The myth of young Nadal being better than Nadal of today

First topic message reminder :

What we have always heard is that Nadal of 08 is so far ahead of current Nadal on this website, of course Nadal of 08 was pretty remarkable no one can question what a year he had beating Federer in an epic at wimbeldon that in many ways flattered the Nadal of that period in relation to what we have seen in recent years. In my opinion the Nadal of today has a better serve, flat forehand, slice backhand, and volleys. Yet, for some reason in this strange fishbowl of counter factual 606v2, it is the running party line that Nadal 08 was far superior to Nadal of 2013. Interestingly, this story line fits well for both the Federer fans and the Nadal fans on this site. It also feeds into the thought stream of those who I with great affection, have come to know as the nostalgics, who must trumpet yesterday over today because well they preffered the tennis of their youth. The fed fans agree because it makes the competition fed faced in his later prime seem all the more impressive. Nadal fans seem to agree because it explains away any loss Nadal may have particularly to one Novak Djokovic.

But lets actually examine the facts and compare Nadal 2013 vs Nadal 2008. In 2008, Nadal won a total of 8 tournaments for the entire year. Nadal of 2013 has won 5 tournaments from the middle of February to the middle of May. Nadal of 2008 had acquired 5435 points in 20 tournaments in the 52 weeks prior to this week in the year 2008. Nadal in 20 tournaments. Interestingly, he held just a 200 point advantage over the asthmatic puppy version of Novak Djokovic at this time in the rankings. Despite all the slams and time missed from inuries Nadal of 2013 has gained 6895 points over the course of 20 tournaments. Nadal of 2008 against top ten opponents had a record of 17-6 for a 74 percent winning percentage against top ten opponents. Nadal of 2013 has a 6-1 record against top ten opponents for a 86 percent win percentage against top ten opponents.


Now today we see that simply losing djokovic over the last two or three years for some reason has made people assume that Nadal the conqueror of Federer at wimbeldon is somehow deficient in comparison to his 2008 predecessor. Yet other than his losses to one player an his injuries Nadal has run roughshod over the tour even more so than he did in the supposed Nirvana of 08. Now we have to get to the motivation of why this argument is so popular on this website in particular and online. Well it fits so well for many various factions. Nadal fans have a built in excuse if Nadal gets surpassed in any way by Djoko. Fed fans can build up the weaker competition faced by Federer in his heyday and at the same time discount the accomplishments of current player's vis a vis Federer. The nostalgics love to talk down the state of the game so this fits with them as well.

I would take Nadal of 2010-2013 over Nadal of 05-08 anyday of the week and twice on sunday, if Nadal of 08 played Djoko 2.0 I doubt the matches would be even this competitive. And the numbers bear it out, Nadal dominates the tour more today than he did in his early days, he just loses to his top rival more than he wins unlike the Nadal of 08.

Don't Agassi's 3 slams in the early 2000s also make him a top player of the early 2000s?
And Kuerten - 2 of his 3 FOs and World No 1 in the early 2000s. Restricted off clay (back then the surfaces were different) but how many players have won 3 FOs? Surely a better clay courter than anyone since, bar Nadal, and probably the 2nd best of the last 30 years.

Yes but limitations to one surface does not give domination. Would you call Kuerten a legend of the sport amongst the all-time greats? Agassi would make it in there but is more from the 1990's school of greats.

JHM - all good points.

For Kuerten I would apply the same reasoning. Great on clay but, overall, I'd rate Fed, Rafa and Novak as better.

Agassi is a tricky one. In my mind he is of the previous era and had some success that spilled into the early 2000s. I realise that's quite an arbitrary call however, so I have no real issue with him being used to represent that period. I'd still rate Fed and Rafa as higher though. And when Novak is the age that Andre was in the early 2000s, I think he may have a comparable standing in the game.

So I'd still give the edge to recent years over early 00s. But I think your comments show that it's not a chasm between the two periods.

