analysis of what is an era, which goes back to my earlier thread on what defines an era.
 
Last edited:
Jokervich said:
2008-2011

He had a good second half of 2013, but those years are what I would consider the Nadal era.
Click to expand...

Extending to 2011 when he was nowhere near best in 2011 (since Djokovic was so much better), but yet not to 2013 when he retook the status as the best is kind of odd to me. It would seem to make more sense to either end his era after 2010 or stretch it to 2013, but to each their own.
 
2008-2013.

Nadal stats clearly show his level rising to another level after 2007 season. It also confirms that his tennis power stayed at a high until 2014, when it begun to drop.

The periods 2004-07 or 2014-2015 are not comparable in statistical terms to what he did from 2008-2013.

Now if we compare the 3 years prior to 2010 to the 3 following, we may fin out that their are pretty close in terms of points per tournament ratio and titles per season. however in terms of crossed statistics, Rafa was statistically way more consistent in 2011-2013 than he was from 2007-2009.

Yet it is quite hard to conclude hat was his best year ever. Even though 2010 is widely regard as its best (3 GS), he won more apt points in 2008 and 2013 than in 2010. Additionally his level of play crossed statistics reached the highest ever in 2013. Also, considering overall Tour14 titles, Rafa won more in 2013 than ever before. Thus his best ever season is quite an open discussion to me.
 
Nadal had periods of dominance and then went off the boil. His best run of form ever IMO was April to August in 2008, closely followed by the first 4-5 months of 2009. In 2010, he did brilliant on clay and peaked for the majors.

From April to August 2008, Nadal won 8 tournaments in 4 months, beat Federer 4 times out of 4, and beat Djokovic 4 times out of 5.
 
Bruno Santiago said:
2008-2013.

Nadal stats clearly show his level rising to another level after 2007 season. It also confirms that his tennis power stayed at a high until 2014, when it begun to drop.

The periods 2004-07 or 2014-2015 are not comparable in statistical terms to what he did from 2008-2013.

Now if we compare the 3 years prior to 2010 to the 3 following, we may fin out that their are pretty close in terms of points per tournament ratio and titles per season. however in terms of crossed statistics, Rafa was statistically way more consistent in 2011-2013 than he was from 2007-2009.

Yet it is quite hard to conclude hat was his best year ever. Even though 2010 is widely regard as its best (3 GS), he won more apt points in 2008 and 2013 than in 2010. Additionally his level of play crossed statistics reached the highest ever in 2013. Also, considering overall Tour14 titles, Rafa won more in 2013 than ever before. Thus his best ever season is quite an open discussion to me.
Click to expand...

I think Nadal's best year was 2008. That was when he played his best tennis.
 
Mustard said:
Nadal had periods of dominance and then went off the boil. His best run of form ever IMO was April to August in 2008, closely followed by the first 4-5 months of 2009. In 2010, he did brilliant on clay and peaked for the majors.

From April to August 2008, Nadal won 8 tournaments in 4 months, beat Federer 4 times out of 4, and beat Djokovic 4 times out of 5.
Click to expand...

I can see calling the april - august 2008 "Nadal's era".

:cool:
 
Tennis_Hands said:
I can see calling the april - august 2008 "Nadal's era".

:cool:
Click to expand...

Nadal wasn't like Federer or Djokovic in dominating whole years from start to finish. Nadal had concentrated periods of dominance during a year, with his high moments condensed into these periods. Nadal has also delivered in the big matches better than anyone else in 21st century tennis.

In 2008, there wasn't anything awesome about Nadal in the opening few months or late in the year. From June 2009 to March 2010, Nadal didn't beat a single top 8 player and Tsonga was the only top 10 player that Nadal beat in that period. In 2010, Nadal didn't look good at all in the North American hardcourts before the US Open.
 
nachiket nolefam said:
It doesn't matter. There is no Nadal era. Its not too bad. Not everyone can be so consistent for long time to be called an era.
Click to expand...

Nadal's record in the biggest matches against Federer and Djokovic says it all, though, particularly going onto non-clay surfaces and inflicting defeats on these guys in most of their biggest matches. There's also Nadal's dominance on clay, which is a dominance in tennis like no other.
 
2008-2010 inclusive I'd say if I had to pick a Nadal era. 2008 and 2010 are obvious, but I think 2009 is probably good enough to add in if I really had to. He wasn't the overall best, but he did win the AO, IW, MC, Barcelona, and Rome before he lost at RG. Essentially he was the best while playing for a year and a half running.

If his 2009 and 2010 were switched then I think many people wouldn't have much problem with calling that an "era", if a short one. It's a bit analogous to Nadal winning many HC and grass titles, but never defending any.
 
Mustard said:
Nadal wasn't like Federer or Djokovic in dominating whole years from start to finish. Nadal had concentrated periods of dominance during a year, with his high moments condensed into these periods. Nadal has also delivered in the big matches better than anyone else in 21st century tennis.

