why the nadal was a baby myth is rubbish

[mike danny]

Nadal won between 2005—2007 3 hardcourt masters titles just,like in 2008—2013 so in a shorter period of time and 2005 was the only year in reached he won 4 masters 1000 and,the only year in which he won 2 masters on hards and reached 3 masters finals,on hards. In his man years he could not reproduce these results. Also baby rafa did better on grass than man rafa so again the baby argument is rubbish

 

[Cosmic_Colin]

Nadal was an exception to the usual ageing profile as he peaked very early.

When I watch the old matches 2007 and earlier both him and Federer were moving much faster and hitting harder (more so Fed). His continued good results are more down to the weak field outside the top 4 and overall clay prowess.

 

[Brett UK]

Nadal was an exception to the usual ageing profile as he peaked very early.

When I watch the old matches 2007 and earlier both him and Federer were moving much faster and hitting harder (more so Fed). His continued good results are more down to the weak field outside the top 4 and overall clay prowess.

Even on clay now, I am struck that Rafa relies more on his wicked top spin. I think Nole has his number if the weather conditions are not hot and sunny, and even hot and sunny it seems like a toss of a coin now. having said that, credit to Rafa for winnng RG again and being a clay court monster. Cant take that away from him.

 

[Sorana fan]

Even on clay now, I am struck that Rafa relies more on his wicked top spin. I think Nole has his number if the weather conditions are not hot and sunny, and even hot and sunny it seems like a toss of a coin now. having said that, credit to Rafa for winnng RG again and being a clay court monster. Cant take that away from him.

Rafa is far from his peak, that's the reason Nole became dominant.
Djoko's 2011 would have been quite different against a 2008 peak Nadal

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Great thread in response to sheer stupidity.

 

[Fiji]

I'm shocked he became the only male player in the OE to win at least a slam for 9 years in a row. Nadal and a longevity record? Who would have thought.

 

[Towser83]

Rafa is far from his peak, that's the reason Nole became dominant.
Djoko's 2011 would have been quite different against a 2008 peak Nadal

Yeah Djokovic would have beaten him even easier at IW, Miami and the US Open, if Nadal got far enough to meet him that is - look at Nadal's HC results in slams that year and look at how Djokovic used to straight set him on hc if you don't believe me.

At Wimbledon, maybe it would have been different. But at queens in 2008 Nadal got past Djokovic 7-6 7-5 with Novak failing to serve out the second set and getting broken whilst serving to stay in it. That match was CLOSE. and Djokovic was not as good that year as in 2011.

On clay Nadal miles better in 2008 compared to 2011 so the madrid and rome matches would have been different.

 

[Sorana fan]

Yeah Djokovic would have beaten him even easier at IW, Miami and the US Open, if Nadal got far enough to meet him that is - look at Nadal's HC results in slams that year and look at how Djokovic used to straight set him on hc if you don't believe me.

At Wimbledon, maybe it would have been different. But at queens in 2008 Nadal got past Djokovic 7-6 7-5 with Novak failing to serve out the second set and getting broken whilst serving to stay in it. That match was CLOSE. and Djokovic was not as good that year as in 2011.

On clay Nadal miles better in 2008 compared to 2011 so the madrid and rome matches would have been different.

Part of the fact of 2011 abusive dominance of Nole was the confidence he got beating Rafa sooo many times in a row.

Hadnt he defeatead Nadal in Madrid and Rome, Im sure Nadal's faith wouldnt have wrecked the way it did, and he would have won WB11

Hadnt Nole won WB, maybe USO would have been 50-50

Confidence is a differential factor when things gets tighter

 

[mike danny]

Part of the fact of 2011 abusive dominance of Nole was the confidence he got beating Rafa sooo many times in a row.

