The shell of Rafa Nadal wins 6 out of the first 8 tournaments he enters, if Novak beats him at RG it will become the husk of a shell of Nadal

First topic message reminder :

Simple Transition era. thumbsup 50% of prime Nadal is enough to mop almost everything today. Sorry

Those who claim that Nadal circa 05-08 is superior to the Nadal of the last couple of years may have a tough time actually marrying the facts to their beliefs. Nadal is on a tear, frankly looks as good as ever or close to it. But I would like to thank the poster who I quoted above for really exposing the hypocrisy of those who all but suggest we are in a weak era today, while at the same time some of the same people argued vociferously with me for months and even years that there are no weak eras, that eras are incomparable and that Nalby, Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt are as tough as any era if there is such a thing. At least now we see what is really behind all this talk about how Nadal is just a shell of himself, it is really a big up on Federer and an attempt to paint the current game and current stars as weak and in crisis. And if they don't like Djokovic or murray it doesn't hurt to take some of the shine off of their accomplishments as well. So ask yourselves when an unprecedented number of journalists and legends are calling the game strong as ever or a golden age how some learned posters come to the exact opposite conclusion. Although they won't use the exact terminology of "weak era" that would be too obvious wouldn't it, they take every opportunity to slag the current stars, the current game, and to try to diminish their accomplishments.

Here is my prediction if Novak beats Nadal, and even if it is an epic of monumental proportions going 9-7 or 8-6 in the fifth Nadal will go from the hottest player on tour the last 3 months to a washed up near has been hobbled and crippled by leg injuries.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JubbaIsle wrote:The whole weak/strong era thing is down to how people want to describe a particular decade etc, as a benchmark to compare the competitive structure of any given dominance of a player.

Thats all it is really, and some people subscribe to that way of thinking or not.

The only difference in regard to why arguments crop up all the time is that once that personal benchmark is drawn, the lines are set and then people with different views of course have different horizons and there the twain never meets.

Era comparisons are difficult to argue, with the myriad of opinions about how strong or weak the competition was during any given era. In most cases its a generalisation, a kind of snap shot of what some people see, others don't see it quite the same way or feel that era's are incomparable because of technology etc.

Going off thread a bit, but I think its futile trying to argue each others point as the whole comparison strategy is based on a personal opinion anyway. No two opinions are alike in any case, and there's nothing wrong in a conversation about it, that helps to colour articles, but lets not insult each other just because our theories differ. I bet we all know where each other stands on this by now anyway.

Spot on Jubba. Era discussions bring about differing opinions that have no way of being resolved and so are pretty pointless debating.

IC wrote:So slating the current era is special while 2003-2007 was weak is clearly a double standard and I hope you will raise your voice against all those weak era nonsense since you don't buy the double standard arguments.

The conclusion is that the current era is neither special nor weak like any other era, but will Socal buy the arguments obviously no, coz he wants to elate this era as special and Djoko as super special this is what called double standards.

CC, I exactly stated the same sentiment a few posts above, so I hope you agree with me as well. , am I spot on as well

Of course everything is about opinion. We have seen that with the weak era/strong era theory and you will never change people's opinions on that. Socal stands by his opinion that a certain time period was weaker in tennis whereas others dispute such eras even existing. None of those view points can be proven or disproven hence you won't shift opinions. People on this thread are trying to claim the higher ground for reasons that cannot be proven/disproven and some are just going OTT with remarks or insults. It really is not worth it.

If socal is slating people for calling this era weak then that is him defending his position/beliefs/opinions. He is not (I believe) arguing that weak/strong eras exist though. That would be double standards but I don't think he has done that. I haven't read all posts thoroughly though so stand corrected if I am wrong.

As for your post at 9.08 ic and your quoted remark. All I see socal doing is exactly what others have done in years gone by. Seeking to maximise his players achievements by maximising the era those achievements came in which a number of Roger's fans have been just as guilty of doing in my honest opinion.

CaledonianCraig wrote:People on this thread are trying to claim the higher ground for reasons that cannot be proven/disproven and some are just going OTT with remarks or insults. It really is not worth it.

