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

by HM Murdock Wed 13 Feb 2013, 11:39 am

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?

by HM Murdock Fri 15 Feb 2013, 9:19 am

lydian, because eras aren't defined by the quantity of the success but the consecutive nature of that success.

You talk about being overshadowed, well Djokovic has had two consecutive years where he hasn't been overshadowed.

Fed had four consecutive years of not being overshadowed and that, seemingly by common consensus, consitutes an era.

We can debate how much consecutive success defines an era but the subject is certainly in play for Djokovic.

by Guest Fri 15 Feb 2013, 9:22 am

Borg is dogged by the whole year end number 1 and consecutive weeks as number 1. The guy racked up 109 weeks as a number 1 and aside from Federer and Sampras is the only guy to have won 2 or more Slams over 3 years (consecutively if you will)

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 15 Feb 2013, 9:25 am

I don't think Connors and Borg could both have a era. Borg wasn't really ranked No 1 until mid '79. Connors was ranked No 1 for most of 74-78 but his slams were too spread out.

We might be able to retrospectively create one for Sampras, Lendl & Fed, but why bother Smile

by Guest Fri 15 Feb 2013, 9:27 am

You could argue is naming era's glossing over the 'Era' debate Whistle

by HM Murdock Fri 15 Feb 2013, 9:28 am

legendkillarV2 wrote:You could argue is naming era's glossing over the 'Era' debate

Yes, I think "era" has become a toxic word. I believe it is now ranked just behind "pleb" and "Saville".

by Guest Fri 15 Feb 2013, 9:30 am

HM Murdoch wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:You could argue is naming era's glossing over the 'Era' debate
Yes, I think "era" has become a toxic word. I believe it is now ranked just behind "pleb" and "Saville".

by socal1976 Fri 15 Feb 2013, 4:50 pm

I think if Djokovic retains the number 1 this year and goes on to win more slams he has a good claim on a era of his own. Very few players in the open era have attained 3 straight year end #1s. And as murdoch has noted it is about consistent dominance not necessarily your raw slam count. That is why Lendl has an era of his own in the late 80 eventhough he only won 8 slams. While Nadal has achieved more in the game, he has unfortunately never been able to consistently maintain the best player in the game title that goes with world number 1. Getting to number 1 is really hard, maintaining the number 1 ranking for any appreciable length of time can be almost as hard. Tennis is a fickle sport and therefore eras are shorter in time, we aren't talking politics or geology. In US team sports a run of 4 or 5 good years gets you crowned as a dynasty. Hardly Ming like in temporal nature, but nonethless a sports dynasty all the same.

Lydian makes astute points but I think is wrong. Federer had an era, Sampras had an era, and Lendl also had an era. And yes many other multiple slam champions didn't. But Lendl certainly did because of his consistent performance as the best player in the world for many years running. Connors also has a good argument in the mid-70s and borg also if we apply the 3 year rule had a good argument in the late 70s and the first year or two of the 80s. So slam count on its own does not an era make. I think you look at how many weeks and year end #1s the player received in succession or within a short period of time.

For me I think Connors, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, and Federer have all had eras of their own. And an era in tennis is a short thing this isn't a club team where you can bring in new players when the guys get old. If Djokovic finishes this year at #1 there is nothing precluding him from having his own era with 6 slams, Lendl did it with a mere 8 slams. And mostly likely for Djoko to be #1 again this year he will have to win one of the next three slams. So he will be right at that slam threshold as well. In my opinion, if he finishes this year as #1 it is fair to call 2011-2013 the djoko era.

by lydian Fri 15 Feb 2013, 8:08 pm

Given Federer is fading and Nadal is on borrowed time it looks like Djokovic is going to have this era all to himself and Murray...not a bad time for Djokovic to be in his prime wouldn't you say?

by socal1976 Fri 15 Feb 2013, 8:48 pm

I agree lydian, but I think we would have seen this Novak in 09 and 10 if he didn't experiment dangerously with his serve. The numbers on his serve in 09 and 10 are just plain awful, he had a good serve in 08 but wanted to go for the big ace creating serve and it really put him off for two years. When he canned the new motion during the middle of 2010 he started to serve better and better.

But yes I agree with you novak has a great chance to really carve out a legacy but I think people underestimate murray, I view as a player who will establish himself as a great of the game as well. So I don't think it will be as free and clear as it might seem.

by hawkeye Fri 15 Feb 2013, 8:51 pm

socal1976. Admit it you are trying to build up Murray in an attempt to build up Nole?

by socal1976 Fri 15 Feb 2013, 9:01 pm

No Hawkeye, not at all, I think murray has to this point underachieved for the talent that he has. I think when you look at the numbers 6 finals appearances, a boatload of masters, high win percentage against top 10 players murray should be and most likely will be an all time great. He is far superior to any member of the rollover generation (safin, hewitt, roddick, nalby etc.) and I have been saying so for years.

by lydian Fri 15 Feb 2013, 10:32 pm

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...

by bogbrush Fri 15 Feb 2013, 10:46 pm

100% right, Lydian.

Unless Nadal comes back strong this next year or two is a cakewalk for Djokovic.

by User 774433 Fri 15 Feb 2013, 11:06 pm

bogbrush wrote:100% right, Lydian.

Unless Nadal comes back strong this next year or two is a cakewalk for Djokovic.