Hadnt he defeatead Nadal in Madrid and Rome, Im sure Nadal's faith wouldnt have wrecked the way it did, and he would have won WB11

Hadnt Nole won WB, maybe USO would have been 50-50

Confidence is a differential factor when things gets tighter

the same i can say about federer in 2008. had nadal not destroyed federer mentally after all those clay matches and the french open final i do not think he would have won wimbledon. federer was lacking confidence and this is why nadal won. had federer not lost at wimby their match at the australian would have been 50/50

 

[Clarky21]

the same i can say about federer in 2008. had nadal not destroyed federer mentally after all those clay matches and the french open final i do not think he would have won wimbledon. federer was lacking confidence and this is why nadal won. had federer not lost at wimby their match at the australian would have been 50/50

Wrong. Nadal almost beat Fed at Wimby in 2007, and was pushing Fed more and more there each year. He was bound to win it, and if not for Nadal going on a walkabout in the 2008 final, he wins that match in straights.

And Nadal has beaten Fed on all surfaces so it had jack to do with "all those clay matches" they faced each other in. Nadal has beaten Fed on all surfaces and scored his first win over him on hard courts all the way back in 2004.

 

[Omega_7000]

Part of the fact of 2011 abusive dominance of Nole was the confidence he got beating Rafa sooo many times in a row.

Hadnt he defeatead Nadal in Madrid and Rome, Im sure Nadal's faith wouldnt have wrecked the way it did, and he would have won WB11

Hadnt Nole won WB, maybe USO would have been 50-50

Confidence is a differential factor when things gets tighter

Nah. Nadal is old now because he peaked so early...Djokovic took the game to an entirely new level in 2011 that Nadal's one-dimensional style could not match even on clay. Now it's Djokovic's time to shine and Nadal's time to pass on the baton to Djokovic and usher in a new era in tennis.

 

[Clarky21]

Nah. Nadal is old now because he peaked so early...Djokovic took the game to an entirely new level in 2011 that Nadal's one-dimensional style could not match even on clay. Now it's Djokovic's time to shine and Nadal's time to pass on the baton to Djokovic and usher in a new era in tennis.

Yeah, because we all know how much variety Cvac has in his game with his terrible over heads, terrible slice, and terrible volleys. Nope, not a bit of one dimensional in his game whatsoever.

 

[dafinch]

WHATEVER his "limitations," Nole is still capable of winning Slams on multiple surfaces, which has not been the case with BP now for YEARS. Ahhh, it's such a pleasure to have him long gone from the tournament. Can't wait to see his well picked and pock marked *** get spanked at the US Open-if he plays at all, of course, which, I suspect, is unlikely.

 

[jukka1970]

Yeah, because we all know how much variety Cvac has in his game with his terrible over heads, terrible slice, and terrible volleys. Nope, not a bit of one dimensional in his game whatsoever.

Oh grow up, will you. Besides Djokovic has beaten him in the finals in the three other slams. Pretty dang hard to do if you're as one dimensional as your claiming Djokovic to be.

 

[dafinch]

Oh grow up, will you. Besides Djokovic has beaten him in the finals in the three other slams. Pretty dang hard to do if you're as one dimensional as your claiming Djokovic to be.

Good luck on your "grow up" suggestion, and, your observation did seem to escape her attention, didn't it?

 

[TheF1Bob]

As soon as Rafael Nadal entered the ATP, he instantly became better than Federer.

This baby myth nonsense is hysterical at best.

 

[zagor]

Great thread in response to sheer stupidity.

+1

10babyRafas

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Funny thing is, the field was pretty strong in 2005. Are you suggesting that Nadal was better than everyone but Federer in 2005 and that Djokovic was pretty much the only person who could stop him after then?

 

[Clarky21]

Oh grow up, will you. Besides Djokovic has beaten him in the finals in the three other slams. Pretty dang hard to do if you're as one dimensional as your claiming Djokovic to be.

Couldn't the same thing be said about Nadal then? Omega_7000 said Nadal is one dimensional so what exactly does that make Cvac?

 

[Towser83]

Part of the fact of 2011 abusive dominance of Nole was the confidence he got beating Rafa sooo many times in a row.

