What would you generally regard as the "Nadal era"

[metsman]

The more I think about the more I can actually see the rational for saying 2008-2013 is a sort of Nadal era (with or without the overlap factor). I can also see the opposing view that he didn't even really have an era. It is all about perspective. However all of 2008-2013 didn't have a single player on top for even a whole 2 full years (you cant say Djokovic in a sense when Fed after beginning 2012 at a distant 3rd overtook Novak in the rankings for a few months in mid 2012 despite that Novak ended the year comfortably in front with a great last 4 months) and Nadal clearly achieved the most overall of anyone, including Fed and Djoker, in that 6 year window which nobody was on top a sustained period.

he did achieve more but it's a bit tough to swallow that a player beat him 7 straight times and won 3 majors in a year in the middle of his era. And in 2012-2013 while he won more slams than Djoker he wasn't consistent enough and missed a good bit of time to injuries. Nah, I think it's 08-10. The 09 cameo by Fed is ok, as Djokovic had the same thing happen to him from Nadal/Federer and to a lesser extent Murray but Fed didn't flat out dominate 09 like Djoker did with 11.

 

[underground]

Rafa never had an era, but he had his years of dominance between eras (Federer and Djokovic), namely 2008, 2010, 2013. He was kind of the guy who filled in the gaps when the top guy came down.

 

[duaneeo]

To call some period for somebodies era he must be the best for a while.

I think every player has an era...a period of time considered his prime years. Some players had a longer era than others, won more titles during their era than others, and/or were ranked higher during their era than others, but every player has an era.

 

[mightyrick]

The thread probably should have been titled "What would you regard Nadal's peak years?"

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Exactly what I said. Nadal is the best big-match player in the 21st century. His record in majors against other members of the big 4 is 25-8. Djokovic's is 20-17. Nadal's domination on clay is so big, and at the French Open he beat Federer 5 times and Djokovic 6 times. But Nadal also beat Federer in Wimbledon and Australian Open finals, and beat Djokovic in 2 US Open finals.

Nadal's all-time great presence is stamped with authority across tennis, despite Federer's and Djokovic's ability to dominate whole tennis years like Nadal never managed to do.



Yet Nadal also had a period in 2008 when he won 53 matches out of 55 and 8 tournaments in 4 months. Compare with how Djokovic began 2011, and the massive hype that generated.

Laughable "historian" is laughable.

Does your analysis of the "big match player" take in consideration all the factors that worked in favour of the said player?

No.

Nadal's all time presence is stamped with authority and embarassment.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Rafa won more majors than anyone else during that period. He won the HC Swing, beat Novak 4 consecutive times in majors , beat Federer twice at AO, made one of the historic come backs ever in the history of tennis.

You should look up the definition of "era".

 

[tennisaddict]

You should look up the definition of "era".

3 years is a big period.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

3 years is a big period.

Full Definition of era:

1a : a fixed point in time from which a series of years is reckoned

Which series of years did Nadal dominate in the period in question?

I see one year: 2013

 

[tennisaddict]

Full Definition of era:

1a : a fixed point in time from which a series of years is reckoned

Which series of years did Nadal dominate in the period in question?

I see one year: 2013

Between 2012-2014 he won majors every year and he had the most majors every single year as well.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Between 2012-2014 he won majors every year and he had the most majors every single year as well.

Neither the first nor the second (which is not true BTW) are part of the prerequisites of an era.

 

[Diehard]

I couldn't see including 2002 as part of the Federer era. He wasn't even a top 5 player that year, and didn't even make a slam quarterfinal that year (although he did play some sublime tennis at times- Hamburg, WTF).

It wasa typo as it should read 03 as you can see with Agassi at 02, my mistake, but Federer was 03-07

 

[Mustard]

Laughable "historian" is laughable.

Does your analysis of the "big match player" take in consideration all the factors that worked in favour of the said player?

No.

Nadal's all time presence is stamped with authority and embarassment.

What factors are you talking about? Is it any different for Nadal's opponent in any given match?

 

[shankster]

The thing with Rafa is he had different peaks on different surfaces. He has always been the clay GOAT from the beginning but what would you regard as his best year on clay? 2008, 2010 and 2012 are the standout choices but there is a wide variety to choose from here. His peak on grass was definitely in 2008. He had reached 3 Wimby finals winning 1 beating the grass GOAT but hadn't even reached a single HC GS final. He started performing better on HC 2009 onwards but his grass results took a dramatic hit post 2011. His peak HC season i.e. 2013 came in a year where he had lost in the 1st round of the Wimbledon and within the first 2 rounds for the second year in a row.