Can you name me 2 players, post-Borg who are greater on clay? So yes, I would classify Kuerten as an all-time great. Like so many clay court specialits up to the mid-2000s, he didn't have the benefit of homogenized conditions.
Agassi's career spanned the decades - it's merely a chronological convenience to dismiss his early 2000s achievements.

At the end of the day it is all about opinions. To all the Djokovic fans here I'd say sit back and relax as Djoko has already written himself into the record books as an all-time great and nothing can change that. Likewise to the Federer fans sit back and bask in the warm glow that Roger is the greatest of all-time. Both sets of supporters have so much to be happy about but yet there is all this anger on both sides. Very odd and unnecessary.

HM Murdoch wrote:JHM - all good points.

For Kuerten I would apply the same reasoning. Great on clay but, overall, I'd rate Fed, Rafa and Novak as better.

Agassi is a tricky one. In my mind he is of the previous era and had some success that spilled into the early 2000s. I realise that's quite an arbitrary call however, so I have no real issue with him being used to represent that period. I'd still rate Fed and Rafa as higher though. And when Novak is the age that Andre was in the early 2000s, I think he may have a comparable standing in the game.

So I'd still give the edge to recent years over early 00s. But I think your comments show that it's not a chasm between the two periods.

Not a chasm, especially when you consider the standard of play some of the 'non-greats' were capable of, albeit for shorter spans of time. Who's to say the quality (relative to the time period/natural evolution of tennis) at, say, Wimby and the USO 2002 was worse than at Wimby and the USO 2012?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Not a chasm, especially when you consider the standard of play some of the 'non-greats' were capable of, albeit for shorter spans of time. Who's to say the quality (relative to the time period/natural evolution of tennis) at, say, Wimby and the USO 2002 was worse than at Wimby and the USO 2012?

Hence why any judgement can only ever be subjective, at least to an extent.

Re Kuerten: he was very specialist though, wasn't he? He didn't get beyond the QF in the other slams.

If not being great on clay can count against Sampras, then surely not being great on anything but clay must count against Kuerten?

I do rate him but all-time great seems a stretch to me. Each to their own though!

I guess it depends on how many all-time greats you think there are/should be. If only half a dozen, then no, but if a dozen or so, then yes. Was Nastase an all-time great? He had more slams and weeks at No 1 than Nastase.

Apparently, when asked how he won 3 FOs, he replied 'Luxilon strings'.

'Great' is applied at 6 slams.

'Legend' is applied at 10 slams.

'Weak Era Beneficiary' kicks in at 17 slams.

Don't forget Kuerten won WTF in 2000 when it used to be fast indoors - beating Sampras then Agassi en-route. He won 6 HC titles from 10 finals, including winning Cincy (fast HC) vs Rafter in the final. He reached the finals of Cincy, IW, Miami and Canada Masters so he was adept on HC too.

These are no mean feats when surfaces were very different. In terms of clay prowess don't forget he beat Federer in straight sets in 2004 at FO, Federer was widely tipped to win FO that year having won Hamburg Masters beforehand (beating Coria in 4 sets). So he's definitely up there...probably in the top 15 of the Open Era and above guys like Hewitt, Rafter, Safin, Kafelnikov, Murray. Back in that era he had a really tough time trying to excel on HCs vs Sampras and Agassi who between them were complete HC monsters.

Oh hang on...geez, I'm comparing players again

CaledonianCraig wrote:Superb post HM Murdoch. I cannot disagree with any of that.

seconded

HM Murdoch wrote:'Great' is applied at 6 slams.

'Legend' is applied at 10 slams.

'Weak Era Beneficiary' kicks in at 17 slams.

Wonderful post HMM.

The mythical weak era theories have of course been well & truly debunked many many times - both here and on the original 606.

But rarely (if ever) have I seen the mythology debunked quite so succinctly as this.

Thanks Lags.

I used to feel pretty sure about a weak era.

But seeing the 31 year old Hewitt takes sets off Novak and the Olympics and Australian Open last year, I had to have a re-think!

For what it's worth, I do consider 2009ish-2012 a better period than 2001-2004ish.