I don't think so anybody insulted anybody by abuses, its a civilized arguments and thats good for a public discussion forum.

Is the argument really worth it? I would say no if it gets repeated time and again in different headings,like you I am tired of this debates as well, indeed most are, I do remember you opening a thread long time back to stop such senseless thread being posted time and again , it did serve the purpose for quite a while and now here we go again.

There have been a few insults but nothing worth worrying over.

And yes I certainly agree these debates lead nowhere apart from around in circles and into hostile posts. Not really conducive to a friendly atmosphere and totally inconclusive.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:What's happened by 2013 is that the Great Roger is mostly gone, and Nadal doesn't look at his peak any more. That doesn't make a weak era in my opinion, who is saying this?

Incidentally BB, with Great Roger mostly gone and Rafa maybe post-peak, how does this NOT make things weaker than a couple of years or so ago? Does the improvement in Andy and Novak make up the shortfall? Because I'd argue not!

Genuine question not an argument.

It's just facts about guys declining with age (obvious in Feds case), but I don't think you can say it follows that it's weak per se. If there's any truth to the idea that Roger is as close to the GOAT as anyone can say, and Rafa his counterpart on clay, then maybe if those guys slip back then I can see where the conclusion can come from, but I don't believe that can make 2013 weak. It's different.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If socal is slating people for calling this era weak then that is him defending his position/beliefs/opinions. He is not (I believe) arguing that weak/strong eras exist though. That would be double standards but I don't think he has done that. I haven't read all posts thoroughly though so stand corrected if I am wrong.

It is double standards, seeing only the merits of this era ignoring the weak aspects, and likely just counting the weak aspects of 2003-2007 forgetting the merits to suit his/her discussion.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
As for your post at 9.08 ic and your quoted remark. All I see socal doing is exactly what others have done in years gone by. Seeking to maximise his players achievements by maximising the era those achievements came in which a number of Roger's fans have been just as guilty of doing in my honest opinion.

Anybody who does it just doesn't make sense, atleast good we both agree on the same lines. . I am not sure Federer fans really have to do such vague threads coz their hero has done it in reality, so his fans really doesn't have to boost their era to further maximize his achievemets, all I see is they have countered when people slated their hero's success and their era.

Its really difficult to find threads stating Fed's era was the best and toughest and he deserves more praise for it, you only see such talks from fans who really have to do something special about their hero's time in order to elevate him on par with the likes of Fed/Sampras/Laver/Borg/Nadal.

I reckon Federer will be a GOAT, as long as that doesn't relapse in to "THE" greatest of all time, but stays as one of. He may well stand on the shoulders of some of the other Goats, but here we will end up with era comparisons and such like.

I'll certainly remember him as one of the best players I have watched play the game, but entertainment wise, there are some others I'd rather have watched if on a Desert Island Disc kind of thing.

As to that, should they be Goats too ? to win more than 5 slams is a major achievement, across all surfaces even better, a golden slam....icing on the cake, who's the best until a player comes along and does it better ?

Its a difficult thing to do when you start comparing, so I don't bother. I have a few entrants into the Hall of Goats and some more to follow as another decade ends.

I would agree that the top players are not where they were for different reasons.

No.1 Novak Djokovic has not been as bullet-proof this year so far and has suffered some surprising defeats.

No.2 Andy Murray has his injury struggles which leaves a question mark over him.

No.3 Roger Federer is now riddled with increasing inconsistency. He now has streaks in matches of subliminal play whereas in the past theose were match long streaks. Age as well leaves him more prone to losing physically draining matches.

No.4 Rafael Nadal has made a very good comeback but you still feel something is missing as he has dropped sets against opponents you wouldn't have expected him to.

Now that may lead us to perceive a weaker era but then look at players that have improved f late and you could say Dmitrov is a lot better now and starting to beat top players, Wawrinka is also finding better form and I am sure there are others as well on the up. So you see how difficult it is judging eras - almost like techtonic plates - things are always on the move in different directions.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Can we know who it is calling 2013 a weak era? Honestly, I've never heard of it.

