Is there one category or weapon that Nadal has that is clearly better than Novak?

Based on current form, I really can't think of one area of the game that Nadal is right now better than Djokovic at. In the last seven months the advantages that Novak had have increased and many of the weaknesses of his game have dissappeared.

1. Serve: Edge Novak he is holding at 89 percent rate #2 in the ATP, higher than even Roger, both guys have great second serves. Novak gets a few more free points and holds more consistently.

2. Return: Nadal is a top 5 returner, but Novak is the best in the game

3. Backhand: Novak has it all on the backhand goes up the line better. Hits more winners with his backhand and it rarely breaks down. Easily one of the top 5 two handers. Nadal has a good cross court backhand but not the variety and versatility of the Djokovic backhand.

4. Forehand: Last year you would clearly give the edge to Nadal, but Novak always had a good forehand and its been getting better and better now for 2 or 3 years. Right now I would again have to rate the forehands as an essential wash. Maybe one guy has a better forehand on a particular day or a particular surface but it isn't what I would call a clear cut advantage for either player.

5. Movement: About even

6. Fitness: Maybe you give it to Rafa but Rafa hasn't worn Novak down in a final for 2 years since Madrid 09. I don't really see this being a clear advantage anymore for one or the other.

7. Volleys: Surprisingly, while I rate Rafa as a good volleyer, and Novak has the reputation of being a poor volleyer, in their recent matchups it has been novak that has one a higher percentage of net points and who has come up more often. In terms of variety, Novak has improved dramatically in his volleys. And since he comes in more often and is winning points at good clip can't call this a Nadal advantage on current form.

So if breaking the games of these two champions down. Forehand, Speed, and fitness (traditional Nadal strengths) are pretty much even. Backhand, Serve, Return all are clear advantages for Djokovic. The only area I think is better for Nadal clearly is that Nadal has a better slice backhand something that Novak really needs to improve. But startling that when you analyze this matchup, based on current form, and look at each area of the game, Novak is pretty much clearly better or Rafa's equal in virtually every area.

Yes it's amazing how things change over a year or so.

Nole couldn't buy a serve after he changed his racket supplier, and he was also known as the "King of MTO's" because he was seen to be the least fit of the top players.

A remarkable turnaround for sure but don't blow the trumpet too loud socal as things can change as quickly back again as has happened to other players.

Hopefully not in Noles case as it is nice to see a new face at the top.

Yes he knows how to take MTO's better.

I think this is why Fed can still beat Djoko when he plays well, since at his best he still has the edge in 3 of those categories: forehand, serve and volleys. Although I'm less sure about the forehand any more, since Djoko's is incredibly good now as well.

Nadal's buttpicking level is 12x higher than Nole's, add that to the impressive list

Yes, Chazz I think Roger does enjoy some weapons and variety that he can use on Novak. Where as when Nadal plays Novak it seems like he can't hurt him in the rallies. Sportslover, I am simply analyzing the wimby final. I am not saying that these trends well all necessarily last forever. However, I think even if Nadal works on certain things and Novak's level drops its going to be very difficult for Nadal to regain the edge in this rivalry for the future. At best he can hope for in my mind in light of the way their games matchup is to get this rivalry back to even footing. Even in terms of a drop off in Novak's form which eventually will happen.

Since Autumn 2009:

Nadal 2* Djokovic 8

* includes contact lens win at O2

Nadal is in Djokovic's pocket, and I can't see what in his game he can do to change it. I agree with the thrust of the article, I can't see options for Nadal.

As an aside, during the same time;

Federer 7 Djokovic 5

Federer and Djokovic have a fairly even relationship. Given Federer is not the player he was, it's fair to say that we're getting great evidence that the "weak era" theory for his domination is rubbish.

BB, there was never a weak era in the early years of Fed there was Marat Safin, Roddick was unreturnable on SW19 till they decided to slow the grass, Hewitt was also terrific in his prime and almost unbeatable.

If one watches Roger's earlier matches, he was just phenomenal and unstoppable. Even AO05 defeat to Safin was from the match point up. And he was only losing RG that too in the finals.

Djoko now owns Nadal, simples.

I am scratching my head trying to find something but it's not easy. I think Nadal has better: FH down-the-line, net game overall, smash , BH passing shots, shots on the run in generally.