But I don't think the gap is large enough to call one weak and the other golden. It's more that one was transitional, the other had established greats.

HMM : I can certainly see your point about 2001-04 being considered 'transitional'

I think what used to endlessly amuse me - amongst many others ! - was back in the day when the likes of Catalan Power and Uneducated Biased (aka 'Simple Analyst', aka 'Tennis Tutor' etc etc) would attempt to denigrate Fed by bigging up Rafa.

They seemed convinced that if they trotted out their theories often enough then people would somehow eventually believe them.

The fact that Fed captured almost 80% of his Slams, and over 80% of his MS titles, AFTER Rafa had himself first begun winning Slams appeared to elude them completely .......

Johnyjeep wrote:For me there is very little difference Socal. There is no way that Nalby, Roddick, Hewitt and Safin were not up to scratch. On there day they could all be absolutely immense. You cannot tell me there were any worse or better as tennis players than Murray, Tsonga, Del Potro or Berdych.

Remember tennis is about having the tools allowing you to win a match. Not how complete your game is. Yes, today's players are possibly more all-round players. But that doesn't necessarily make them better.

If anything the only difference is possibly the consistency in application. I would argue that the latter 4 are more consistent than the first 4 (well, epsecially Safin and Nalby). Federer came along and was arguably the forebearer in dominating so consistently across all surfaces (whether that be because of his game or homogenised surfaces is open for debate - personally I think its a bit of both).

This has forced other players to up their game. As a result and to a lesser extent, Nadal and Djokovic have followed suit. Time will tell if either can go on and match his feats.

Yes, Johny but consistency in application is a big deal, all t top players are capable of great matches, big wins, and great runs. I actually agree with one thing that you have to say, I agree that Federer raised the bar and brought us out of that weaker period. Also Nalby, Hewitt, and Safin could play but they failed to compete regularly at anywhere near their peak for long periods of their career. Hewitt gave it the effort and all the fight but just had bad injuries can't say that about the other two. I doubt either Rafa or Novak will match Roger's feats.

If you look at that period it really was a transitional period. Andre, Pete, Becker an Ebderg were ageing or left the game and till Roger came in no other great player arose approaching that caliber. Now people can argue one way or the other, it is like most things a subjective argument.

Also in a past post you noted that nobody knows about the competition level of a period they just talk slams. That is true to an extent, but people who are real students of the game will make note. And what you say is correct for the most part but people do remember these differing competition levels. I mean Mac's wimby titles were wimby titles but don't you think his title against Borg, carries a little more weight in critics minds than his title over Lewis?

Real students of the game would surely look beyond just the final as the measure of the 'value' of a slam

JuliusHMarx wrote:Real students of the game would surely look beyond just the final as the measure of the 'value' of a slam

Yes, I am not focusing on just the final but of course the final is the most memorable last match of the event.

lydian wrote:Don't forget Kuerten won WTF in 2000 when it used to be fast indoors - beating Sampras then Agassi en-route. He won 6 HC titles from 10 finals, including winning Cincy (fast HC) vs Rafter in the final. He reached the finals of Cincy, IW, Miami and Canada Masters so he was adept on HC too.

These are no mean feats when surfaces were very different. In terms of clay prowess don't forget he beat Federer in straight sets in 2004 at FO, Federer was widely tipped to win FO that year having won Hamburg Masters beforehand (beating Coria in 4 sets). So he's definitely up there...probably in the top 15 of the Open Era and above guys like Hewitt, Rafter, Safin, Kafelnikov, Murray. Back in that era he had a really tough time trying to excel on HCs vs Sampras and Agassi who between them were complete HC monsters.

Oh hang on...geez, I'm comparing players again

I do agree there, Kuerten could play on hardcourt and was a singular talent on clay with a great backhand and a good serve as well. Plus I do give the guy some kudos for the sad fact that his career was shattered by injury so early on. Beating Pete and Andre indoors I had forgotten about a very incredible feat for the natural clay courter. It would of been great if he had last a bit longer and we could have seen young Nadal play against him, now that would have been a clay court epic.