What would you generally regard as the "Nadal era"

Nadal era overall was

  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
kandamrgam said:
1. I tried, didnt see precise definition except a vague "sustained dominance". That's more "I know when I see it" situation without a definition for what constitutes to dominance.


3.

Year 1 - player A wins all 9 Masters- gets 9000 points, player B wins 3 GS - gets 6000 points, both players lose all remaining matches, player A end as no. 1
Year 2 - player A wins nothing, player B wins 3 GS - gets 6000 points, player B end as no. 1
Year 3 - player A wins all 9 Masters- gets 9000 points, player B wins 3 GS - gets 6000 points, both players lose all remaining matches, player A end as no. 1
And so on...

Not possible? I am just taking an extreme example to test if your logic still holds. In fact Nadal's case is pretty similar.

4. Leave it then. It's up there for everyone to see your clear and understandable explanation ;)

5. No you haven't dismantled, what you have done is bluntly call my line as arbitrary. You had indeed explained why 2003 doesnt belong to Hewitt, to which I replied why it could belong to Hewitt, to which you just called it arbitrary. That's not sound dismantling, lol :D

6. Ah now you get to a definition, thanks ;) So it can be an era if it is at least two years, and all those years have one player leading in ranking as well as number of big titles won. Well, that explains point 3. for me. But why do you think it is "the definition"? What could be wrong with my definition?

7. Fair enough.
Click to expand...

See post number 249.

I hope that you have learned by now how to find it.

Good evening.

:cool:
 
amorys90 said:
Nadal never had an era. An era is longer than a year. Nadal never finished #1 for more than one year in a row. Nadal was always dominant on clay, but he never was able to sustain overall dominance for more than one year. Also, Nadal never had 2 consecutive years with 2 or more majors. Federer had a period of 4 such years. And Djokovic has 2 in a row and counting.
Click to expand...

So just out of curiosity would your eras look as such:

Hewitt: 2001-2002
Federer: 2004-2007
Djokovic Era #1: 2011-2012
Djokovic Era #2: 2013-today

Or perhaps instead like this:

Federer: 2004-2007
Djokovic: 2013-today

Or something else.
 
mattosgrant said:
So just out of curiosity would your eras look as such:

Hewitt: 2001-2002
Federer: 2004-2007
Djokovic Era #1: 2011-2012
Djokovic Era #2: 2013-today

Or perhaps instead like this:

Federer: 2004-2007
Djokovic: 2013-today

Or something else.
Click to expand...

In 2013 Nadal was marginally better than Djokovic, so not enough of a reason to split Djokovic's era in two based on that.

The only debate is was there a 2008-2010 Nadal era and the answer would vary between "he got advantage of a transitional period" and "he made an impact here and there but not enough to warrant his own era".

:cool:
 
Last edited:
mattosgrant said:
So just out of curiosity would your eras look as such:

Hewitt: 2001-2002
Federer: 2004-2007
Djokovic Era #1: 2011-2012
Djokovic Era #2: 2013-today

Or perhaps instead like this:

Federer: 2004-2007
Djokovic: 2013-today

Or something else.
Click to expand...
General Federer era: 2004-2009 (with 2008 being a good year for Nadal

2010: good year for Nadal

2011: good year for Djokovic

2012: each one of the big 4 wins a major

2013: good year for Nadal

2014-present: Djokovic era


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
amorys90 said:
General Federer era: 2004-2009 (with 2008 being a good year for Nadal

2010: good year for Nadal

2011: good year for Djokovic

2012: each one of the big 4 wins a major

2013: good year for Nadal

2014-present: Djokovic era


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So the Federer era is stretched to 2009, while the Djokovic one doesnt even start until 2014? That seems highly suspect to me, but to each their own. Thanks for your answer btw.
 
Last edited:
amorys90 said:
General Federer era: 2004-2009 (with 2008 being a good year for Nadal

2010: good year for Nadal

2011: good year for Djokovic

2012: each one of the big 4 wins a major

2013: good year for Nadal

2014-present: Djokovic era


Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense.

Try this: 2010 very dominant second half of 2010 for Nadal and that solves your problem with the end of Federer's era (the beginning of 2010).

2011 very dominant year for Djokovic
2012 less dominant year for Djokovic
2013 slightly better year for Nadal than for Djokovic
2014 dominant year for Djokovic
2015 dominant year for Djokovic
2016 as of now dominant year for Djokovic

:cool:
 
mike danny said:
Just Nadal actually. He did just fine against everybody else.
Click to expand...

Yeah I would consider the Fed-Djokovic head to head roughly equal with neither having an obvious edge regardless how exactly it ends up (obviously will be a winning one for Novak now, but with Fed playing way into his 30s). When Fed was closer to his prime than Djokovic from 2006-2010 Fed won more matches, but Djokovic still won his share and was always competitive. When Djokovic has been more in his prime than Fed from 2011-onwards Djokovic won more matches, but Federer still won his share and was always competitive. I dont see how anyone with a brain can say they wouldnt have always had a competitive rivalry of some sort, and who would have the edge isnt easily conclusive by what has taken place.
 
