Has there been, or will there be, a "Nadal era"?

First topic message reminder :

Eras provoke much debate on here but one way in which I think they can be marked is by a player's ascendancy.

For example, 2004-2007 is quite clearly a Federer era. 1993-1997 can been seen as the Sampras era, you can even make a case that 2001-2002 was the Hewitt era.

I would also suggest that Novak's recent accomplishments are enough to view this as the Djokovic era.

These eras don't cover the whole of a player's accomplishments. They are, however, substantial periods of time in which a player has a pretty clear claim to being the best of that period.

By this definition, I think there is a conspicuous absence - Nadal.

He's certainly been the best player for spells but only in relatively short bursts - mid 08 to early 09 and most of 2010. I would say that these periods are too short and the gap between them too long to count as an 'era'.

What do you reckon? Has there been, or will there ever be, a Nadal era? Does the lack of an era diminish his standing in the game? Do 241 weeks at number 2 make him the Buzz Aldrin of tennis?

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:I wonder what the odds are on Rafa pulling out of Indian Wells and Miami if this dent go well this week?or even if it does for that matter

Nadal is not playing Indian Wells or Miami.

oh I wasn't aware, was reading an article only a few weeks ago that he was

CAS wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:I wonder what the odds are on Rafa pulling out of Indian Wells and Miami if this dent go well this week?or even if it does for that matter

Nadal is not playing Indian Wells or Miami.

oh I wasn't aware, was reading an article only a few weeks ago that he was

It looks unlikely that he will risk playing on hard courts so early into his comeback.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:I wonder what the odds are on Rafa pulling out of Indian Wells and Miami if this dent go well this week?or even if it does for that matter

Nadal is not playing Indian Wells or Miami.

oh I wasn't aware, was reading an article only a few weeks ago that he was

It looks unlikely that he will risk playing on hard courts so early into his comeback.

ah so thats not a fact? I wouldn't have thought he would either, be better to go to the clay and onto the grass

CAS wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:I wonder what the odds are on Rafa pulling out of Indian Wells and Miami if this dent go well this week?or even if it does for that matter

Nadal is not playing Indian Wells or Miami.

oh I wasn't aware, was reading an article only a few weeks ago that he was

It looks unlikely that he will risk playing on hard courts so early into his comeback.

ah so thats not a fact? I wouldn't have thought he would either, be better to go to the clay and onto the grass

Let's see
It's looking likely that he'll follow what you just said.

IMBL : If you truly see Rafa as "eighth favourite" for RG (be serious....please) what sort of odds can you offer me ......???

I'm keen to put a wager on, but I know I won't be able to make much at the bookies with the very short price they're likely to quote.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Rafa es lo mejor.

Nada puede ganar contra el matadorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Aunque manana ... tiene que mejorar.

un presente pequeño de Carlos.

Burrittos? Tacos? Jennifer Lopez? Just messing with you as an Angelino, yes that is what those of us in LA call ourselves, I understand the lengua you are speaking, tengo muy poco espanol. I am much better with mexican curse words.

lydian wrote:Agreed

BB, he's not quite as good as Fed but as least Dimitrov is starting to carry the mercurial SHBH flashy player beacon forward...I think he's starting to mature, strengthen and is still young in this slow to develop era. He's your next guy for now...

Wont ever win a slam in my opinion or win slams, his single handed backhand is a liability on return. A good player, if someone switched his backhand a decade ago he could have been a contender. Just gives up too many chipped returns with nothing on it, spaghetti with meat sauce for the big forehands on tour. There is a reason there aren't any great returners with a single handed backhand. Maybe lendl and that is about the only one I can think of.

lydian wrote:No, he's just been bettered by Nadal and Federer in slams where it matters. Come on, at the end of the day prime vs prime they are better players than Murray. Murray can never be the guy like Nadal at RG or Wimb 08, or like Fed at Wimb and USO 06/07/08...they're just more mercurial than he is. Djokovic likewise.

Should be an all-time great? Are you having a giraffe? Just because he's pushing Djokovic close doesn't mean he's a great...he's a very good player indeed but not an all-time great. The paucity of competition coming up in the next few years might make him appear so though...