What's happened by 2013 is that the Great Roger is mostly gone, and Nadal doesn't look at his peak any more. That doesn't make a weak era in my opinion, who is saying this?

Socal quoted IC in his opening post saying this is a transitional era.

Thats bulls, I didn't write anywhere in this article that the current era is transition, what ever I said before was exactly in context of that particular threads sentiment, so random quote without the actual meaning makes no sense, Its surprising that you purchased it.

I did not make up that quote I copied a post that you made saying that 50 percent Nadal was wiping everyone out because it was a transitional era. You said it, and I quoted it. Maybe you went back and edited it because you said on another thread that is where I got the quote. Know you are claiming you never called this period transitional when you absolutely did, don't add dishonesty to your CV, if you said it stick by it and either retract or defend it.

There's some cracking hypocrisy going on here.

Don't dog people over very quote socal, there are loads of yours (and mine) that don't stand scrutiny.

socal1976 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Can we know who it is calling 2013 a weak era? Honestly, I've never heard of it.

What's happened by 2013 is that the Great Roger is mostly gone, and Nadal doesn't look at his peak any more. That doesn't make a weak era in my opinion, who is saying this?

Socal quoted IC in his opening post saying this is a transitional era.

Thats bulls, I didn't write anywhere in this article that the current era is transition, what ever I said before was exactly in context of that particular threads sentiment, so random quote without the actual meaning makes no sense, Its surprising that you purchased it.

I did not make up that quote I copied a post that you made saying that 50 percent Nadal was wiping everyone out because it was a transitional era. You said it, and I quoted it. Maybe you went back and edited it because you said on another thread that is where I got the quote. Know you are claiming you never called this period transitional when you absolutely did, don't add dishonesty to your CV, if you said it stick by it and either retract or defend it.

Can't you read the comment properly? , I never said I didn't say anything like that, lying could be your asset I don't do that, and don't bring in another personal attack , read the above comment properly, I said whatever I wrote was in conjunction to that particular thread's sentiment. Its not complicated to understand.

By the way this thread was about comparing early Nadal 05-08 to the Nadal we have seen in recent years. It was not an era debate or an encounter group for supposed Socal abuse victims to get together an vent, but instead of actually talking about any of the points I raised (ie like the Federer quote I provided and Nadal's superior results on hardcourt the last couple of years) as Murdoch pointed out it became a forum for insulting behavior. Not to mention people simply making up positions for me and then attacking their own strawmen.

Ok Socal lets move on bro, interesting matches ahead,lets for the moment focus on it and come back for all these debates on dry tennis period after Wimbledon

I might indeed hold your man as my final trump card pick to nail Silver who is leading me by just a point.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Ok Socal lets move on bro, interesting matches ahead,lets for the moment focus on it and come back for all these debates on dry tennis period after Wimbledon

Fair enough, I have to wait to talk matches because I am at work and have a full DVR at home then I catch up with the rest of you on match play.

Oh thats pity you miss the matches live, I don't enjoy watching matches in replay coz the suspense is over, only very few matches I have watched in full for a repeat

1]Fed - Nadal 2007 finals W
2]Fed - Nadal 2008 finals W
3]Del Potro - Fed USO 2009 finals
4]Del Potro - Fed RG 2009 semi's
5]Soderling - Nadal 2009 FO 4th round.

Man's got to work IC I wish I was in front of the TV right now. I usually don't have a problem watching Novak matches in repeat and I don't know all the results so don't spoil it! LOL. Yeah I watched the Del Po fed semi at USO in repeat I had to I was out of the country, still entertaining but the tension and excitement level is certainly not the same.

HM Murdoch wrote:But this is what has been chucked at him in this thread:

"It would take a blind man of sub 100 IQ to not see this current Nadal is still 60-70% of his best."