Nadal did not really have an era. The closest one is 2008-2010, although 2009 was clearly Fed's. 2008-2013 is too long to be his. During this time Djokovic dominated him and Federer was no.1 on 2 different occasions. He was only the best player for 3 of these 6 years. Compare that to Fed and Nole who were the best players of their eras for 5 out of 6 years.
 
mattosgrant said:
Yeah I would consider the Fed-Djokovic head to head roughly equal with neither having an obvious edge regardless how exactly it ends up (obviously will be a winning one for Novak now, but with Fed playing way into his 30s). When Fed was closer to his prime than Djokovic from 2006-2010 Fed won more matches, but Djokovic still won his share and was always competitive. When Djokovic has been more in his prime than Fed from 2011-onwards Djokovic won more matches, but Federer still won his share and was always competitive. I dont see how anyone with a brain can say they wouldnt have always had a competitive rivalry of some sort, and who would have the edge isnt easily conclusive by what has taken place.
Click to expand...
22-23 is definetely tighter than 23-11.

No doubt Nadal is making Fed look bad, not everybody else and that's including Djokovic.

At no point would Djokovic dominate Fed this badly.
 
mike danny said:
Nadal did not really have an era. The closest one is 2008-2010, although 2009 was clearly Fed's. 2008-2013 is too long to be his. During this time Djokovic dominated him and Federer was no.1 on 2 different occasions. He was only the best player for 3 of these 6 years. Compare that to Fed and Nole who were the best players of their eras for 5 out of 6 years.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why I started a thread this winter about how Roland Garros 2009 was the absolute worst year for Nadal to lose RG. Obviously he had to lose there at some point but if you could pick one year 2009 was the worst bar none. Had he won there he has 3 years as the best player, and an unquestioned era of sorts (2008-2010). Now he doesnt even have that. Had he even lost in 2008 or 2010 instead, he would still have atleast back to back years as the best player (2008 and 2009 or 2009 and 2010) and if it were in 2010 especialy still quite possibly 3, although who knows if he has the pysch to still win Wimbledon or the U.S Open if he lost RG.

That and Federer really kickstarted his momentum back with his win there, adding 3 slams to his tally when Nadal had won 3 of the last 4 before that (beating Fed in the finals of all 3) and had taken over as the unquestioned king of tennis, until the shock RG loss swung things for awhile.

Soderling really torpedo-ed Nadal, through mocking his ass picking at Wimbledon 2007 to the huge blow he did to Nadal's career at RG.
 
kishnabe said:
Federer 2004-08 First Half
Nadal Second Half 2008-2013
Djokovic 2014+
Click to expand...
Rafa vs No1e: 2011-2013

YE#1: 1 - 2
ITF champ: 0 - 3
Weeks as no1: 38 - 101
GS: 4 - 5
WTF: 0 - 2
Masters: 8 - 11
T1 titles: 12 - 18
Titles: 17 - 24
H2H: 6 - 10
W - L %: (186-28) 86,9% - (219-27) 89%
YE: 2,4,1 (avarage 2,3) - 1,2,1 (avarage 1,3)

...

Rafa vs Fed 2008-2009

YE#1: 1 - 1
ITF champ: 1 - 1
Weeks as no1: 46 - 58
GS: 3 - 3
WTF: 0 - 0
Masters: 6 - 2
T1 titles: 9 - 5
Titles: 13 - 8
H2H: 5 - 1
W - L%: (127-27) 82,5% - (148-25) 85,5%
YE: 1,2 (avarage 1,5) - 2,1 (avarage 1,5)
 
Last edited:
For every single Grand Slam Nadal had to compete either with peak Federer or peak Djokovic. He never got to enjoy long stretches of easy competition the way Djokovic or Federer did. That is precisely the reason that why there is no specific Nadal era. And for the same reason Nadal's 14 GS titles are worth more than 17 of Federer or whatever number Djokovic could rake up. If Djokovic goes beyond 20, then it can be argued that worth of his grand slams in more than the worth of Nadal's 14 GS. Not even for a single GS Nadal had such luxury that you just beat Murray or a 35 years old player and GS is yours.

So yes, there is no specific years which can be called as construing Nadal era. However if you have to talk about 4 of his best years then I would name 08,10,13 and 17.
 
ForumMember said:
For every single Grand Slam Nadal had to compete either with peak Federer or peak Djokovic. He never got to enjoy long stretches of easy competition the way Djokovic or Federer did. That is precisely the reason that why there is no specific Nadal era. And for the same reason Nadal's 14 GS titles are worth more than 17 of Federer or whatever number Djokovic could rake up. If Djokovic goes beyond 20, then it can be argued that worth of his grand slams in more than the worth of Nadal's 14 GS. Not even for a single GS Nadal had such luxury that you just beat Murray or a 35 years old player and GS is yours.

So yes, there is no specific years which can be called as construing Nadal era. However if you have to talk about 4 of his best years then I would name 08,10,13 and 17.
Click to expand...
RG 2010 - only soderling as top10 player
W 2010 - soderling and murrey

In 2010 Rafa met just 6 top10 players to win 7 tournaments! And it wos his best year! His only 3 slams year!
 
Last edited:
ForumMember said:
He owns birthdays of Djokovic and Murray in all the eras. Only Federer has been left untouched just out of reverence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Reverent Federer.

1201_RF_Red_Flag_closeup_large.jpg


:cool:
 
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