In 2008, there wasn't anything awesome about Nadal in the opening few months or late in the year. From June 2009 to March 2010, Nadal didn't beat a single top 8 player and Tsonga was the only top 10 player that Nadal beat in that period. In 2010, Nadal didn't look good at all in the North American hardcourts before the US Open.
Click to expand...

So, april-august 2008 it is.

Unfortunatelly, that is not enough for an era.

Maybe a "Nadal double quarter"?


:cool:
 
Mustard said:
Nadal's record in the biggest matches against Federer and Djokovic says it all, though, particularly going onto non-clay surfaces and inflicting defeats on these guys in most of their biggest matches. There's also Nadal's dominance on clay, which is a dominance in tennis like no other.
Click to expand...

That is all good, but what does it have to do with the title/subject at hand?

:cool:
 
I'd probably go with 2008-10 but even that I'm not sure about given he didn't have back to back YE#1s. 2008-13 seems even more improbable considering two other players finished the year as the world's best.
 
Mustard said:
Nadal had periods of dominance and then went off the boil. His best run of form ever IMO was April to August in 2008, closely followed by the first 4-5 months of 2009. In 2010, he did brilliant on clay and peaked for the majors.

From April to August 2008, Nadal won 8 tournaments in 4 months, beat Federer 4 times out of 4, and beat Djokovic 4 times out of 5.
Click to expand...

Another impressive statistic about Rafa (and consequently about Roger and Novak too) is that from 2008-2013 he played above the 90% level... :o

It means that even in 2009, 2011 and 2012 seasons (when he finished #2), he was able to defeat 90% of the players he faced (excluding Top4). That is an incredible level of tennis. All other tennis players in history were way lower (ex. Djoko and Fedex).
 
I voted 2008-2010 but truth is, I don't think Rafa dominated the game consistently long enough to really have an era defined as the Nadal era. He dominated clay for a decade, that I cannot argue with, but he never dominated the whole tour for more than a year or so. To this date, his most dominant year has been 2010 where he collected 3 slams. In my opinion, Rafa is somewhat of a transition champ between the Federer and Djokovic era.
 
Depends how strict you are with your definition of era.

I'd say clay season 08 to clay season 09 is Nadal's peak across all surfaces. He really doesn't have other patches of play that successful across all surfaces. Even in 2010 he was only good on hard for like 2 tournaments. In terms of his era...well if you give Djokovic 11 to present you can give Nadal 08-10. Nadal is a unique player to characterize. Ultimately I think most people set 04-07 as a definition for a player's era when really that's just an outlier. But imo my definition would be a set of years were you won more slams than anyone and finished #1 the vast majority of years. But overlap is also allowed. But if you make the definition as a set of consecutive years where you were winning multislams and were clearly the best you are left with only borg, sampras, and federer and I don't think that is fair.

I would give Borg his own era 78-80, Mac his own era in 81-84 even though Connors took 82. I'd give Lendl 85-87, I'd give Pete 93-97, Federer 04-09 and Nadal 08-10 with 08-09 being the Fedal overlap. Djokovic 11 from now although fed, nadal, and even murray had some brief overlap in between. But it is a tad weak considering Nadal did win more slams 12-14 and Murray won as many from 12-13, but still I'll give the collection of years to Djoker for his consistency and WTF titles. Who know at this rate Djoker may fashion his very era like the Fed era starting 2015.
 
Steve0904 said:
2008-2010 inclusive I'd say if I had to pick a Nadal era. 2008 and 2010 are obvious, but I think 2009 is probably good enough to add in if I really had to. He wasn't the overall best, but he did win the AO, IW, MC, Barcelona, and Rome before he lost at RG. Essentially he was the best while playing for a year and a half running.

If his 2009 and 2010 were switched then I think many people wouldn't have much problem with calling that an "era", if a short one. It's a bit analogous to Nadal winning many HC and grass titles, but never defending any.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think this is a good assessment. You are also so right if his 2009 and 2010 were switched (or his 2008 and 2009) this would be incredibly easy, even if now an even briefer era.

This makes me appreciate Hewitt even more that he had 2 consecutive years as the clear best, which even Nadal didn't do, giving him an era complicated, while it is pretty clear 2001-mid 2003 is the brief Hewitt era. Agassi arguably didn't have an era period, even more likely not to than Nadal.
 
Interesting there a few more 2008-2013 votes in the early going than I anticipated. Feel totally free to vote how you see fit, just interesting is all.
 
2008 - 2013

5 roland garros, 2 wimbledons, 2 us opens, 1 australian open, 1 olympic gold, career golden slam, dethroned peak fediva, dethroned peak ultron.......if that was not his era, surely this planet is not earth but some zombie planet.......
 