Hadnt he defeatead Nadal in Madrid and Rome, Im sure Nadal's faith wouldnt have wrecked the way it did, and he would have won WB11

Hadnt Nole won WB, maybe USO would have been 50-50

Confidence is a differential factor when things gets tighter

It'strueconfidence is apart of it, but maybe 2011 djokovic really hammers nadal in IW and Miami and thus effects Nadal's clay form... in fact how are we sure this isn't what happened and why Nadal played below par on clay?

Wrong. Nadal almost beat Fed at Wimby in 2007, and was pushing Fed more and more there each year. He was bound to win it, and if not for Nadal going on a walkabout in the 2008 final, he wins that match in straights.

And Nadal has beaten Fed on all surfaces so it had jack to do with "all those clay matches" they faced each other in. Nadal has beaten Fed on all surfaces and scored his first win over him on hard courts all the way back in 2004.

I agree he was bound to get him sooner or later, Nadal was getting better, Federer was getting worse.But it's not as simple as just because Nadal took it to 5 in 2007, he was going towin the next year. The losses on clay did mentally hurt fed, and it doesn't really matter that they were on clay but Federer does have his worst chance on clay and the way those matches went was the problem. in Monte Carlo he lost a 4-0 lead in one set and a break lead a couple of time in the other set tolose 7-5 7-5.In Hamburg he lost a 5-1 lead and should have won the match. At RG he got totally destroyed. That must have played a part, and he looked nervous until there was nothing left to lose,plus nadal tightened up.

What Nadal did to Federer in MC, Hamburg and RG helped him gain the mental edge in a close Wimby matchup. In 2007 though Nadal took it to 5, Federer always had the lead and only really lost his grip on the match when he went nuts over the hawkeye call and Nadal took the 4th set. Federer survived an early scare in the 5th and ended up winning 6-2. In 2008 Federer was mentally under attack from Nadal and though it went 5 sets, Nadal had really altered the balance, both 5 sets but the tone and balance of the match was way different.

He totally earned the mental edge though, so no complaints.

Yeah, because we all know how much variety Cvac has in his game with his terrible over heads, terrible slice, and terrible volleys. Nope, not a bit of one dimensional in his game whatsoever.

Terrible overheads, below average slice, his volleys are not terrible though, he comes to the net more than Murray or Nadal and for instance at the wimby 2011 finals was more successful there. For the modern game his volleys are decent. compared toproper volleyers though,nothing special.

 

[Crisstti]

Even on clay now, I am struck that Rafa relies more on his wicked top spin. I think Nole has his number if the weather conditions are not hot and sunny, and even hot and sunny it seems like a toss of a coin now. having said that, credit to Rafa for winnng RG again and being a clay court monster. Cant take that away from him.

Uhm, it was certainly not hot and sunny when they played the final last year.

 

[Bender]

Nah. Nadal is old now because he peaked so early...Djokovic took the game to an entirely new level in 2011 that Nadal's one-dimensional style could not match even on clay. Now it's Djokovic's time to shine and Nadal's time to pass on the baton to Djokovic and usher in a new era in tennis.

Are you saying that Djokovic has variety?

Are you high?

 

[mike danny]

Oh grow up, will you. Besides Djokovic has beaten him in the finals in the three other slams. Pretty dang hard to do if you're as one dimensional as your claiming Djokovic to be.

or maybe to beat nadal you have to be one-dimensional.

 

[mike danny]

what i mean by this thread is that all nadal fans and sampras fans are dismissing nadal as fed' s competition in 2005 simply because he was a baby. but i stated some fact to prove them wrong. name me another baby who won 3 masters 1000 titles on hardcourts and in less time than when he was a man and reached 2 consecutive wimby finals. only becker has this claim and he was even younger than when rafa did it. plus he was giving prime fed fits on all surfaces. does not sound like a baby to me. as a man he was bounced in the 2nd and 1st rounds respectively. so all this baby nonsense must stop

 

[namelessone]

what i mean by this thread is that all nadal fans and sampras fans are dismissing nadal as fed' s competition in 2005 simply because he was a baby. but i stated some fact to prove them wrong. name me another baby who won 3 masters 1000 titles on hardcourts and in less time than when he was a man and reached 2 consecutive wimby finals. only becker has this claim and he was even younger than when rafa did it. plus he was giving prime fed fits on all surfaces. does not sound like a baby to me. as a man he was bounced in the 2nd and 1st rounds respectively. so all this baby nonsense must stop

You might wanna check out his results in HC slams, he doesn't even get to a SF until 2008.