That's my quote and it's not a direct insult, it's a statement against anyone arguing this is prime Nadal.
As discussed ad nauseum, 60-70% Nadal is good enough to win clay titles given how far ahead ahead he is on this surface. To say 2013 Nadal is every bit as good as 2008 Nadal is IMO frankly laughable....and what's more I showed combined comprehensive stats that 2009-2013 Nadal is no better than 2005-2008 Nadal.

socal1976 wrote:Very good post here Silver I agree with just about all of it. Of course the peaks of these three haven't always coincided, however between Djoko and Nadal I really do believe that 2011 Nadal was at or very near his best. Remember he finished 2010 winning 3 straight slams and went into AO 2011 with the chance of a Rafa slam. He went on to reach the final of every tournament he entered at the start of 2011. He dominated the rest of the tour more effectively in 2011, he just lost the big finals against his main rival, when earlier on he was winning that matchup against Federer. Losing those matches in finals to Djokovic seems to have deflated everyone's opinion of Nadal's form, but when had he ever in the 05-08 period have such a consistent run of finals across all surfaces as he did at the start of 2011. Also he was up in the points race when he got hurt in 2012.

The one thing I am not sure of, although I don't want to dismiss because it could be true is that Nadal got worse on clay as he got better on the other surfaces. That might be true but as you say there are a lot of variables involved. Because if he has lost a half step of pace it would probably show up more on clay than on the other surfaces.

Sorry socal, only just saw this. I do actually agree with you regarding 2011, and I think the whole top 4 were very much in good form all year, even if Novak's domination disguised that somewhat. Nadal consistently reached his finals and was undone by the matchup and Novak's ascendancy, whilst Federer and Murray had excellent play in various tournaments (AO for both, RG and USO for Fed). It's just that Novak had a mind-blowing year, and that distorts things somewhat. As for the clay issue, I can certainly see the argument and don't really have any stats to back up my own claim! It's more based on memory and the eye test, but perhaps his hoodoo over Federer on clay is leaning me towards thinking he was superior on the surface back then. That, and the backhand...

As for 2013 Nadal, it's very difficult to assess as the situation is unprecedented - a player coming back so strongly, results-wise, after such a long layoff. We'll know a lot more in a few months time. Regardless, whoever wins this tournament, the achievement certainly shouldn't be devalued under any circumstances - hopefully we can all get behind that idea

lydian: I'm not sure anyone's arguing that 2013 Nadal is prime Nadal just yet! I think we can all see that he's struggling a bit for timing and confidence, but that'll return with matches and increased fitness/practice. In terms of the era issue, I'd say 2008-2012(AO) was his 'peak' on average across all surfaces, but that's only based on what I saw with my own eyes. What do the stats suggest?

Silver, socal said in his very own OP:

"Nadal is on a tear, frankly looks as good as ever or close to it"

This clearly refers to 2013. Given Nadal has only played 1 HC event we're therefore talking clay.
If socal thinks this is prime Nadal then I'm frankly amazed.
Yes he was better on grass and HC up to 2012 - only a fool would suggest otherwise.
But on clay (which has been my 'bone' all along on this) he's no better. Stats show that.

Certainly, since his comeback, he has won clay tournaments but also lost matches on clay that Nadal (pre-injury) wouldn't have lost. Even here at RG he has had stuttering performances by his high standards so I would agree with you lydian. I do think it is too soon to be saying what nick Rafa is now in. Leave it until the end of the year and assess then is what I say.

Agree we need more time to assess.
But who knows, his level may take quantum leaps in the next 3 rounds (if he wins them all).
The greats have a habit of peaking when they need to - this applies to Djoko and Fed too.

This article was posted two days after Nadal had obliterated Berdych and Federer in Rome. I think most people would accept that he was, indeed, looking as good as ever in those two matches. The fact that he has played poorly at RG is puzzling. I suspect it's probably the fact he has overplayed. Has to be taking its toll on the knees.

lydian wrote:Agree we need more time to assess.
But who knows, his level may take quantum leaps in the next 3 rounds (if he wins them all).
The greats have a habit of peaking when they need to - this applies to Djoko and Fed too.

Well he did look a lot better against Nishikori yesterday. Perhaps it is just confidence in his own fitness and inner self-belief that is holding him back at slam level and that now may be seeping back into him. We shall see.

lydian wrote:Silver, socal said in his very own OP:

"Nadal is on a tear, frankly looks as good as ever or close to it"

This clearly refers to 2013. Given Nadal has only played 1 HC event we're therefore talking clay.
If socal thinks this is prime Nadal then I'm frankly amazed.
Yes he was better on grass and HC up to 2012 - only a fool would suggest otherwise.
But on clay (which has been my 'bone' all along on this) he's no better. Stats show that.

