Djokovic Era

[Fiero425]

I will say something, because I am the one who reignited the chat, following the Koenig article.
As a big Novak fan, I do not consider the 2011-2014 a Djokovic era, because put it simply was not an era.
He had an exceptionally great year in 2011, but a year does not make a era. 2012-2014 was OK, he was the best overall, but he was back and forth with Roger and Nadal at the pole position, so definitely not domination.

However, he may just kick-off a new Nole era if he manages an average 2 Slams each of the next 3 years and if the rest, 6 of them will be collected by at least other 3 guys winning not more than 2 each. If that is the case, he may have a era but that is a big if at this point.

I will be waiting patiently and calmly, because I see him being in a good place and I believe that he will have more great wins in the near future.

I like to use the term "time;" this is Nole's time! It began in 2011, but overall no one has been as dominant for that entire stretch; Nadal going in and out and Federer steadily going down for a while after reaching #1 again in 2012! There was a resurgence, but nothing to write home about! He still gets away with a little sloppy play because of other players' awe of him, but that reverence has slowly dissipated; "look out this year Roger!" It could be all over! :nono uzzled :angel:

 

[Carol]

My goodness, to each his own theme
The only thing I can say it's I want to see a healthy Nadal, then we'll see who is going to dominate or not
I can imagine if Delpo would be helphier how many results would be different for now too...
It's a shame that the injuries and surgeries don't allow the players to show their best game, it has to be very frustrated for them having a superb game and also the capacity to get more achievements and they can't make it due to be out of the courts for long time and later taking time to be fitted to be able to beat anyone.
We'll see what is going on these next years but I hope to see these next tournaments better and more
competitive matches and finals than I've seen these last months including London

 

[El Dude]

I'm not even a Nadal fan, but maybe you should do a little research before you make a blanket statement like that. Here are his wins/finals off clay for the last 4 years taken from the ATP site:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=tf

2012 - AO finalist
2013 - won IW, Toronto, Cinci and USO
2013 - Beijing & WTF finalist
2014 - won Doha
2014 - AO finalist

Obviously longer than a 2 month period in 2013 and he should get bonus points for defeating arguably the best HC player (Novak) for 2 of those titles.

You know, before reading your post I was of the mind that Rafa had been far more dominant on non-clay in the period in question (2011-present), but now I'm kind of agreeing with Billie: Rafa has been far from dominant on non-clay since 2011, with the exception of a relatively short period in 2013. I know, he's gone deep in plenty of non-clay tournaments, but to me it is rather shocking to consider that in three of the last four years Rafa has won no big non-clay tournaments. None! In 2013 he won four: Indian Wells, Toronto, Cincinnati, and the US Open - a span of six months - but that's half a year of four years, or about 25% in which Rafa has played well enough on non-clay to win big tournaments. But in 75% of the last four years he hasn't played well enough on non-clay to win a significant tournament.

Again, I'm a bit surprised by that. This is not to say that Rafa couldn't put together another 2013-esque run, but because he's so damn good on clay I think we forget that he's not quite as good elsewhere. Still very good, but not ungodly like he is on clay. I mean, another way of putting this is that in Rafa's 10 years of winning Slams he's only won a non-clay Slam in four of those years, or in 40% of those years. Of his 41 big titles (Slams, WTFs, Masters), 28 have been on clay, or 68%, and 13 (32%) on hard and grass surfaces.

This isn't to diminish Rafa's accomplishments, but it is worth pointing out that it seems his non-clay prowess is a tad overstated and seems to be diminishing. To put that another way, he's almost certainly the greatest clay court player who ever lived, but outside of clay he's in the pack with a number of other players.

 

[Kirijax]

There's no question Nadal is one of the greats. Even off the clay. He's won 5 non-clay Grand Slams. That's only one less than Edberg or Becker. That kind of puts how good Nadal is even off the clay. No sense in belittling what he's done just because it doesn't match up to what he's done on clay.

 

[El Dude]

There's no question Nadal is one of the greats. Even off the clay. He's won 5 non-clay Grand Slams. That's only one less than Edberg or Becker. That kind of puts how good Nadal is even off the clay. No sense in belittling what he's done just because it doesn't match up to what he's done on clay.

??? Is this in reply to what I wrote, even after I said just about exactly the same thing? I'm not "belittling" Nadal.

 

[Kirijax]

There's no question Nadal is one of the greats. Even off the clay. He's won 5 non-clay Grand Slams. That's only one less than Edberg or Becker. That kind of puts how good Nadal is even off the clay. No sense in belittling what he's done just because it doesn't match up to what he's done on clay.

??? Is this in reply to what I wrote, even after I said just about exactly the same thing? I'm not "belittling" Nadal.

No, just a response to an earlier post. sorry it came out that way. But looking back at your last one, I think I would give him more credit but each to his own.