Said that Djokovic gives the clear impression that substantially his game is superior to that of Nadal.

Isn;t Djoko doing better against most other players bar SHBH like Federer? I think his record v Delpo, Murray (recently), Davydenko, Cilic etc...is much better than Nadal.

It's almost a mistery it took him that long to get that number one spot. And I think that has a lot to do with his very bad run of form last year (2010) which was considerably worse than his previous years, plus the fact he was often faced to play against still an in-Federer in many semis (Slams and TMS).

Nadal was amazingly fortunate last year to have to play 3 top 5 seeds in his quest to 3 slams and 3 TMS. That was a real strange piece of stat.

Tenez wrote:Isn;t Djoko doing better against most other players bar SHBH like Federer? I think his record v Delpo, Murray (recently), Davydenko, Cilic etc...is much better than Nadal.

It's almost a mistery it took him that long to get that number one spot. And I think that has a lot to do with his very bad run of form last year (2010) which was considerably worse than his previous years, plus the fact he was often faced to play against still an in-Federer in many semis (Slams and TMS).

Nadal was amazingly fortunate last year to have to play 3 top 5 seeds in his quest to 3 slams and 3 TMS. That was a real strange piece of stat.

not a valid point as one can only play against the players in front of him. tbf nadal has not been losing against anyone else during his 3 slams win period. as far as i remember, he has only lost to feliciano lopez, garcia lopez, baghdatis, fish and tsona since rg 10. maybe against melzer as well. all those losses came in smaller tournaments where rafa did not want to waste energy.

rafa's only probelm is djoker and no one else, simples

wow wrote:

Tenez wrote:Nadal was amazingly fortunate last year to have to play 3 top 5 seeds in his quest to 3 slams and 3 TMS. That was a real strange piece of stat.

not a valid point as one can only play against the players in front of him. tbf nadal has not been losing against anyone else during his 3 slams win period. as far as i remember, he has only lost to feliciano lopez, garcia lopez, baghdatis, fish and tsona since rg 10. maybe against melzer as well. all those losses came in smaller tournaments where rafa did not want to waste energy.

I think it is fair to point out that Nadal got some luck in the draws in 2010. It doesn't diminish his achievement - if he is the only one of the top 5 playing consistently well, all credit to him. But you would normally expect a player who notched up that many titles to have faced more of the higher ranked players.
It goes both ways though. Nadal's route to the Wimbledon final was pretty tough, with Del Potro and Murray en route. The highest seed Djokovic faced was number 12 (Tsonga). Nadal's route to the French open title this year was also tough- his QF/SF/F sequence was seeds 5,4 and 3.
I think these things balance out over the course of a career.

wow wrote:rafa's only probelm is djoker and no one else, simples

Disagree! Nadal's problems are actually multiple.

- First the energy he loses getting to the finals, compared to other players.
- Davydenko is another one that has a 4/0 winning streak in their last encounter.
- I don;t expect him to beat Delpo regularly. To me he used nasty tricks last time around.
- Murray will get his number very soon if fit.
- Federer on HC can still teach him a lesson or two. It was close enough on clay after all.

It goes both ways though. Nadal's route to the Wimbledon final was pretty tough, with Del Potro and Murray en route.
-----------------------------

Wasn't the fully fit Murray which can sustain rallies v Djoko and Nadal. That's was actually another huge peace of luck for Nadal as we saw how Murray troubled Nadal in that 1st set not even being 100%. The last 3 sets were routine after Murray mental AND physical meltdown.

I don't think I buy into the idea of Murray's fitness being an issue. He went from great to poor in the space of of a few points. I don't think that was him running out of steam, it was just a mental meltdown. The way his form improved in the fourth set also suggests to me that fitness wasn't the issue.

wow wrote:

Tenez wrote:Isn;t Djoko doing better against most other players bar SHBH like Federer? I think his record v Delpo, Murray (recently), Davydenko, Cilic etc...is much better than Nadal.

It's almost a mistery it took him that long to get that number one spot. And I think that has a lot to do with his very bad run of form last year (2010) which was considerably worse than his previous years, plus the fact he was often faced to play against still an in-Federer in many semis (Slams and TMS).