Was it the paucity of competition in the fedal era that saw him reach 6 slam finals and win what 7 masters by age 25? Was it the paucity of Roger Federer's competition that saw murray have a winning head to head against the goat really since his peak? I have different definition of greatness. For me 2 slams is the jumping off point. Some two slammers like Hewitt, are an all time great, hewitt underperformed principally due to injury. Although I do feel hewitt is a weak #1. Safin is a two slam winner I don't consider an all time great. I think people in general are highly unfair to tennis players. I mean there can't be 20 players in the open era that have won 2 slams or more I think it is fair to look at the totality of circumstances to see if someone is an all time great starting at 2 slams. Most 2 slammers I wouldn't call an all time great but Rafter, hewitt and Nastase I would. 3 slams for me is a shoe in to an all time great status. I mean we are talking about a dozen or so guys out 40 years of open era tennis, and as you say the margins between the #1 and the rest of the top ten are small, and the margins between the top 100 and the top 10 are also very small. If you can win slams on multiple occassions you deserve to be considered a great player. I mean we are talking about thousands of players and the dozen or so best out of them, in football or any other sport they would considered greats of the game. For some reason in tennis unless you are the absolute best or damn near to it you aren't great. I think it is an unfair standard. And I think Murray is a shoe in for 3 slams. You guys have your standard for greatness, I chose to be a slight bit more generous to tennis players. I think murray is a lock for 3-4 slams. And you talk about the lack of competition now, that is pretty funny aren't you guys the ones who fight me tooth and nail on the weak era theory? I thought all eras are the same? It is very dangerous to pick against the prognostication skills of nostrafreakingdamus you have been forewarned.

Apparently all eras are the same, or uncomparable, except this era which lacks competition which will allow murray to look great. Murray is a world better than anyone in the rollover generation that you guys defend tooth and nail, a world better.

Lol...in those two responses above you completely contradict yourself.

Response 1: "Some two slammers like Hewitt, are an all time great"
Response 2: "better than anyone in the rollover generation that you guys defend tooth and nail"

So a roll-over guy is also an all time great?

The only defence I make of guys from 2002-2007 is by virtue of what I deem that period to be - the transitional (surface speed) era. It was a weird time in tennis as the conditions changed so radically within the space of just a few years. Wimb and USO went from being 2 of the quickest courts to medium pace at best. Many other courts followed suit. Most guys of Federer's age or above were trained as faster court players coming into that era, they were not designed to be grinding 25+ shot ralleyers.

Anyway...you say it yourself. Murray got to enough finals but got rolled over in nearly all of them vs prime opposition. IMO he needed freak wind conditions to get past Berdych and Djokovic to win his first. It also helped not having Nadal around with whom he had a terrible record against. So, with Fed dipping...yesterday showed that...and Nadal unlikely to get to anywhere near his prime again before those knees go he's got a great chance, along with Djokovic, of claiming slams via an easier path given there is no-one coming along to even partially fill Nadal's and Federer's shoes. So yes Murray may win 3-4 slams...but I don't see Murray's potential 4 slams anywhere near on a par vs say Courier's 4 slams. Murray is a very nice player, he's just not of the same mould of guys I would call all time greats.

Speaking of which. You seem to be potentially calling a lot of players an "all time great" from 2 slams upwards. IMO you should be only looking at ~ dozen Open Era guys as being all time greats. You're looking at 6+ slams.

Otherwise, the problem is that when everyone is deemed "great", i.e. special.....no-one is.

Yes lydian we get the picture that you don't like Murray - fair enough. Dig deeper though and Murray is wracking up impressive stats and to write him off as you have done half way through a career where he has won multiple Masters Cups ( in all time top ten most successful), multiple slam finals, one slam win (and not finished yet), an Olympic Gold, one of those in the elite group to have reached a semi or better at all four slams reaching three out of four finals on those surfaces and being high in many lists of stats you care to bring up then I would say you are being harsh.

Right now time to sit back and wait for the fan boy taunts .

Windy conditions yet again - only Murray can adapt or was the wind only blowing on one side of the court doh

Never mind sunshine there are all those up and coming Brits you bang the drum about, but where are they - is this going to be yet another year where Murray will be flying solo in the singles.

Yes Murray is light years ahead of any other British player and some of us are thankful that he is keeping us on the tennis map in the men's singles, because without him there we would be a bit of a joke - the next ranked player being???

As far as being a tennis legend (whoever said that?) in the World he isn't, and that's true, but when it comes to this country he most definitely is.

lydian wrote:Lol...in those two responses above you completely contradict yourself.

Response 1: "Some two slammers like Hewitt, are an all time great"
Response 2: "better than anyone in the rollover generation that you guys defend tooth and nail"

So a roll-over guy is also an all time great?