 

[Carol]

It seems that besides the 9 RG, 2 USO, 2 Wimbledon and 1 AO is not enough to be one of the best players of the tennis history, maybe clay is not a surface? or maybe we have to give more credit playing on grass or HC? really? I think that every court is different but equal as to give all the credit that each one deserves, some players have more ability to play on grass or HC or clay or they play well in all the surfaces but getting more titles of than other one but at the end they are playing the same sport and all the wins have the same value, it doesn't matter the ground beneath their feet :clap

 

[Kirijax]

I have to admit I'm guilty of that trap. "Yeah, he won 25 slams but 20 are at the same place." I think like that sometimes when thinking of Sampras or Navratilova's records. But a Slam is a Slam is a Slam. Jus tbecause a player won the majority at one place doesn't diminish the total number.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Let me present this stat which I feel has been ignored somewhat in the context of Rafa's overall stats,

Nadal and Mats Wilander are the only two male players in history who have won at least 2 Grand Slams on 3 different surfaces,HC,Grass and Clay.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Another stat for Rafa which has again been over looked

Rafa joins Andy Roddick and Pat Rafter,the only three male players in the history to win the 2 HC tournaments before and the USO final,Rafa completed that in 2013,winning the Rogers Cup,Cincinnati,then defeated Novak at the USO in 4 sets,he also won his second USO title.

 

[Kirijax]

Let me present this stat which I feel has been ignored somewhat in the context of Rafa's overall stats,

Nadal and Mats Wilander are the only two male players in history who have won at least 2 Grand Slams on 3 different surfaces,HC,Grass and Clay.

:clap Now we're talking! Don't forget Wilander also has a Wimbledon title!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I have to be truthful I was never a Mats Wilander fan and I can't stand him as a commentator either,sorry that is how I feel about him

 

[Kirijax]

I have to be truthful I was never a Mats Wilander fan and I can't stand him as a commentator either,sorry that is how I feel about him

I love his commentating! He's so over the top sometimes I have to laugh. Never boring. But to each his own. I won't hold it against you.

What was this thread about again?

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Well at least we can have a good discussion,rather than saying...my player is better than your player,etc,etc.

 

[auto-pilot]

I have to admit I'm guilty of that trap. "Yeah, he won 25 slams but 20 are at the same place." I think like that sometimes when thinking of Sampras or Navratilova's records. But a Slam is a Slam is a Slam. Jus tbecause a player won the majority at one place doesn't diminish the total number.

Especially if the player has the Career Grand Slam which Nadal has plus he's the only man ever to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a calendar year.

And I wouldn't rule out a Double Career Grand Slam. as all these unlucky situations down under probably have made Nadal more obsessed than ever with Australia.

 

[El Dude]

I'm not sure if anyone is downplaying Rafa's greatness in anyway, or at least I'm not. The point I was trying to make--or support, as Billie had previously made it--is that Rafa has simply not been that dominant off clay over the last four years, except for in 2013. So that's 2011-12 and 2014 without a big title off clay.

The second point I was trying to make is that as great as Rafa is--one of the very few greatest the game has ever seen--he is, in a way, a two-part player. There is "clay Rafa," who is possibly (likely, in my opinion) the greatest opponent of all time on any surface, and then there is "non-clay Rafa," who is still great but more of your "garden variety great" like Edberg or Becker. Again that's hardly belittling of him and actually isn't all that controversial in that it is supported by stats. When you combine the two he is still one of the five or so greatest of all time, imo.

 

[Billie]

There's no question Nadal is one of the greats. Even off the clay. He's won 5 non-clay Grand Slams. That's only one less than Edberg or Becker. That kind of puts how good Nadal is even off the clay. No sense in belittling what he's done just because it doesn't match up to what he's done on clay.

Off course that he is one of the greatest players in the history, nobody denies that.

The fact is that all of his amazing accomplishments off clay did not happen in the period of time discussed here is what some of his fans find offensive and take issue with, when in fact that is just plain simple truth. In these years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and so far in 2015 Nadal has been just an average player on all other surfaces other than clay. In this period of time, he has won as many off clay slams like Federer, Wawrinka and Cilic.

I don't bemoan Nole's almost non existence in 2009 and 2010, he just wasn't that good at the time. Took him a while to figure out everything after a break-out 2008. That is nobody's fault than Nole's and you don't see me trying to elevate his status during this period of time. But since that DC final in 2010, Nole has been a different player and the most dominant. That's all I'm sayin'.

 

[Kieran]

In these years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and so far in 2015 Nadal has been just an average player on all other surfaces other than clay.

Really?

2011 he reached the Wimbledon and USO finals, the finals of IW and Miami.

2012, Australian Open final - didn't play again after Wimbledon.

2013, best player in the world on hards.

2014, Oz final with a hurt back, final in Miami, and hasn't played much since Wimbledon.

These are not average, these are either the best, or second best, during the most injury ravaged period of his career...

 

[lacatch]

In these years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and so far in 2015 Nadal has been just an average player on all other surfaces other than clay.

Really?

2011 he reached the Wimbledon and USO finals, the finals of IW and Miami.

2012, Australian Open final - didn't play again after Wimbledon.

2013, best player in the world on hards.

2014, Oz final with a hurt back, final in Miami, and hasn't played much since Wimbledon.

These are not average, these are either the best, or second best, during the most injury ravaged period of his career...

How can the above results for Nadal be the best or second best (except for 2013)? He barely played in 2012 and 2014!

 

[Billie]

Yeah, now 2nd places mean something. Well he needed the time off in order to try to do his best in chosen tournaments. If he had played in Australia that year, I hardly doubt he would have been able to post the results he did later in the year.

BTW: ITF did not consider Nadal the best player in 2013, it was Nole as well:clap