Nadal was amazingly fortunate last year to have to play 3 top 5 seeds in his quest to 3 slams and 3 TMS. That was a real strange piece of stat.

not a valid point as one can only play against the players in front of him. tbf nadal has not been losing against anyone else during his 3 slams win period. as far as i remember, he has only lost to feliciano lopez, garcia lopez, baghdatis, fish and tsona since rg 10. maybe against melzer as well. all those losses came in smaller tournaments where rafa did not want to waste energy.

Of course it's valid; he didn't say he didn't deserve the titale, he said it was an anazing piece of luck, which it was.

The French and USO both meant he basically played nobody except Djokovic post the Federer semi. Nobody of the slightest threat at all.

Yes, and in winning 3 TMS.....he only played Federer as top 5 seed!

I am not sure when was the last time someone won 3 TMS by playing only one top 5 seed only!

A question for Laverfan!

Assuming that the answer Socal is after does not relate to the alignment of bottles or wedgie adjustment techniques, I think Rafa probably is better at overheads (a shot he plays very well - wish Murray was as solid) and you could maybe make a case for him having a better in-to-out forehand, but otherwise I largely agree that it's either a tie or advantage Djokovic.

Not many areas where Djoko has a big advantage, but the several little advantages add up especially against a player who isn't used to finding an opponent that can match the strengths of his game*

* When Federer has beaten Nadal, it has been because RF played exceptional attacking tennis, rather than trying to match Rafa's strengths.

Chazfazzer wrote:I think this is why Fed can still beat Djoko when he plays well, since at his best he still has the edge in 3 of those categories: forehand, serve and volleys. Although I'm less sure about the forehand any more, since Djoko's is incredibly good now as well.

Can't see how Federer has any advantage at the net.
My take is if Nadal improves his serve further he will start beating Djokovic again. That is where he is behind at the moment. Winning free points on serve is what Djokovic has been doing which puts pressure on Nadal.

It is not Nadal's fault if Andy keeps losing to wawrinkas or fed and novak losing to berdychs.
Nadal had a very tough opponent in round 4 of wimby and no one else did. It is the draw and nadal is not responsible for it. He wins against all the opponents barring djoker, simples.

Not true Wow,

Last year Nadal lost 10 matches, including players such as Lopez and melzer. I don't think he lost to Djokovic last year.

This year he has already lost to Davy, Ferrer, and Tsonga.

He's had problems against Isner, Murray (? Monte Carlo), Federer(Madrid) plus other players that I can't recall off the top of my head.

The point is that Rafa is struggling. With the US HC series next (always his worst part of the season) we can expect these problems to magnify.

Are we talking about who played who to win slams an tournaments? Lol. I can point to countless times during weak era 2003-2007 where the players Federer meet from R1 to the finals are players ranked 30th and above that's if he is unlucky that is. Playing 50th and above ranked players even in slam finals was a regularity.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

Chazfazzer wrote:I think this is why Fed can still beat Djoko when he plays well, since at his best he still has the edge in 3 of those categories: forehand, serve and volleys. Although I'm less sure about the forehand any more, since Djoko's is incredibly good now as well.

Can't see how Federer has any advantage at the net.
My take is if Nadal improves his serve further he will start beating Djokovic again. That is where he is behind at the moment. Winning free points on serve is what Djokovic has been doing which puts pressure on Nadal.

Nadal's serve was remarkable in the Wimbledon final. He won more free points on serve than Djokovic. He couldn't serve much better and thus the serve is not the problem for him facing Djokovic.

He serve good enough but the difference in that match is on break points, he served poorly. 6 break points and he never served an ace on one and struggled to get 1st serves in. His 2nd serve in particular was poor.

You keep trotting out you're 'weak era' theory, SA, give it a rest, it's not proven and you keep going on about it or referring to it, as if it is. I've asked you before and I ask you again (since you didn't answer it before), what other years are 'weak' era years? Funny how your weak era theory fits nicely into the time period Federer dominated, a not so subtle attack on Federer by Nadal fans and occasionally Djokovic fans. Until you can provide some other years, you're argument just looks highly partial and is aimed at attacking one player and one player alone, Federer. Just because the media refer to a 'golden' era of tennis, doesn't mean it's true. It also happens to be a highly convenient theory for a rather weak argument for fanboys. Watching that Wimbledon final didn't make me think wow, we're got some great tennis on our hands. Not to mention that all of these same media and tennis pundits predicted a Nadal win, rather like you.