I have to agree here BB, that there is a possibility that an easier period or 'cakewalk' as you put it may arise.
If Nadal can't come back from injury, and Federer retires; that only leaves Murray in his path. Then if Murray gets injured, it's a real cake-walk. thumbsup

by bogbrush Fri 15 Feb 2013, 11:47 pm

Murray isn't a genuine Slam threat to peak Djokovic, Nadal or Federer. He's a good player, mind, but not at that level.

by lydian Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:05 am

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...

by **laverfan** Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:09 am

@Lydian are you watching Nadal v Berlocq?

by User 774433 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:13 am

Berlocq has already won.

by summerblues Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:15 am

It Must Be Love wrote:Berlocq has already won.

Who are you rooting for?

by **laverfan** Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:17 am

Nadal is struggling, but he may just push through and win. Hie movement is pretty poor, the knees seem to bother him. Crying or Very sad

by Josiah Maiestas Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:18 am

Berlocq is playing average while Nadal is at the top of his game, that is why there is still a match developing.

by invisiblecoolers Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:20 am

hawkeye wrote:socal1976. Admit it you are trying to build up Murray in an attempt to build up Nole?

Well thats a direct agenda nothing secret about it. Very Happy

by invisiblecoolers Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:22 am

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Berlocq is playing average while Nadal is at the top of his game, that is why there is still a match developing.

Quote of the Week notworthy

by User 774433 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:22 am

summerblues wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Berlocq has already won.

Who are you rooting for?

Fully behind Berlocq of course.
It was a good win for him.

by User 774433 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:22 am

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Berlocq is playing average while Nadal is at the top of his game, that is why there is still a match developing.

Yes.
Good point Josiah, champions will even when playing average, and Berlocq showed that quality today.

by Josiah Maiestas Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:23 am

Berlocq would've won this by now if they were playing on real clay, the blue stuff.

by User 774433 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:24 am

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Berlocq would've won this by now if they were playing on real clay, the blue stuff.

??

by Josiah Maiestas Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:26 am

I'm going to blame Berlocq's upcoming loss on his bad knees. We're all aware he has a history of tendinitis. He's a brave man to even be playing on..

by lydian Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:32 am

Yes LF...Nadal is like in Chile...hardly making any returns off 1st serves, his timing is still really off. 4-4 final set...Berlocq is playing with nothing o lose like the others, teeing off from every shot. Its a weird dynamic...these guys aren't fit to lace his boots on clay normally and yet here he is struggling.

by lydian Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:33 am

Ignore the resident Jester IMBL.

by User 774433 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:33 am

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I'm going to blame Berlocq's upcoming loss on his bad knees. We're all aware he has a history of tendinitis. He's a brave man to even be playing on..

I agree. Berlocq's loss in the semis tomorrow will be due to knee problems.

by lydian Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:34 am

Nadal holds 5-4.

by lydian Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:37 am

2 MPs to Nadal...

by Josiah Maiestas Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:38 am

Carlos gets paid more money to lose than to knock out Rafa. Wise decision to tank the match.

by User 774433 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:38 am

FECKING VAMOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

by summerblues Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:38 am

Odd match but Nadal gets through.

by lydian Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:40 am

Nadal wins...scrappy stuff. He's no more than 60% yet....but suspect this match will embolden him...any tight win is a good win. No idea how the knees are.

by User 774433 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:42 am

Rafa es lo mejor.

Nada puede ganar contra el matadorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Aunque manana ... tiene que mejorar.

by User 774433 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:43 am

lydian wrote:Nadal wins...scrappy stuff. He's no more than 60% yet....but suspect this match will embolden him...any tight win is a good win. No idea how the knees are.

He could barely return serve...

by lydian Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:47 am

Exactly what I also said at 00:32...he's still a shadow of his former self. Berlocq would struggle to get 2-3 games off him normally. It's hard to watch in a way but is the necessary play he has to battle through as match sharpness gets better bit by bit.

by Josiah Maiestas Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:51 am

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.

by **laverfan** Sat 16 Feb 2013, 12:53 am

Good win for Nadal. Cool

Should help his confidence. He may lose tomorrow, but we will see.

by User 774433 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 1:02 am

Crowd were excellent tonight.

by lydian Sat 16 Feb 2013, 1:18 am

Good win for Dave in the other half over Almagro.

by User 774433 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 1:20 am

lydian wrote:Good win for Dave in the other half over Almagro.

Bogbrush will be pleased.

by lydian Sat 16 Feb 2013, 1:27 am

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.

by lags72 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 1:51 am

It Must Be Love wrote:Rafa es lo mejor.

Nada puede ganar contra el matadorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Aunque manana ... tiene que mejorar.

Steady on IMBL.

All wins are good, but he was facing a 78th ranked guy near tennis retirement age, with just one Final and zero tour titles to his name.

Agreed, he does have to get better. But I don't have even the merest doubt that he will. And pretty swiftly.

by CAS Sat 16 Feb 2013, 1:52 am

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

by User 774433 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 2:00 am

lags72 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Rafa es lo mejor.

Nada puede ganar contra el matadorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Aunque manana ... tiene que mejorar.

Steady on IMBL.

All wins are good, but he was facing a 78th ranked guy near tennis retirement age, with just one Final and zero tour titles to his name.

Agreed, he does have to get better. But I don't have even the merest doubt that he will. And pretty swiftly.

I don't think so.
I still see him as 8th favourite for RG, just ahead of Almagro.

by User 774433 Sat 16 Feb 2013, 2:01 am

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.

by Sponsored content