So in short, his Hard Court peak came at a time when he had already become a laughing stock on grass whereas his Grass peak (3 Wimby finals including a title) came well before he had even reached a Hard Court slam final. Because he has peaked differently at different courts, he hasn't quite had an "era" in the same manner as Federer or Djokovic, not to mention his injury issues.

 

[90's Clay]

HE was at his peak from 08-10 so from there. 2011 Nole hit his peak. But Nadal had a peakish year in 2013. Still 08-10 Nadal was at the height of his powers physically and mentally

 

[NaBUru38]

From 2005-2014, Nadal won at Roland Garros 9 times (except '09 / QF).
Form 2005-2013, he won Monte Carlo 8 times, and was finalist (in 2013).
From 2005-2014, he won Rome Masters 7 times, and was finalist twice in '11 and '14.

But that's on clay. This is the story elsewhere:

• 2005: 2 wins at Canada and Madrid; 1 final at Miami; 0 semifinals.
• 2006: 0 wins, 1 final at Wimbledon; 2 semifinals at Indian Wells and Masters Cup.
• 2007: 1 win at Indian Wells, 2 finals at Wimbledon and Paris; 2 semifinals at Canada and Masters Cup.
  
• 2008: 3 wins at Olympics, Wimbledon and Canada; 1 final at Miami; 5 semifinals at Australia, US Open, Indian Wells, Cincinnati and Madrid.
• 2009: 2 wins at Australia and Indian Wells; 1 final at Shanghai; 3 semifinals at Cincinnati, US Open and Paris.
• 2010: 2 wins at Wimbledon and US Open; 1 final at ATP Finals; 3 semifinals at Indian Wells, Miami and Canada.
• 2011: 0 wins; 4 finals at Wimbledon, US Open, Indian Wells and Miami; 0 semifinals.
• 2012: 0 wins; 1 final at Australia; 2 semifinals at Indian Wells and Miami.
• 2013: 4 wins at US Open, Indian Wells, Cincinnati and Canada; 1 final at ATP Finals; 2 semifinals at Shanghai and Paris.
• 2014: 0 wins; 2 finals at Australia and Miami; 0 semifinals.
• 2015: 0 wins; 0 finals; 2 semifinals at Shanghai and ATP Finals.

2013 was obviously his best year, followed by 2008 and 2010.

 

[NaBUru38]

Another comparison is head-to-head records.

Nadal's record versus Federer on hardcourt is 9-7.
But it's split in two: 8-2 outdoors and 5–1 indoors.
The two outdoor hardcourt loses were in 2005 and 2012. The indoor win was in 2013.

Nadal's record versus Djokovic on hardcourt is 7-17
It's split in 5-13 outdoors and 2-4 indoors.
Nadal won twice in 2007, once in 2008, twice in 2010 and twice in 2013.

 

[The Moonballer]

The return of Sun Seeker?

That question demands no answer. The Sun Seeker was always there, therefore a "return" makes no sense.

 

[veroniquem]

The thread probably should have been titled "What would you regard Nadal's peak years?"

Well, that's a really easy question: 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2013. The interesting part is that there are no 2 consecutive and that's why a lot of people are struggling with the idea of attributing an era to him

 

[Deleted member 743561]

I see it as Nadal 08-10, Djokodal 11-13, Mummy 2014-......

You give Nadal co-ownership of '11 and '12 though? 1 title in '11... Fed's best years were '04-'07, but he was in the mix after that. In '11 Fed even 6-3, 6-0'd Nadal at YECs... in '12, he won #17, and took #1 to the 302 weeks total. Nadal gets like 3 years top billing, but I don't know that you can go further than that.

 

[veroniquem]

You give Nadal co-ownership of '11 and '12 though? 1 title in '11... .