luciusmann wrote:You keep trotting out you're 'weak era' theory, SA, give it a rest, it's not proven and you keep going on about it or referring to it, as if it is. I've asked you before and I ask you again (since you didn't answer it before), what other years are 'weak' era years? Funny how your weak era theory fits nicely into the time period Federer dominated, a not so subtle attack on Federer by Nadal fans and occasionally Djokovic fans. Until you can provide some other years, you're argument just looks highly partial and is aimed at attacking one player and one player alone, Federer. Just because the media refer to a 'golden' era of tennis, doesn't mean it's true. It also happens to be a highly convenient theory for a rather weak argument for fanboys. Watching that Wimbledon final didn't make me think wow, we're got some great tennis on our hands. Not to mention that all of these same media and tennis pundits predicted a Nadal win, rather like you.

Well ask yourself why the media never referred to the Golden Era at any point during the period 2003-2007. There just wasn't enough great quality at that time. The media are can see the obvious gulf and improvement in quality now than compared to 2003-2007 and why they mention the Golden Era which tennis is experiencing now. Even Borg himself mentioned this is the most competitve tennis has ever been. What other years had a weak era? Can't think of any other when competition was so bad to be honest.
If you can't see the difference then, i can only feel sorry for you.

Even Borg himself mentioned this is the most competitve tennis has ever been.
----------------------------------
Bar 2010, you coudl say that for all latest year. An era is always tougher thna the previous one.

What Djoko is showing us is that the years dominated by Nadal where very poor tennis skill wise. In short he is saying to beat Federer, you need to be fit and very skilled, to beat Nadal, you just need to be fit enough. That's not the sign of a strong era. Certainly not when in 2 or 3 years, being as fit as Nadal and Djoko will be very common. Then they will say in 2010, "one just had to run retrieve anything on slow conds to win...".

Same happened with Borg, Wilander, Chang, Hewitt, etc...They bring a physical dimension at the expense of talent but are they remembered as strong eras? not that I am aware off.

Don't patronize me SA, stick to the points, you're argument is as usual flimsy, relying on media/tennis pundits views and no actual hard evidence (or address the implications). The same pundits (for the most part) who couldn't even see Nadal would be easily beaten may I add. It's like when you couldn't understand the argument about match ups and never responded to some of the points raised and selectively answered the questions raised.

As usual you provide no other 'weak' years and nor can the media because none of them have ever referred to a 'weak' era. None of them have ever referred to 2003-2007 as a weak era, that's something you've added, not them, so there's no point in trying to make out you're argument is their view, because it isn't. You don't deny that you're argument only seems to pick out Federer, because he dominated the years you mention, I can only imagine you are jealous that Nadal might not win as many grand slams so you feel the only way to undermine Federer is by demeaning his grand slam wins because they were picked up in some so called 'weak era'. It's rather desperate you think this and it's so transparent that's what you're trying to do, hence why you can't tell us any other years which are so called 'weak' years. A win is a win, and it's not Federer's fault he's won more slams and will probably have more slams than Nadal. Get over it.

luciusmann wrote:Don't patronize me SA, stick to the points, you're argument is as usual flimsy, relying on media/tennis pundits views and no actual hard evidence (or address the implications). The same pundits (for the most part) who couldn't even see Nadal would be easily beaten may I add. It's like when you couldn't understand the argument about match ups and never responded to some of the points raised and selectively answered the questions raised.

As usual you provide no other 'weak' years and nor can the media because none of them have ever referred to a 'weak' era. None of them have ever referred to 2003-2007 as a weak era, that's something you've added, not them, so there's no point in trying to make out you're argument is their view, because it isn't. You don't deny that you're argument only seems to pick out Federer, because he dominated the years you mention, I can only imagine you are jealous that Nadal might not win as many grand slams so you feel the only way to undermine Federer is by demeaning his grand slam wins because they were picked up in some so called 'weak era'. It's rather desperate you think this and it's so transparent that's what you're trying to do, hence why you can't tell us any other years which are so called 'weak' years. A win is a win, and it's not Federer's fault he's won more slams and will probably have more slams than Nadal. Get over it.