Ah, fair enough. I need to work on the ol' reading comprehension, or get some glasses. Old age is a terrible thing

As per my original post, I agree with you regarding clay, certainly not definitively better post-2008 (though by no means worse, either). He's not prime Nadal right now, that's for sure. In terms of results he's done exceptionally well, but...

lol, no worries silver...dont talk about old age to me
Agree he's done really silver, no-one expected this come back at all.

BS, yep he posted this after those good wins and agree we was playing better then but we're talking 2 matches there when the OP generalisation covers 2013 (refers to the 6 out of 8 tournament wins).

I think we're going round and round a little now. Perhaps we all agree he's showing glimpses of his best form at times but its really, really patchy and more often than not he's between 60-85% of his peak. For that final 15% I've only seen 2-3 examples of that since his return this year out of around 35 matches played. I also think he's played too much - not that its a risk to his knees per se but that its eating into his practice time. He's barely had any period to really work at his game, he's been getting better through playing matches which is good and bad.

Silver wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Very good post here Silver I agree with just about all of it. Of course the peaks of these three haven't always coincided, however between Djoko and Nadal I really do believe that 2011 Nadal was at or very near his best. Remember he finished 2010 winning 3 straight slams and went into AO 2011 with the chance of a Rafa slam. He went on to reach the final of every tournament he entered at the start of 2011. He dominated the rest of the tour more effectively in 2011, he just lost the big finals against his main rival, when earlier on he was winning that matchup against Federer. Losing those matches in finals to Djokovic seems to have deflated everyone's opinion of Nadal's form, but when had he ever in the 05-08 period have such a consistent run of finals across all surfaces as he did at the start of 2011. Also he was up in the points race when he got hurt in 2012.

The one thing I am not sure of, although I don't want to dismiss because it could be true is that Nadal got worse on clay as he got better on the other surfaces. That might be true but as you say there are a lot of variables involved. Because if he has lost a half step of pace it would probably show up more on clay than on the other surfaces.

Sorry socal, only just saw this. I do actually agree with you regarding 2011, and I think the whole top 4 were very much in good form all year, even if Novak's domination disguised that somewhat. Nadal consistently reached his finals and was undone by the matchup and Novak's ascendancy, whilst Federer and Murray had excellent play in various tournaments (AO for both, RG and USO for Fed). It's just that Novak had a mind-blowing year, and that distorts things somewhat. As for the clay issue, I can certainly see the argument and don't really have any stats to back up my own claim! It's more based on memory and the eye test, but perhaps his hoodoo over Federer on clay is leaning me towards thinking he was superior on the surface back then. That, and the backhand...

As for 2013 Nadal, it's very difficult to assess as the situation is unprecedented - a player coming back so strongly, results-wise, after such a long layoff. We'll know a lot more in a few months time. Regardless, whoever wins this tournament, the achievement certainly shouldn't be devalued under any circumstances - hopefully we can all get behind that idea

lydian: I'm not sure anyone's arguing that 2013 Nadal is prime Nadal just yet! I think we can all see that he's struggling a bit for timing and confidence, but that'll return with matches and increased fitness/practice. In terms of the era issue, I'd say 2008-2012(AO) was his 'peak' on average across all surfaces, but that's only based on what I saw with my own eyes. What do the stats suggest?

He still has lost two matches on clay, one to the world #1 on song who has trouble with and one match in his first tournament back. As for Nadal coming back from injury, this isn't his first go around from injury, he basically has had a leg injury every 12-18 months even from early on his career. His best year ever was 2010 following a leg injury in 2009. If he comes back and is losing and not having 40-2 start then we can clearly say he is far off his best. Now he might not have his best form right now in this very tournament, there may still be some conditioning and rehab issues knocking him back a little. My argument is simple the average of Nadal last couple of years is better than the average of 05-08.

lydian wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:But this is what has been chucked at him in this thread:

"It would take a blind man of sub 100 IQ to not see this current Nadal is still 60-70% of his best."