For what it's worth, Nadal has prime/peak on different surfaces at different times.

Clay: prime 2005-2010, peak 2008 and 2010. From 2011 he's post prime IMO.
HC: prime 2008 - present day, peak 2009-2010.
Grass: prime 2006-2011, post prime 2012-present day.

Rafa may have won some big titles before his prime but you have to understand that he was losing far more and earlier on HC(regardless of speed) before 2008. What changed since 2008 isn't just that he is winning HC slams but that he is also far more consistent in all HC venues, with few early exists compared to his teen years.

 

[mike danny]

You might wanna check out his results in HC slams, he doesn't even get to a SF until 2008.

For what it's worth, Nadal has prime/peak on different surfaces at different times.

Clay: prime 2005-2010, peak 2008 and 2010. From 2011 he's post prime IMO.
HC: prime 2008 - present day, peak 2009-2010.
Grass: prime 2006-2011, post prime 2012-present day.

Rafa may have won some big titles before his prime but you have to understand that he was losing far more and earlier on HC(regardless of speed) before 2008. What changed since 2008 isn't just that he is winning HC slams but that he is also far more consistent in all HC venues, with few early exists compared to his teen years.

hardcourts have always been his weakest surface. this still does not change. he won only 2 hardcourt majors in 6 years and reached only 4 finals in 11 attempts. he made some progress but not a huge one. 6 years is a lot and he reached very few finals and won very few titles.

what i meant is that his result do not sound like a baby to me. if you want to sound loggical stop using the fact that he was beating fed on hardcourts. it diminished the baby nonsense from the start. you cannot challenge the best hardcourt player and still be a baby. something just does not fit

 

[namelessone]

hardcourts have always been his weakest surface. this still does not change. he won only 2 hardcourt majors in 6 years and reached only 4 finals in 11 attempts. he made some progress but not a huge one. 6 years is a lot and he reached very few finals and won very few titles.

what i meant is that his result do not sound like a baby to me. if you want to sound loggical stop using the fact that he was beating fed on hardcourts. it diminished the baby nonsense from the start. you cannot challenge the best hardcourt player and still be a baby. something just does not fit

You can if the matchup allows it.

Let me give you an example - Davydenko is 6-1 against Nadal on HC.

Yet Nadal's results on HC show him the superior HC player with 4 HC GS finals to Davy's zero, with 5 HC MS titles to Davy's 3. On the biggest HC stages Rafa usually does better than Davy.

And yet, Davydenko would probably give a hard time to any Nadal on HC, no matter what their respective form may be at the time. Why? Matchup issues.

 

[mike danny]

You can if the matchup allows it.

Let me give you an example - Davydenko is 6-1 against Nadal on HC.

Yet Nadal's results on HC show him the superior HC player with 4 HC GS finals to Davy's zero, with 5 HC MS titles to Davy's 3. On the biggest HC stages Rafa usually does better than Davy.

And yet, Davydenko would probably give a hard time to any Nadal on HC, no matter what their respective form may be at the time. Why? Matchup issues.

aha... so you admit that nadal troubles federer because of the match-up issues. but federer is still the better player untill nadal surpasses his records

 

[Omega_7000]

Also baby rafa did better on grass than man rafa so again the baby argument is rubbish

Murray playing with baby Rafa,

 

[The Dark Knight]

Yeah Federer is a freaking bandwagoner

FEDERER: NADAL FROM BOY TO MAN

ROLAND GARROS 2013

Paris, France

by ATP Staff

|
29.05.2013

© Getty ImagesRoger Federer and Rafael Nadal faced off for the 30th time, two weeks ago in the Internazionali BNL d'Italia final.
Roger Federer has witnessed Rafael Nadal’s transition from a boy to a man. On Wednesday at Roland Garros, the Swiss reflected on the growth in his rival’s game from their first meeting in 2004, when Nadal was 17 years of age.