2: RG and MC (tier 1). But yeah nobody co-owned 2011. Djoko won 4 times more tier 1 titles than anyone else that year. That's not close! Now if I HAD to pick one of the big 4 as 2nd for 2011, of course it would be Nadal. First of all, he is the only one other than Djoko who won a slam that year and second, he made 8 tier 1 finals vs only 3 for Fed and 3 for Murray. What becomes really iffy is to make 2012 a "co-Nadal year". Nadal didn't even play the whole season that year and Fed won more tier 1 than him (slam included). So if he wasn't even 2nd best in main events, how on earth could it be part of his era?? Very different situation from 2009 when Fedal were almost tie and no one else could compare.
Top 2 achievers in tier 1:
2005: Fedal
2006: Fedal
2007: Fedal
2008: Nadalovic
2009: Fedal
2010: Nadalerer
2011: Djokodal
2012: Djokerer
2013: Nadalovic
2014: Djokerer
2015: Djokerer

Looking at the list, I don' t really see an era for Djokodal. I see an era for Fedal (several consecutive seasons) but if anything , 2011-2015 looks more like a Djokerer than a Djokodal.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

2: RG and MC (tier 1).

My mistake. Guess he got Barca too. Still, he wasn't close to best that year.

2011-2015 looks more like a Djokerer than a Djokodal.

My memory of his '13 season is of just extraordinary dominance... he came back from the dead to win like 10 tournaments in a row or some craziness. Wouldn't he get that season?

 

[veroniquem]

My mistake. Guess he got Barca too. Still, he wasn't close to best that year.

My memory of his '13 season is of just extraordinary dominance... he came back from the dead to win like 10 tournaments in a row or some craziness. Wouldn't he get that season?

Yes he does but 1 season doesn't equal an era. Also Nadal didn't own the entire 2013 season. He owned clay and summer hard. For the rest, he didn't play AO, he lost W in 1st round and Djoko reclaimed domination in the fall. So I would say that despite its great triumphs , 2013 was a mixed season for Nadal. In 2013, Nadal won 7 tier 1 events, Djoko won 5. That's not crushing domination , that' s rather close. For crushing domination take 2011 (8 tier 1 titles with 2nd best at 2) or 2015 (10 tier 1 with next best also at 2)

 

[TheFifthSet]

Well, that's a really easy question: 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2013. The interesting part is that there are no 2 consecutive and that's why a lot of people are struggling with the idea of attributing an era to him

I think '07 is very underrated and deserves the nod over '05. Nadal was 56-8 heading into the summer with 6 titles. He won IW without dropping a set, beating Djokovic, then played arguably his best clay masters at that point, MC, where he also didn't lose a set and beat Federer on clay in straights for the first time. He won 3 of the first 5 masters, reached 4 of 5 finals, and lost to the eventual champion in the two masters he lost (and either won or lost to the eventual champ in 8 of the 9 masters events that year, all told). His form at RG was sublime, losing only one set all tournament, beating baby Delpo, a resurgent Hewitt, Moya, Djokovic and Fed. At worst his fourth best RG, and probably his third best considering form and competition.

Then at Wimbledon he beats Fish, Soderling, Youhzny, Berdych and Djokovic, succumbing to Fed in an epic 5 set match in the final.

Nadal had an awesome '07. He was unlucky to have not won multiple majors that year, which was due to the presence of Federer. I think this gets conveniently overlooked by some people that claim that Federer couldn't hang with a strong Nadal. The difference between '07 and '08 Nadal was a stretch of 3-4 tournaments from Wimbledon to Canada. Outside of that, they were virtually equal years form-wise. Wimbledon was the decider, for sure, but even there it's tough to rag on Nadals '07 campaign when he beat so many formidable players and still gave Federer the fight of his life, just like he would the next year. Clearly it wasn't as strong as '08, but the improvement was exaggerated. Nadal was well in his prime by the time 2008 started.

 

[veroniquem]

I think '07 is very underrated and deserves the nod over '05. Nadal was 56-8 heading into the summer with 6 titles. He won IW without dropping a set, beating Djokovic, then played arguably his best clay masters at that point, MC, where he also didn't lose a set and beat Federer on clay in straights for the first time. He won 3 of the first 5 masters, reached 4 of 5 finals, and lost to the eventual champion in the two masters he lost (and either won or lost to the eventual champ in 8 of the 9 masters events that year, all told). His form at RG was sublime, losing only one set all tournament, beating baby Delpo, a resurgent Hewitt, Moya, Djokovic and Fed. At worst his fourth best RG, and probably his third best considering form and competition.

Then at Wimbledon he beats Fish, Soderling, Youhzny, Berdych and Djokovic, succumbing to Fed in an epic 5 set match in the final.

Nadal had an awesome '07.