That's my quote and it's not a direct insult, it's a statement against anyone arguing this is prime Nadal.
As discussed ad nauseum, 60-70% Nadal is good enough to win clay titles given how far ahead ahead he is on this surface. To say 2013 Nadal is every bit as good as 2008 Nadal is IMO frankly laughable....and what's more I showed combined comprehensive stats that 2009-2013 Nadal is no better than 2005-2008 Nadal.

Anyone who believes that the conditions and technology need to be changed in tennis has a sub 100 IQ and is a blithering idiot. Now this isn't a direct insult so no one should get mad! I actually don't believe the above statement that people who want to speed up conditions an tech have sub-100 iqs, but honestly you don't see your post as being an insult?

When I said Nadal is at or near his best I have talked about that as being across all surfaces, the jury is out a bit on the clay because it is hard to gauge because of how dominant he always has been on the surface. If you feel he is far off his best on clay, fine, I won't call you sub 100 iq for feeling that way though. By the way hardcourts and grass represent 65 percent of the tour, so if he is better in recent years on the majority of surfaces and worse o clay then what conclusion would you draw from this? Maybe that he is a better all around player?

Can we put this nonsense about 50, 60, or 70 percent Nadal to bed now. The man reached a dozen unreachable balls today that clearly frustrated he hell out of his opponent. Does he have to run down a cheetah and steal his gazelle from him before we admit that there is nothing, nothing wrong with his movement. What sheer nonsense, I am glad that at least now this silly denigration of today's game and excuse making is exposed for the load of bull it really is. Nadal's supposedly degraded backhand was lights out today. And his serve that is 10-12 miles better than it was in the mythical golden period of his youth went through a wobble, but was basically better than I have ever seen it. But I forgot, having a faster serve is a sign of weakness and loss of your ability due to injury.

I missed the good bit of today, but granted from what I heard Nadal was playing pretty well by the end. Took him a while to get into it, though, but the reduced amount of practice explains that

If Djokovic somehow had pulled this match out with a point or two in the fifth, everyone would be in here moaning about how terrible Nadal looks, how the injury is still the reason for his horrific play. Lets see what happens but Nadal is my favorite for wimbeldon right now if I had to wager anything on it.

socal1976 wrote:If Djokovic somehow had pulled this match out with a point or two in the fifth, everyone would be in here moaning about how terrible Nadal looks, how the injury is still the reason for his horrific play. Lets see what happens but Nadal is my favorite for wimbeldon right now if I had to wager anything on it.

I still don't retreat the comments that this is not the best Nadal, its the championship quality in him making him win matches from no where more than him being at his best and trotting it away. The real question is would this Djoko stand a chance against 2008 FO Rafa? my answer is no.

Yes, great we know what your answer is that Nadal is at 50 percent, he ran after balls like he was shot out of cannon. And his backhand was better than ever.

socal1976 wrote:Yes, great we know what your answer is that Nadal is at 50 percent, he ran after balls like he was shot out of cannon. And his backhand was better than ever.

I never gave you any percentage, I can understand its very difficult for you today with your hero lashed out, just relax enjoy the rest of the tournament we still got 2 great matches to come.

I had to use the toilet at 7-7 in the 5th so I missed the finish

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes, great we know what your answer is that Nadal is at 50 percent, he ran after balls like he was shot out of cannon. And his backhand was better than ever.

I never gave you any percentage, I can understand its very difficult for you today with your hero lashed out, just relax enjoy the rest of the tournament we still got 2 great matches to come.

I provided your quote IC, you said the man was half as good as he was in the past. Did you see him running down balls today, was he Usain bolt on steroids in 2008, he never suffered any injuries prior to 08? In fact I was called an idiot because I believed that Nadal was better than 60-80 percent of his best. Funny I guess Nadal of 05-08 never lost a match.