“Well, he is more or less still the same player,” shared the 31-year-old Federer, “because when you come on the tour for the first time, you already have your own basis. So your strengths will remain your strengths and your weaknesses will remain your weaknesses, although you can improve them.

“I believe Rafa improved in both. His strengths are even better now and his weaknesses are better, although they're still not as good as his strengths. Of course also he's fitter. He's no longer a young boy. He's a man now. He has experience on top of that. So he really improved. It's spectacular and the results are there to show, to prove it.”

The pair faced off two weeks ago in Rome, their first meeting in a final since 2011 at Roland Garros, and Nadal won in straight sets to improve to a 20-10 mark in their FedEx ATP Head2Head series.

With the victory, the Spaniard claimed his sixth title from eight finals this season and his 41st clay-court crown, second best on the list of Open Era leaders behind Guillermo Vilas with 45. Last year, Nadal won Roland Garros for a seventh time to break the record he shared with Bjorn Borg.

Federer, who has a 2-13 mark against Nadal on clay, weighed how he’d fare against Borg on the surface. “Probably not so good,” he stated. “He was one of the greatest clay court players of all time. He was fighting with the wood racquets, and it was a different time. That's why I never quite know who was the greatest of all time.

“We will never know how we would have all matched up, because Borg would have played totally different in today's age. And Rafa would have played very different back then because you can't play the way he plays today, but great players find a way, and that's what Rafa is showing in these last 10 years.

“It's amazing how successful he is and how he brings it every single match, and he can really enjoy utmost respect [from] all the players for what he has achieved, not only just on clay. He is still stapled off as the clay court guy which he clearly is not anymore.”

 

[MichaelNadal]

Of course he wasn't a baby but he improved over time, without a doubt.

 

[TennisCJC]

Nadal was an exception to the usual ageing profile as he peaked very early.

When I watch the old matches 2007 and earlier both him and Federer were moving much faster and hitting harder (more so Fed). His continued good results are more down to the weak field outside the top 4 and overall clay prowess.

It has to do with his limited style and tactics. It is easier to develop early if your style is like Nadal's style which is 1. spin the serve in to start the points, 2. spin the groundies in to keep the point going, and 3. run like crazy to frustrate the opponent.

S&V, stepping into the court to hit aggressively, transition to the net, net play and aggressive serving take more time to develop.

 

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Nadal won between 2005—2007 3 hardcourt masters titles just,like in 2008—2013 so in a shorter period of time and 2005 was the only year in reached he won 4 masters 1000 and,the only year in which he won 2 masters on hards and reached 3 masters finals,on hards. In his man years he could not reproduce these results. Also baby rafa did better on grass than man rafa so again the baby argument is rubbish

Baby, diapers, still infant, whatever rocks the boat of his fanboys or girls. I'd accept these excuses if they accept that Fed is now way past his prime, or had mono a few years earlier. Apparently, stuff about Fed is always an 'excuse' but excuses about Rafa are always valid. Go figure.

 

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Yeah Federer is a freaking bandwagoner

FEDERER: NADAL FROM BOY TO MAN

ROLAND GARROS 2013

Paris, France

by ATP Staff

|
29.05.2013

© Getty ImagesRoger Federer and Rafael Nadal faced off for the 30th time, two weeks ago in the Internazionali BNL d'Italia final.
Roger Federer has witnessed Rafael Nadal’s transition from a boy to a man. On Wednesday at Roland Garros, the Swiss reflected on the growth in his rival’s game from their first meeting in 2004, when Nadal was 17 years of age.

“Well, he is more or less still the same player,” shared the 31-year-old Federer, “because when you come on the tour for the first time, you already have your own basis. So your strengths will remain your strengths and your weaknesses will remain your weaknesses, although you can improve them.

“I believe Rafa improved in both. His strengths are even better now and his weaknesses are better, although they're still not as good as his strengths. Of course also he's fitter. He's no longer a young boy. He's a man now. He has experience on top of that. So he really improved. It's spectacular and the results are there to show, to prove it.”