You can't really claim an era if you never had consecutive year ends as number 1. Nadal was dominant in 2008, 2010 and 2013 but you can't say 2008-2013 was his era when Federer won 2 majors and reached 4 finals in 09 and Djokovic won 3 majors in 2011. Then there's 2012 where there's an equal split between the big 4. Djokovic has been year end number one in 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015 and will - barring injury - do it again this year. Federer was number one for 4 consecutive years. Nadal simply never had that kind of dominance. Just the way it is.
 
edberg volleys said:
Like in 2011.....
Click to expand...

2013.....greatest hit-back story ever! spartan clay god in full flow at roland garros and undeterred will at us open 2013......peak fit nadal playing at 85% capacity was enough to take care of ultron at 100% on any surface.......the problem rafa has currently is the lack of belief.......once he removes the fear and starts plays freely, players will be back to wetting their shorts......when those cross court backhands start landing inside the baseline consistently and forehand does not misfire often......that's it, end of story, good luck beating him from there.......
 
BeatlesFan said:
How about "never?" Nadal has spent more weeks in the #2 spot than any other player in the Open Era. He dominated Federer, but he never remotely dominated the field for extended periods. Nadal played in the Federer and the Djokovic eras, that's how history will write it.
Click to expand...

So what era is 2010 then? Also is all of 2008-2013 a dead or mixed era since Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer all went back and forth this period (although Nadal spending the most time on top of all 3).
 
Deanjam said:
You can't really claim an era if you never had consecutive year ends as number 1. Nadal was dominant in 2008, 2010 and 2013 but you can't say 2008-2013 was his era when Federer won 2 majors and reached 4 finals in 09 and Djokovic won 3 majors in 2011. Then there's 2012 where there's an equal split between the big 4. Djokovic has been year end number one in 2011, 2012, 2014 and 2015 and will - barring injury - do it again this year. Federer was number one for 4 consecutive years. Nadal simply never had that kind of dominance. Just the way it is.
Click to expand...

nadal's injuries made careers of some players like soderling, davydenko......their claim to fame is beating <50% nadal a few times here and there in that period of 2008 - 2013......that way he was also a generous emperor in his era.......2011 was the only odd year but that was nullified by rocky-2 like story in 2013, rocky-1 being aus open 2012......
 
Start da Game said:
2013.....greatest hit-back story ever! spartan clay god in full flow at roland garros and undeterred will at us open 2013......peak fit nadal playing at 85% capacity was enough to take care of ultron at 100% on any surface.......the problem rafa has currently is the lack of belief.......once he removes the fear and starts plays freely, players will be back to wetting their shorts......when those cross court backhands start landing inside the baseline consistently and forehand does not misfire often......that's it, end of story, good luck beating him from there.......
Click to expand...
No, he's slooooooooow and pretty much FINNISH.
 
Start da Game said:
nadal's injuries made careers of some players like soderling, davydenko......their claim to fame is beating <50% nadal a few times here and there in that period of 2008 - 2013......that way he was also a generous emperor in his era.......2011 was the only odd year but that was nullified by rocky-2 like story in 2013, rocky-1 being aus open 2012......
Click to expand...

Honestly, I can't take any of this seriously. It reads like parody.
 
BeatlesFan said:
How about "never?" Nadal has spent more weeks in the #2 spot than any other player in the Open Era. He dominated Federer, but he never remotely dominated the field for extended periods. Nadal played in the Federer and the Djokovic eras, that's how history will write it.
Click to expand...
There has never been a #2 player who won 14 slams, and who won 9 slams at just one slam event.

I'm not worried about Rafa's place in history.
 
mattosgrant said:
I agree. If no overlap is allowed I would choose Federer 2004-2007, Nadal 2008-2010, Djoker 2011-today. However if overlap is allowed (which I prefer) then I go with Federer 2004-2009, Nadal 2008-2013, Djokovic 2011-today.
Click to expand...

It's tough because there are years in all three of their era's in which they weren't dominant or even number 1. For Federer it seems ridiculous to not count until 09 as part of his era when he reached all for finals and won 2. Nadal is admittedly the toughest, 08 and 10 are his most successful seasons, 09 would have likely been right there with it had he not gotten hurt. 2011 may have actually been his best year against everyone not named Djokovic, then of course he won the French in 12 and came back strong in 13, this "Nadal Era" does include years 09,11 and 12 where he wasn't number one though, so he only ended half of his years era's at number 1 compared to Federer and Djokovic who was number 1 for all of their era's years but one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Guru
Why is the weak era seen as 2003-2007
2
Replies
89
Views
4K
youngpolyhater
Y
M
Of all the years for Rafa to lose at RG was 2009 the worst ever?
2 3
Replies
102
Views
4K
mattosgrant
M
M
Interesting Observations about Federer and Nadal at Grand Slams
Replies
6
Views
927
Sarc
S
S
Question about The Strong Era
2 3
Replies
124
Views
4K
Sirius Black
S
A
2009-2010 is similar to 2014-15
Replies
0
Views
228
ActualTennisPlayer
A
Back
Top