I am relaxed, the tournament is over for me. Watching Nadal play anyone other djokovic on clay is like watching hunters bash the brains of baby seals with a club. It certainly isn't engaging or fun in anyway. There is no mystery to it and it is often a bloody mess. I am glad that at least this nonsense about 50 and 60 percent Nadal is exposed for what it really is. I will be stunned if Ferrer wins a set. I know you went out on a limb calling the upset, credit to you it takes guts but I can't agree with you.

I can't see how this is peak Nadal when Djokovic was as bad as I've ever seen him for extended periods of the match yet still threw it away himself at the end. Nadal was plain fortunate on 2/3 points at 1-3 final set (serving) too. And lets not dwell on the net incident, which was game point serving 4-3.

If this was peak Nadal then on form Djokovic is far better than him, meaning Djokovic is far better on clay than the best Nadal. I don't buy that.

I did not say this is peak Nadal, I said he is close to his peak. The best Nadal I have seen is 2010 Nadal.

What about his backhand BB, did you not think Nadal hit the backhand really well today, the same shot you said he had lost?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:I had to use the toilet at 7-7 in the 5th so I missed the finish

Thanks for sharing that JM - just the sort of stuff the forum was set up for.

Anyway .....what makes you think it HAS finished .....??

socal1976 wrote:I did not say this is peak Nadal, I said he is close to his peak. The best Nadal I have seen is 2010 Nadal.

What about his backhand BB, did you not think Nadal hit the backhand really well today, the same shot you said he had lost?

Even if you substitute near-peak into my previous post the conclusion stays. Djokovic playing well is much better than Rafa now, even on hot, dusty RG.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I did not say this is peak Nadal, I said he is close to his peak. The best Nadal I have seen is 2010 Nadal.

What about his backhand BB, did you not think Nadal hit the backhand really well today, the same shot you said he had lost?

Even if you substitute near-peak into my previous post the conclusion stays. Djokovic playing well is much better than Rafa now, even on hot, dusty RG.

Is it too hard to fathom that a talented young prodigy develops later than Nadal and eventually surpasses him? I mean I don't think there is much of debate that Novak has been better the last 2 years than Nadal. Now the issue is how far is Nadal from his best, I don't think he is that far from his best especially if you look at his results the last three years. Remember he entered AO 2011 with a chance of a Rafa slam, was the points leader in 2012 when he got hurt, and has now in 2013 won 7 of his first 9 (albeit principally clay court) tournaments. I just don't see a large drop off. And compared to the young Nadal who broke on the scene with a WTA serve and won his first couple of slams this Nadal (average of the last 3 years) is a better player all around.

For me yes in recent years Novak has surpassed a Nadal that is playing very close to his best level. Today Nadal won because Novak choked, but he also won because he made it very uncomfortable and mentally taxing for Djokovic to have to hit through his defenses, just like how young Nadal would do.

I will judge where Nadal is at the end of the season. If he wins either Wimbledon or the US Open (presuming he wins as expected the French Open) then I'd say his level is certainly right up there but until then it is too soon to say.

socal1976 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes, great we know what your answer is that Nadal is at 50 percent, he ran after balls like he was shot out of cannon. And his backhand was better than ever.

I never gave you any percentage, I can understand its very difficult for you today with your hero lashed out, just relax enjoy the rest of the tournament we still got 2 great matches to come.

I provided your quote IC, you said the man was half as good as he was in the past. Did you see him running down balls today, was he Usain bolt on steroids in 2008, he never suffered any injuries prior to 08? In fact I was called an idiot because I believed that Nadal was better than 60-80 percent of his best. Funny I guess Nadal of 05-08 never lost a match.

I am relaxed, the tournament is over for me. Watching Nadal play anyone other djokovic on clay is like watching hunters bash the brains of baby seals with a club. It certainly isn't engaging or fun in anyway. There is no mystery to it and it is often a bloody mess. I am glad that at least this nonsense about 50 and 60 percent Nadal is exposed for what it really is. I will be stunned if Ferrer wins a set. I know you went out on a limb calling the upset, credit to you it takes guts but I can't agree with you.