The pair faced off two weeks ago in Rome, their first meeting in a final since 2011 at Roland Garros, and Nadal won in straight sets to improve to a 20-10 mark in their FedEx ATP Head2Head series.

With the victory, the Spaniard claimed his sixth title from eight finals this season and his 41st clay-court crown, second best on the list of Open Era leaders behind Guillermo Vilas with 45. Last year, Nadal won Roland Garros for a seventh time to break the record he shared with Bjorn Borg.

Federer, who has a 2-13 mark against Nadal on clay, weighed how he’d fare against Borg on the surface. “Probably not so good,” he stated. “He was one of the greatest clay court players of all time. He was fighting with the wood racquets, and it was a different time. That's why I never quite know who was the greatest of all time.

“We will never know how we would have all matched up, because Borg would have played totally different in today's age. And Rafa would have played very different back then because you can't play the way he plays today, but great players find a way, and that's what Rafa is showing in these last 10 years.

“It's amazing how successful he is and how he brings it every single match, and he can really enjoy utmost respect [from] all the players for what he has achieved, not only just on clay. He is still stapled off as the clay court guy which he clearly is not anymore.”

What's your point? Fed complimented Rafa? And you still don't like it! Boy, would you take it better from the mouth of Agassi, Becker, Courier, BigMac, and all the 'so greats' players? Anyone but Fed?

 

[smoledman]

Only in the minds of ****s could Nadal using "wicked topspin" be considered a dirty, evil thing.

 

[mike danny]

Of course he wasn't a baby but he improved over time, without a doubt.

in 2006-2007 he was imo an pretty much elite player on clay and grass. the only surface he improved on is hardcourt. on grass he was playing much better then than now i hope everybody agrees. on graas he was already an established threat but on hardcourts he still needed to improve

 

[smoledman]

in 2006-2007 he was imo an pretty much elite player on clay and grass. the only surface he improved on is hardcourt. on grass he was playing much better then than now i hope everybody agrees. on graas he was already an established threat but on hardcourts he still needed to improve

In 2006-2008 Nadal was a super mover and he used that to make up for his extreme Western grip which is a liability on grass. Once his movement started to decline, so did his results on grass. 2010 Wimby was a lucky fluke because Soderling had him on the ropes and for some reason took his foot off the gas.

 

[Bender]

In 2006-2008 Nadal was a super mover and he used that to make up for his extreme Western grip which is a liability on grass. Once his movement started to decline, so did his results on grass. 2010 Wimby was a lucky fluke because Soderling had him on the ropes and for some reason took his foot off the gas.

For the last time, Nadal does not use "an extreme western grip".

 

[Cup8489]

Wrong. Nadal almost beat Fed at Wimby in 2007, and was pushing Fed more and more there each year. He was bound to win it, and if not for Nadal going on a walkabout in the 2008 final, he wins that match in straights.

And Nadal has beaten Fed on all surfaces so it had jack to do with "all those clay matches" they faced each other in. Nadal has beaten Fed on all surfaces and scored his first win over him on hard courts all the way back in 2004.

You did not watch wimbledon 2008.

 

[Tennis Fanatic 070]

You did not watch wimbledon 2008.

No she didn't, she was watching Oprah.

 

[Mustard]

Part of the fact of 2011 abusive dominance of Nole was the confidence he got beating Rafa sooo many times in a row.

The biggest factor of all was that 2011 Djokovic took Nadal completely by surprise. It was spooky. Nadal needed time to adjust to this big threat. Djokovic isn't going to take Nadal by surprise anymore.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The biggest factor of all was that 2011 Djokovic took Nadal completely by surprise. It was spooky. Nadal needed time to adjust to this big threat. Djokovic isn't going to take Nadal by surprise anymore.

This statement is awesome on so many levels.

:lol:

 

[above bored]

Wrong. Nadal almost beat Fed at Wimby in 2007, and was pushing Fed more and more there each year. He was bound to win it, and if not for Nadal going on a walkabout in the 2008 final, he wins that match in straights.