Well can't see what is there to be jealous about or to get over. Nadal and Federer don't win slams for me. I really couldn't care less what number either of them reach in their careers. I watch tennis for enjoyment and once these bunch of players are done, i'll follow and enjoy what the next generation has to offer. That said, can't see how fairly commenting on the weak era of tennis is any bad. When all evidence point towards the case, can't see what seems to be there to argue against. A simple question for you then. Find me what you think made 2003-2007 a great tennis era. Was obvious Federer was dominating but do you think the competition was good enough to even challenge him? We saw a young Nadal was having no problem beating Federer on regular basis but besides him was there any great players? Certainly not when the rest of the so-called top guys couldn't even make it into the 2nd week of a slam yet alone to show any kind of consistency to write home about.
can't see how any theory undermines Federer. Just pointing to the obvious that is "Weak Era" No one can blame Federer for taking advantage of that as it's just a case of him being at the right place and at the right time.

SA, I think 2009 undermines the weak era theory. In that year Federer won two slams and made the final of the other two. It was one of his most successful slam years.
Admittedly, Nadal was injured for much of that year but there was still Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro etc in the mix i.e. players that weren't really contenders in 03-07 and upon whom the idea that now is a strong era rests.

A simple question for you then. Find me what you think made 2003-2007 a great tennis era
-----------------------------------------
Very easy if as you say you like to watch tennis and enjoy the new generations.

2003-2007 was the development of complete players. For the previous 10 years one coudl win slams with a couple shots, if not one shot, the serve. Sever and Volley essentially or serve and FH winners. Then came Hewitt who just by returning those servers exposed the weakness of a whole range of players (which I liked) by simply make them play beyond serve and maybe volley.

2003 - 2007 was the emergence of players with complete games Nalbandian, Safin, Coria, Davydenko, Ljubicic, all with multiple weapons as it was harder to rely on a 2 shot strategy. Roddick was one of those last player able to make an impact with an amazing serve but even him had to work harder on his other shots and fitness. Even Hewitt who could get away in the past with just keeping the ball in play found it harder and harder to be successful with his too defensive game in 2004-2007.

As Agassi best describes Federer's era, "nowadays ( then 2004) it's physically harder and you have nowhere to hide (if someone found a weakness).

Then came Nadal pushing the physical bar, allowing him to win 4 FO cause that;s where his physica game could best succeed. In a way, Nadal sent us back to the Hewitt time (pre 2003) but simply with a more physical level.

HM Murdoch wrote:SA, I think 2009 undermines the weak era theory. In that year Federer won two slams and made the final of the other two. It was one of his most successful slam years.

Fed was 2 Tie Breaks away from holding the 4 slams. That is 2 or 4 points away ....ridiculously close.

Lucius, I personally have evidence of a weak era Ivan Ljubicic and James Blake finishing in the top 5. That to me is a weaker era. Here is the caveat, it is never ever easy to dominate the top of the game. And you can't really downplay Fed's legacy he dominated the tour he was given with conditions he was given. But, in general I think 1999-2006 was a weaker era in tennis than the current one and weaker, and was weaker than the 80s and early 90s as well. Safin, Roddick, and Hewitt all succumbed early to injury or had the game pass them by when the Nadal, murray, Djoko golden generation started peaking.

In 2009, you had Djokovic, but his serve was in a tailspin. So 2009 was a bit of one off, I don't even think the most diehard Fed fan thinks Roger wins RG and Wimby if Rafa is healthy. But that is all hypothetical.

Back to the original thread. I there are areas of the game that Nadal is better than Novak like overheads or the slice backhand but when you look at the overral picutre of their rivalry it is hard to find a single area where Nadal can consistently hurt Djokovic from. Those have pointed to Nadal's serving, well Nadal's serve has already improved greatly, and he got nearly 80 percent of his serves in during the wimbeldon final and still lost. That to me is the problem. If this was a 20 or 21 year old Nadal you could hold out hope that he develops a 130 or 135 mile per hour serve. I frankly don't see how Nadal is going to get better than 80 percent first serves. To serve 80 percent first serves and lose convincingly is one of the most disconcerting statistics for the Nadal camp.

Development of complete players but they were just not good enough and never had the quality. Federer was the exception at that time why he won many slams.
The point about 2009 was a case of Nadal injured. As we saw at the AO and USO that year Federer had a fortunate break at FO and Wimbledon.

Erm this thread is about Nadull and Djokovic, read the title.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Development of complete players but they were just not good enough and never had the quality. Federer was the exception at that time why he won many slams.