He had an awesome 2007 on clay but Fed was still completely dominant in slams and at WTF. The big difference with 2008 is that he finally cracked other surfaces: won W and won Olympics on hard. I agree that his 2007 was very consistent though. He actually made more tier finals than in 2008. But the main issue for Rafa was starting to succeed outside of clay and there was a huge question mark about that before 2008. That' s why that W title was huge and yielded that elusive #1

 

[duaneeo]

Well, that's a really easy question: 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2013. The interesting part is that there are no 2 consecutive and that's why a lot of people are struggling with the idea of attributing an era to him

I think people are making eras too narrow. Nadal's YE rankings from 2005 - 2011: 2,2,2,1,2,1,2. How can those years not be regarded as Nadal's era?

 

[Deleted member 743561]

I think people are making eras too narrow. Nadal's YE rankings from 2005 - 2011: 2,2,2,1,2,1,2. How can those years not be regarded as Nadal's era?

By that reasoning, we call 2003 - 2010 Fed's era? And, we'll throw Djok a bone and give him 2011 since he dominated like a man possessed. What does that leave?

 

[metsman]

2: RG and MC (tier 1). But yeah nobody co-owned 2011. Djoko won 4 times more tier 1 titles than anyone else that year. That's not close! Now if I HAD to pick one of the big 4 as 2nd for 2011, of course it would be Nadal. First of all, he is the only one other than Djoko who won a slam that year and second, he made 8 tier 1 finals vs only 3 for Fed and 3 for Murray. What becomes really iffy is to make 2012 a "co-Nadal year". Nadal didn't even play the whole season that year and Fed won more tier 1 than him (slam included). So if he wasn't even 2nd best in main events, how on earth could it be part of his era?? Very different situation from 2009 when Fedal were almost tie and no one else could compare.
Top 2 achievers in tier 1:
2005: Fedal
2006: Fedal
2007: Fedal
2008: Nadalovic
2009: Fedal
2010: Nadalerer
2011: Djokodal
2012: Djokerer
2013: Nadalovic
2014: Djokerer
2015: Djokerer

Looking at the list, I don' t really see an era for Djokodal. I see an era for Fedal (several consecutive seasons) but if anything , 2011-2015 looks more like a Djokerer than a Djokodal.

fedal were not almost tied in 09. Nadal had 1 more masters...that's it. Fed had 1 more slam, 3 more slam finals, got to semis of WTF vs Nadal's horror show there.

 

[duaneeo]

By that reasoning, we call 2003 - 2010 Fed's era? And, we'll throw Djok a bone and give him 2011 since he dominated like a man possessed. What does that leave?

Federer's era: 2004 - 2010
Nadal's era: 2005 - 2011
Djokovic's era: 2011 -

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Federer's era: 2004 - 2010
Nadal's era: 2005 - 2011
Djokovic's era: 2011 -

Docked Fed '03? YE ranking #2. His era, in your system. You've got Nadal's "era" overlapping almost entirely with Fed's, and they get the same number of years. Fed's career achievements beat Nadal's by a country mile. You've got them as equals? Also, I don't think the overlaps work. '11 ended Nadal... or so it seemed. He gets '13. So, Djok doesn't have a contiguous "era."

Ah... frustrating topic.

 

[duaneeo]

Docked Fed '03? YE ranking #2. His era, in your system.

Roger didn't become the #2 player in 2003 until November, so I don't include that year as his era.

 

[moonballs]

If an era belongs to someone, this someone needs to be no 1 ranked most of the time if not all of the time.

 

[moonballs]

Nadal didn't really have an "era". He had specific times of dominance. He never dominated two years in a row just areas of those two years.

I agree. He is the best no 2 player of the open era, pre bio passport.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

What factors are you talking about? Is it any different for Nadal's opponent in any given match?

So, the conditions don't have anything to do with advantages/disadvantages?

The things that you learn from the "historians" every day.

 

[Start da Game]

2008 - 2013 is the right answer.....like i said, 5 roland garros, 2 us opens, 2 wimbledons, 1 aus open during that period......10 slams on all surfaces in 6 seasons two of which were injury ridden......and also stats don't mean everything......you have to look at other qualities.......the greatness of nadal era is that it was also the toughest era......he had to fight and bring down peak fediva from his position and also fight against peak ultron to reclaim the crown in 2013......all the while battling with injuries......you take any classic battles of the last 10 years or so, 7 out of 10 usually involve rafa......era strength = rafa on tour, era weakness = lack of rafa on tour......as simple as that.....