And Nadal has beaten Fed on all surfaces so it had jack to do with "all those clay matches" they faced each other in. Nadal has beaten Fed on all surfaces and scored his first win over him on hard courts all the way back in 2004.

Aside from Nadal being a good player, he really benefited from being the huge underdog against Federer in their early encounters. I think this was a really strong leveller back then and explains some of their matches. Federer was always playing with huge pressure (the monster), especially at Wimbledon, while Nadal was essentially playing pressure free. That's a big advantage when the margin's are so small. To some degree this explains why despite being behind at 1-6 in the h2h at one stage, Federer has always remained competitive with Nadal despite the assumed 'vast' improvements Nadal has made and Federer's decline.

By the end of 2007 Federer had improved the h2h to 6-8 and was all set to have a very good year in 2008, then he got mono, the experience of which created a big enough chink in his mental and physical armour to open the door to many losses that year (to everyone), and thereafter, that may never have otherwise happened. I don't think 2008 was an inevitable progression for Nadal. I think a mixture of variables conspired to his advantage.

Not to derail the discussion, I think the original poster is right in saying the whole baby myth surrounding Nadal's early success is silly. It's not like he was 10 years old and ranked No.2 in the under 14s back in 05. He was 19 and ranked No.2 in the world; one year younger than Hewitt and Safin before they became No.1 and two years older than Chang, Wilander and Becker when they won their first Major. Plenty of athletes in the world were at their best around this age. In sport you typically retire before or in your 30s, so it makes sense that you have to be far along early on. Nadal was simply a year or two ahead of Federer's first advances in his own career, but not to Nadal's disadvantage. On the contrary, his youth helped him. The mental challenges have been more difficult later on.

 

[clayqueen]

The biggest factor of all was that 2011 Djokovic took Nadal completely by surprise. It was spooky. Nadal needed time to adjust to this big threat. Djokovic isn't going to take Nadal by surprise anymore.

I agree.

Nadal lost his nerve against Djokovic in 2011 and at the same time Djokovic got more confident against him. It was more mental than technical, IMO. I've watched matches between these two from yesteryear a lot and Djokovic hasn't changed his game at all, he just believed more in 2011. Now that he is losing more he is less confident and has entered a vicious circle.

I think Rafa's game has improved and changed a lot over the years. His serve is better and he attacks more. He now has the upper hand against Djokovic and anyone who thinks the FO was close should go and watch the match again and realise that Rafa was on the front foot until the 5th set. He actually served for the match in the 4th set and gave Novak a bread stick in the 3rd set. Novak only led for half of the 5th set and was struggling to hold his serve in the 8th game before colliding with the net.

 

[Cormorant]

In many ways the poor guy is still Toni's little nephew, and might not reach full maturity until he leaves the game behind.

 

[mike danny]

the point is nadal was not a baby. back then it was still normal to win slams at a yoing age. becker did it for ex.

the nadal fanboys do not want to admit nadal was part of fed's competition from the start. he was reaching slam.finals and winning slams in that period. to say federer won those slams because nadal was undeveloped is rubbish. nadal was an elite player on clay and grass and he sure as heck played much better then than now. he was undeveloped on hardcourts but on clay and grass he was federer's true rival.

had nadal defeated federer in 2007 at wimby the strong era would have begun then but because he managed to still hold him off obviously the weak era continues in the minds of nadal and pete fanboys

 

[The Dark Knight]

What's your point? Fed complimented Rafa? And you still don't like it! Boy, would you take it better from the mouth of Agassi, Becker, Courier, BigMac, and all the 'so greats' players? Anyone but Fed?

No fed himself says he watched Nadal grow from a boy to a man and improved.

Apparently Federers opinion is not even enough.

It's amazing ....fed is a baby when he loses to rafter on every surface to man.....but Nadal is at his peak from day one.

Then at 31 Fed is over the hill but Nadal who is probably in worse shape than Fed at 27 is still at his peak .

The double standards and hatred for dominating Federer is limitless.