One could say the same of the nadal success. "Fit certainly but one dimensional" and that woudl be more true than saying that Safin, Davydenko and Nalbandian and those listed above never had the quality. They can be forgiven for having played the greatest player of all time at its peak and failed to win slams for most of them. Nadal had to wait for his decline too to challenge Federer outside clay.

Wrong HM and SA,

Nadal was not injured most of 2009.

Complete myth, which again shows the extent to which Rafa's team has played the injury card, such that even hardcore tennis fans are left with the impression that he was injured for most of 2009.

He pulled out of Wimbledon (under very dubious circumstances - plays two exhibition matches the week before and loses comprehensively to Hewitt, then waits for the main draw - funny enough he was drawn to meet Hewitt early - before finally pulling out) and then missed approx 8 weeks before playing in the roger's cup in august. This actually coincides with his normal break during this part of the season when he usually takes approx 6 weeks off after wimbledon.

He then took three weeks to rehabilitate his abdominal injury after the uso.

So in total he missed approx seven weeks due to injuries (queens, Wimbledon, three weeks after USO).

emancipator - setting the record straight.

Also, wrt the idea that Roger would not have won Wimbledon had Nadal been playing - again completely false speculation.

From Madrid 2009 until the USO final Roger went on a tear. He was playing superbly. Just look at his performances at Cincinnati where he beat Murray and Djoko back to back.

If Fed and Nadal were to meet in the Wimbledon final, at best it would have been 50-50 for Nadal, considering how much effort it took for him to beat Roger the year before, when Roger had lost valuable training time due to Mono and clearly was not playing as well as in 2009.

emancipator wrote:Wrong HM and SA,

Nadal was not injured most of 2009.

Complete myth, which again shows the extent to which Rafa's team has played the injury card, such that even hardcore tennis fans are left with the impression that he was injured for most of 2009.

He pulled out of Wimbledon (under very dubious circumstances - plays two exhibition matches the week before and loses comprehensively to Hewitt, then waits for the main draw - funny enough he was drawn to meet Hewitt early - before finally pulling out) and then missed approx 8 weeks before playing in the roger's cup in august. This actually coincides with his normal break during this part of the season when he usually takes approx 6 weeks off after wimbledon.

He then took three weeks to rehabilitate his abdominal injury after the uso.

So in total he missed approx seven weeks due to injuries (queens, Wimbledon, three weeks after USO).

emancipator - setting the record straight.

Agree with that. Noone came up with a good reason why he had lost 15lb by year end. At the time the reason given was to ease the pressure on his knees by making Nadal lighter. That certainly turned out to be completely wrong as he put everything back on and more according to John McEnroe early in 2010.

emancipator wrote:Wrong HM and SA,

Nadal was not injured most of 2009.

Complete myth, which again shows the extent to which Rafa's team has played the injury card, such that even hardcore tennis fans are left with the impression that he was injured for most of 2009.

So in total he missed approx seven weeks due to injuries (queens, Wimbledon, three weeks after USO).

emancipator - setting the record straight.

HM Murdoch setting the record straight! I did actually say 'much of' rather than 'most of'. In calendar terms he didn't miss much but in missing Wimbledon and struggling during RG (although I do officially believe if you make it on court you are fit to play), Fed didn't have to face his nearest rival during a key part of the season. It doesn't undermine his achievements that year in the slightest but its a worthy footnote to the point I was making (that I don't see post 2007 as being much different to pre 2007 in terms of strength).

Anyone with any sense knows you can select any 5 players in any moment in time (like you done) socal and say oh, that proves it's a 'weak' era! That's not proof, socal, any tom, dick and harry can do that but they wouldn't present it like evidence like you have. They would say what it is, which is that it's an opinion (and they certainly wouldn't pretend it's evidence). It's like an opinion poll, a snap shot at that particular moment, it doesn't prove that's true anymore then a poll a month later. Of course, over many years, the polls can ascertain some useful information, but certainly not a single one, just like with a single selection of 5 top players in one moment in time. As much as you speak sense socal, on this occasion you're quite incorrect.