The only defence I make of guys from 2002-2007 is by virtue of what I deem that period to be - the transitional (surface speed) era. It was a weird time in tennis as the conditions changed so radically within the space of just a few years. Wimb and USO went from being 2 of the quickest courts to medium pace at best. Many other courts followed suit. Most guys of Federer's age or above were trained as faster court players coming into that era, they were not designed to be grinding 25+ shot ralleyers.

Anyway...you say it yourself. Murray got to enough finals but got rolled over in nearly all of them vs prime opposition. IMO he needed freak wind conditions to get past Berdych and Djokovic to win his first. It also helped not having Nadal around with whom he had a terrible record against. So, with Fed dipping...yesterday showed that...and Nadal unlikely to get to anywhere near his prime again before those knees go he's got a great chance, along with Djokovic, of claiming slams via an easier path given there is no-one coming along to even partially fill Nadal's and Federer's shoes. So yes Murray may win 3-4 slams...but I don't see Murray's potential 4 slams anywhere near on a par vs say Courier's 4 slams. Murray is a very nice player, he's just not of the same mould of guys I would call all time greats.

Speaking of which. You seem to be potentially calling a lot of players an "all time great" from 2 slams upwards. IMO you should be only looking at ~ dozen Open Era guys as being all time greats. You're looking at 6+ slams.

Otherwise, the problem is that when everyone is deemed "great", i.e. special.....no-one is.

I do not contradict myself, hewitt is a great, but a weak world 2 time number 1. He is not really a dominant #1 material but he can still be great. And I also state he underachieved principally due to injury. I have never denied that hewitt suffered due to injury. Hewitt, didn't so much rollover from federer as much as he was forced to roll over by a dodgy hip and various other ailments. The same can not be said of safin, roddick, ferrero, or nalbandian. I said that 2 slams was a starting point for consideration. For example, Safin too inconsistent not enough other big tournaments and accomplishments not an all time great with two slams. Johan Kriek who won two AO titles before a full field and no other slams not an all time great. I rate murray as better than any of the players who made up federer's principal competition prior to the rise of Nadal off of the clay and Djoko and muray.

If we discount murray's future slams because of the lack of competition as you deem that if he gets to 4 slams you wouldn't value it as much as courier's slams, well then how should we discount federer's slams between 2004-07?

Again, players with two or three slams in their resume are not so common in the open era that by deeming them great we lose the specialness of the term. This is a matter of subjective opinion. I tend to cut the players who have accomplished at least two slams, the right of consideration but not automatic entry. 3-4 slams for me you are a shoe in especially if you won them on different surfaces and in a full slam field (ie not AO prior to mid 80s).

Come on lydian wimbeldon and the USO are medium paced at best? Why then do we see this uneven distribution of slams with the current champions. Of Djoko's 6 slams 4 come on plexicushion of AO. Of Nadal's 11 slams, 7 come at RG. Of federer's 17 slams, 12 of them come on the two faster slams wimby and the USO.

lydian wrote:You can see with Nadal that its his sheer force of will that's carrying him through so far, his game is so far off its untrue. A lesser mentally strong player in this form wouldn't be getting through the first matches. I almost get the feel that despite his woeful form that he's actually loving the battles...it appeals to his love of competing, no matter what the level. The mind is fine but the big unknown is that dodgy knee.

I sense the same. Nadal appears to like nothing better than getting down and dirty (cough). After the first set I thought he was more than likely to lose. Playing poorly, mentally he didn't appear to be there, another opponent teeing off and hitting lines plus courts that were poor and perhaps dangerous. I thought he might mentally lose it. Not so much "tank" but lose through lack of belief/desire. So to find a win in these conditions will only do him good.

Great to hear such a supportive crowd. About time too. Nadal is such an entertaining player to watch partly because of matches like this. The tennis level was poor but there was still drama. Not many players are prepared to wallow in the mud like this. Easy wins and easy losses are more par for the course. The sort of attitude whereby if it goes well "great" and if not sort of "Pfft It's just a bad day" as it's risky to show too much that you care if your losing.

If only the dodgy knee holds up and Rafa can re-discover his old form to add to this fighting spirit he will be even more fun to watch.

Oh just realized the topic was about a "Nadal era"

We have been very lucky as tennis fans. It's not often that two players with the trophies, quality of play that puts them amongst the best ever share a rivalry over such a relatively long period of time. That they have also provided so many memorable matches (including one that is talked about as the best ever) and have that extra something that either draws people to them or the opposite... That they are interesting enough to be talked about whether they are playing or not. It's obvious we are in the Fedal era. Or as it will be remembered the "golden" era. Sigh...