 

[mattosgrant]

If an era belongs to someone, this someone needs to be no 1 ranked most of the time if not all of the time.

I forget what Nadal's exact weeks at #1 are, but isn't it roughly 160? If so he might just barely go over half the time at #1 from 2008-2013. The more I think about I do think one could classify 2008-2013 as the Nadal era if they wanted to (albeit slightly generous perhaps). Thinking about it more:

Slam titles 2008-2013:

Nadal- 10
Federer- 5
Djokovic- 6

Obviously Nadal is way ahead, roughly the same as Fedovic combined.

Year End #1 rankings:

Nadal- 3
Djokovic- 2
Federer- 1

He definitely had much more success than anyone else that period, even if he wasn't always on top, he was almost always best or 2nd best as well, and best more often than his 2 biggest rivals.

 

[mattosgrant]

I agree. He is the best no 2 player of the open era, pre bio passport.

I usually don't like to get into that kind of thing but the timing of his extreme decline is shall we say....interesting.

 

[safin-rules-no.1]

Voted 'no era'. Truth is Nadal will be forgotten as soon as he retires (except in his rabid fans' memories).

 

[mattosgrant]

Voted 'no era'. Truth is Nadal will be forgotten as soon as he retires (except in his rabid fans' memories).

I don't think he will be forgotten for the simple reason he is the hands down clay GOAT. If nothing else he will be remembered for that surface in tennis for probably hundreds of years. In fact there is a good chance Djokovic and Federer will be forgotten sooner than Nadal, despite that both will likely go down as greater players. Since Djokovic and Federer will probably be removed from GOAT consideration before Nadal is removed from clay GOAT status.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

a "nadal era"... is it the geological term used to refer to the eon of time the rusty peak injured golden bull takes between 2 points ?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I forget what Nadal's exact weeks at #1 are, but isn't it roughly 160? If so he might just barely go over half the time at #1 from 2008-2013. The more I think about I do think one could classify 2008-2013 as the Nadal era if they wanted to (albeit slightly generous perhaps). Thinking about it more:

Slam titles 2008-2013:

Nadal- 10
Federer- 5
Djokovic- 6

Obviously Nadal is way ahead, roughly the same as Fedovic combined.

Year End #1 rankings:

Nadal- 3
Djokovic- 2
Federer- 1

He definitely had much more success than anyone else that period, even if he wasn't always on top, he was almost always best or 2nd best as well, and best more often than his 2 biggest rivals.

Why stop here?

How about 2003-2012 and calling it Federer's era?

After all, in that period Federer won most Majors, had most dominant years and was #1 for the longest period of time.

 

[duaneeo]

You've got Nadal's "era" overlapping almost entirely with Fed's, and they get the same number of years. Fed's career achievements beat Nadal's by a country mile. You've got them as equals?

I think there are 3 stages of a player's career: The ascend stage, the prime stage, and the descend stage. I consider a player's prime stage as his "era". It goes without saying that hundreds of eras overlap, and are not equal.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

Rafa never had an era, but he had his years of dominance between eras (Federer and Djokovic), namely 2008, 2010, 2013. He was kind of the guy who filled in the gaps when the top guy came down.

You're doing it wrong mate. Novak and Roger filled the gaps when Nadal went down due to injuries. Lol.

 

[I am the Greatest!]

2008 - 2013 is the right answer.....like i said, 5 roland garros, 2 us opens, 2 wimbledons, 1 aus open during that period......10 slams on all surfaces in 6 seasons two of which were injury ridden......and also stats don't mean everything......you have to look at other qualities.......the greatness of nadal era is that it was also the toughest era......he had to fight and bring down peak fediva from his position and also fight against peak ultron to reclaim the crown in 2013......all the while battling with injuries......you take any classic battles of the last 10 years or so, 7 out of 10 usually involve rafa......era strength = rafa on tour, era weakness = lack of rafa on tour......as simple as that.....

Rafa was on the tour since 2001. So what does that mean?

****!n9 seriously, stop with the the ****!n9 weak era crap. That era strength correlates to Nadal is ******** and anyone spouting it is also ********. Your era strength = Nadal comment is ******** and is so dumb. Go kiss Nadal's ass. You sounded idiot with that post.