Apart from you and SA (Nadal & Djokovic fans), I've not seen any other proponents of this 'weak' era theory on these forums, nor seen anyone ever refer to the period of 2003-2007 as a 'weak' era, and not in the media. If it's so obvious, and indisputable, may you please provide articles within the media which discuss this phenomenal because of course there will be reams of articles on this issue, so I do expect many articles to be provided.

SA, the only person who goes on and on about the 'weak' era theory is you and it only seems to single out Federer for attack, so if you watch tennis for tennis and for the enjoyment of the sport, why do so many of your posts appear to attack him, directly or indirectly? I've come across many posts, but the player you're most dismissive of is Federer or those who defend his achievements, so it's no surprise you're 'weak' era theory singles him out the most. Rather odd that, you can't even be subtle about it.

the real Wee Kira was the Clay surface from 2005-2010;

must have been nice having Ferrer and Almugro just turning up and laying down for Nadull every single season with the odd good showing from Rog.. Nadull was extremely lucky Coria wasn't coming through at the same time otherwise he would've been starving for success on the Red Dirt.

How can you compare a superstar like Rafa with Djokovic who was underachiever until yesterday? Look: they are the same age and Rafa has won four times more.

Rafa better in all shots except service and back hand down the line. Fact. Party is over.

Welcome to the forum RT

Enjoy the debates

Nadal would crush coria come on josiah. Lucius, I watched tennis back then, this isn't a court of law. I base my opinions on tennis I have played and watched. Everyone keeps wanting citations and evidence for every opinion you hold. I read tennis articles, I play the sport and have watched it for 30 years. I am not suing or filing for an injunction. The tennis I watched in the late 90s and up until the mid 2000s was not my cup of tea, and the players we watched were clearly a step back in the evolution of tennis. Take Lleyton Hewitt for example. Yes Roger stopped him from winning some slams and he did have some injury problems. This was a guy who at the end of this era was a dominant #1. All of a sudden in his early to mid 20s its not just Roger that is beating him, a lot of people are beating him. Same thing happened to Roddick, dominant champion until the rise of the Nadal, Djoko, Murray, Monfils, Berdych, Gasquet group of players. Look at for example the list of #1s in that era. Marcelo Rios, no seriously. Carlos Moya, Andy Roddick, Lleyton hewitt. Its soft I say, as soft as a marshmellow. And it has nothing to do with Federer, Federer in fact upped the level to what we see now. But even years before Federer we had a step back period in the quality of competition on tour. Kind of like what the women are going through now when there aren't any great champions threatening at all the slams.

I've not said it's a court of law socal, however, if what you're saying is a plausible theory, I would be interested to see who else shares it. It's reasonable to ask where in the media it's been discussed. Just because the tennis wasn't you're cup of tea doesn't mean it constitutes a 'weak' era. Citing a random sample of a couple of players and saying the era is 'weak' is highly subjective.

Rafa's Towel, welcome -actually Djokovic is a year younger than Nadal. Nadal has 3 times more grand slam titles, not 4. If you've read the other posts RT, Nadal has lost most of his matches with Djokovic for a lot longer this year, it goes back to late 2009. If Rafa is so good, why has he lost so many matches to him?

Rafa's towel, if the question is who is the greater tennis player in terms of legacy its clear its Nadal. Nadal is a way more accomplished player. But that isn't the question posited on this thread. This is about the right now, this year in tennis. And if you look at Rafa and Novak this year, well its a wipeout. 5 losses on 3 different surfaces. Losing 9 of the last 10 sets against the man.

Rafa's towel what areas of Nadal's game this season do you see as superior to Novak, I don't see much of any. And that makes me wonder how is Nadal going to consistently hurt Novak. With what weapons? this year it seems like from top to bottom Novak has Nadal outgunned.

Rafa's towel wrote:How can you compare a superstar like Rafa with Djokovic who was underachiever until yesterday? Look: they are the same age and Rafa has won four times more.

Rafa better in all shots except service and back hand down the line. Fact. Party is over.

Sadly for Rafa, his past record doesn't seem to count for much at the moment and Djokovic is edging him in most departments.

And with 48 wins, 2 slams, 6 other titles, 13,285 ranking points and the number 1 ranking, the party is in full swing. Fact.

Exactly HM Murdoch, it's certainly not Djokovic looking glum @ the moment, he's won as many titles this year (8) as Nadal won in any single one of the last 6 years. That's without mentioning that there's still at least 6 more tournaments to play this year.