Provide me the exact quote from the article and the article title, then I can review my quote and comment on it, its really useless to comment on random ramblings.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I did not say this is peak Nadal, I said he is close to his peak. The best Nadal I have seen is 2010 Nadal.

What about his backhand BB, did you not think Nadal hit the backhand really well today, the same shot you said he had lost?

Even if you substitute near-peak into my previous post the conclusion stays. Djokovic playing well is much better than Rafa now, even on hot, dusty RG.

Is it too hard to fathom that a talented young prodigy develops later than Nadal and eventually surpasses him? I mean I don't think there is much of debate that Novak has been better the last 2 years than Nadal.

Thats the exact point of the article and your trying to fool the Rafa fans into the trap , so the talented young prodigy is Djoko and right now he is better than the best Rafa by play and one day he might do in stats as well right?

https://www.606v2.com/t44233-if-rafa-had-had-novak-s-recent-results-many-would-be-writing-him-off

Simple Transition era. thumbsup 50% of prime Nadal is enough to mop almost everything today. Sorry


You said it, and here is the exact freaking quote, which was exactly what I posted to start the thread. Second to last comment on this thread. We all know your love of emoticons they don't copy and paste, I even left the lame thumbsup in there for it to be exact.

Looks like you forget your own ramblings and rantings.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I did not say this is peak Nadal, I said he is close to his peak. The best Nadal I have seen is 2010 Nadal.

What about his backhand BB, did you not think Nadal hit the backhand really well today, the same shot you said he had lost?

Even if you substitute near-peak into my previous post the conclusion stays. Djokovic playing well is much better than Rafa now, even on hot, dusty RG.

Is it too hard to fathom that a talented young prodigy develops later than Nadal and eventually surpasses him? I mean I don't think there is much of debate that Novak has been better the last 2 years than Nadal.

Thats the exact point of the article and your trying to fool the Rafa fans into the trap , so the talented young prodigy is Djoko and right now he is better than the best Rafa by play and one day he might do in stats as well right?

AHHH! you complain about me not quoting your entire quote when I did, and provided the whole quote with the link. But you are the one who chops up my quotes all the time to suit your purposes. Does anyone deny that Novak has been better than Nadal the last couple of years? I think the ATP rankings are pretty conclusive. Frankly, you are the one claimed Nadal is half the player he used to be, now you pretend like you never said it and try to mock me. But in the end you make yourself look quite silly, you said it, and later claimed you never provided any percentages. And you used the term transitional era as well. Attack weak era critics, he said transitional era and we all know there is no such thing.

IC, Socal has just reposted your quote word for word. You said this at Sat May 18, 2013 5:38 pm:

invisibleCoolers wrote:Simple Transition era. 50% of prime Nadal is enough to mop almost everything today.

Did you post that, and if you did, what did you mean by it. I don't want you to get angry, I'm just curious.

Red wrote:IC, Socal has just reposted your quote word for word. You said this at Sat May 18, 2013 5:38 pm:

invisibleCoolers wrote:Simple Transition era. 50% of prime Nadal is enough to mop almost everything today.

Did you post that, and if you did, what did you mean by it. I don't want you to get angry, I'm just curious.

Remember Red there is no such thing as a weak or transitional era, attack!!!!!! I am waiting for the weak era deniers to tear him from limb to limb, or maybe it could be that they have less of a problem with weak era discussions then with people calling Roger's early competition weak.

socal1976 wrote:
Here is my prediction if Novak beats Nadal, and even if it is an epic of monumental proportions going 9-7 or 8-6 in the fifth Nadal will go from the hottest player on tour the last 3 months to a washed up near has been hobbled and crippled by leg injuries.

Congratulations on the prediction of a fifth set between them, and even the score of that set (you don't lose any points for hedging with the 8-6) . Question: since you were certain that Nadal would tottter off into antiquity as a burnt out shell of himself had he lost today (and we can picture you having been on your knees during the match praying for such), what then of Djokovic, now that he's the one who had his long-sought obsession totally in his hands before his heart got ripped out? Is he now going to end up as a washed up shell of a man because of the way he lost today? Or is it your contention that psychological damage from such a 9-7 5th Set bloodbath only applies to Nadal?