P.S. I'm not angry. I just find it idiotic to correlate the tour's strength with a player alone. The tour strength depends on the actual tour, which means all or most of the players. It's dumb, plain dumb to correlate it to one player.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

I think there are 3 stages of a player's career: The ascend stage, the prime stage, and the descend stage. I consider a player's prime stage as his "era". It goes without saying that hundreds of eras overlap, and are not equal.

So, you are calling 2005 - 2011 "prime" for Nadal (and consequently his "era")? And 2004 - 2010 is "prime" Fed (his "era")? I wouldn't call those time periods prime for either player. But Nadal's success was much more patchy and inconsistent. I feel like a player's "prime" is like 3-4 years, tops. But maybe you're just saying generally when they could have had the most success. Are you forgetting that that they are 5 years apart in age?

 

[moonballs]

I usually don't like to get into that kind of thing but the timing of his extreme decline is shall we say....interesting.

That's what more and more people are starting to give more credit for. Nadal has lost all five set matches to lower ranked players since.

 

[moonballs]

I forget what Nadal's exact weeks at #1 are, but isn't it roughly 160? If so he might just barely go over half the time at #1 from 2008-2013. The more I think about I do think one could classify 2008-2013 as the Nadal era if they wanted to (albeit slightly generous perhaps). Thinking about it more:

Slam titles 2008-2013:

Nadal- 10
Federer- 5
Djokovic- 6

Obviously Nadal is way ahead, roughly the same as Fedovic combined.

Year End #1 rankings:

Nadal- 3
Djokovic- 2
Federer- 1

He definitely had much more success than anyone else that period, even if he wasn't always on top, he was almost always best or 2nd best as well, and best more often than his 2 biggest rivals.

The entire 2008 to 2013 didn't belong to a single player. I think it is much better to call it the big three or big two era.

 

[mike danny]

I forget what Nadal's exact weeks at #1 are, but isn't it roughly 160? If so he might just barely go over half the time at #1 from 2008-2013. The more I think about I do think one could classify 2008-2013 as the Nadal era if they wanted to (albeit slightly generous perhaps). Thinking about it more:

Slam titles 2008-2013:

Nadal- 10
Federer- 5
Djokovic- 6

Obviously Nadal is way ahead, roughly the same as Fedovic combined.

Year End #1 rankings:

Nadal- 3
Djokovic- 2
Federer- 1

He definitely had much more success than anyone else that period, even if he wasn't always on top, he was almost always best or 2nd best as well, and best more often than his 2 biggest rivals.

Nope. Nadal has 141 weeks at no.1.

And if you give 2008-2013 to Nadal, you have to give 2004-2009 to Federer.

 

[mattosgrant]

Nope. Nadal has 141 weeks at no.1.

And if you give 2008-2013 to Nadal, you have to give 2004-2009 to Federer.

Well that is what said already in this thread. I actually specifically said 2003 Wimbledon-2010 Australian Open for Federer. Having gone through a lot of discussion with various posters with many differing ideas on my eras thread I am firmly in favor of the overlapped eras ideas (not always, but when appropriate).

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

IMO
Federer 2004-07
Nadal 2008-10
Djokovic 2011-1?

I think a player doesn't have to be the best player in every year of a certain period for that to be called his era. He would have to become #1 first before we start talking about him having an era. Maybe you will ask me why I didn't extend Fed period into 2009 then, but that is because I wanted Rafa to have his own era.
Federer doesn't have an issue, since he has been the best in all of the years I mentioned. Nadal has 2009, but the other two were amazing. Him beating Fed in 3 Slam finals on 3 different surfaces seals it for me. Stretching it to 2013 would include another two years, 2011 and 2012, where he was far from being the best, and that would be too much. Djokovic has 2013, but he was the best in the previous two and the next two.
Also, I think that two eras cannot have a mutual period, which is why I am not supporting the idea that Fed has 04-09, Rafa 08-13 and Novak 11-1?. To me that looks like a collision and cherry picking for each player. Simply, when one ended, the other started.
Just to make things clear, I am really not trying to make Novak better than he is here. Djokovic does have a longest era according to me, but that doesn't mean he is a greater player. Federer won 11 out of 16 Slams and his #1 spot wasn't taken once during his era, you cannot beat that. Also, Rafa having the shortest era doesn't mean he is the worst. He dominated in smaller waves, and him winning at least 1 Slam for 10 consecutive years just shows that.

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

Not having two consecutive years as the best player in the world is what is holding Nadal back in era debates. Still, I am sure he doesn't mind that, he won a lot anyway.