Was Nadal unlucky to have a precociously early grass prime/peak?

The Fedfather said:

Compeltely subjective? Did you notice how in tennis matches certain stats are highlighted for one player and not the other? That's not done by a council of people discussing which stats were better.

There's an objective understanding that hitting 6 aces is worse than hitting 25 aces, that making 32 more winners than UEs is better than making 2 more winners than UEs, that winning more points on serve and return is better than winning fewer. What's your subjective take on that, I wonder?

Click to expand...

GabeT said:

If we are going to go by what is highlighted in a tennis match then the number 1 metric, by far, is the result itself. Who won the most sets. Everything else is used to explain or further develop what the results tell you.

hitting 25 aces is objectively better than hitting 6 aces. But hitting aces is not a specific goal. Claiming that hitting more aces (or any other stat) shows you are a better player is purely 100% subjective. It’s your definition. You are entitled to it, of course. But it’s just your opinion.


Winning the most sets, on the contrary, is not subjective. It is 100% objective because that‘s the official definition of winning a match.

Click to expand...

jl809 said:

Nadal’s IRL grass career was a weird thing where he entered his prime aged 20 and left it aged 25. This was followed by 5 years of the kind of form you’d expect from a newcomer to the surface, but in his mid-late 20s, while he was still in his clay/HC prime.

If his career had followed a more “traditional” trajectory - I.e. he’d been relatively **** / meh on grass from 05-09 (like Djokovic and kinda Murray) instead, then become good in his early/mid 20s - would his career on grass be looked upon more favourably?

He probably wouldn’t have those long “last time beating..” records which the ********* frequently quote, and wouldn’t have had to face prime/peak Fed in 3 Wimbledon finals, which neither Djoker or Murray ever had to do IRL too.

So was Grassdal unlucky to be a child star who burned out early, like the Amanda Bynes of grass tennis?

Click to expand...

The_Order said:

Fed should have put him away and was clearly playing better throughout the entirety of the match...

Instead of going around in circles, why not just admit this and point out that despite being outplayed for the majority of the match, Djok still found a way to win the important points and do what he needed to in order to tough out the win?

Click to expand...

GabeT said:

If we are going to go by what is highlighted in a tennis match then the number 1 metric, by far, is the result itself. Who won the most sets. Everything else is used to explain or further develop what the results tell you.

hitting 25 aces is objectively better than hitting 6 aces. But hitting aces is not a specific goal. Claiming that hitting more aces (or any other stat) shows you are a better player is purely 100% subjective. It’s your definition. You are entitled to it, of course. But it’s just your opinion.


Winning the most sets, on the contrary, is not subjective. It is 100% objective because that‘s the official definition of winning a match.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

I give more importance to proper analysis. view of casuals does matter, but less so for me compared to proper analysis.
But yes, as far as view of casuals/tennis in general goes, it would be a massive travesty to see the unbelievably long lasting worst period of open era help Djokovic massively in getting to 8 Wimbledons. Its already a travesty that he's at 7.when he won only 3 in his 30s and 4 at prime or prime-ish level.

Click to expand...

The_Order said:

Fed should have put him away and was clearly playing better throughout the entirety of the match...

Instead of going around in circles, why not just admit this and point out that despite being outplayed for the majority of the match, Djok still found a way to win the important points and do what he needed to in order to tough out the win?

Click to expand...

NatF said:

OT: It's all relative, compared to other great players I don't think Nadal's two Wimbledon wins (including an absolute classic) denote him being particularly unlucky (he's not Becker or McEnroe on the grass for example who have three), he had several strong runs on the grass and got two titles which seems pretty fair. However if you compare him to a certain player from his own era? Yes he's been relatively unlucky considering the Inflation Era and his grass peak...having said that he's inflated his resume at other events thanks to this era so not much ground to complain. Fed the real loser in this scenario as usual

Click to expand...

Djokovic2011 said:

But if it really is an inflation era why couldn't Nadal capitalise from it as well? Could it be that, and I'm gonna go out on a limb here, he's simply not as good a grass court player as Djokovic? Just a thought.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Less longevity on grass for sure. Why couldn't Djokovic capitalise on Nadal's USO draws?

Click to expand...

Djokovic2011 said:

You really need to let it go abmk.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

The one who need to let it go are those who can't deal with people basing stuff on levels/context rather than blind numbers without context.
Those who can't admit how terrible 89-99 born generations are when reality is staring them in the face big time.

Click to expand...

Djokovic2011 said:

What does any of it really matter in the end? Do you think Djokovic should have his last three trophies taken away all because you believe the competition wasn't good enough?

Click to expand...

abmk said:

no, Djokovic has what he has. But djokovic winning only 3 WImbledons in 20s and 4 at prime/prime-ish level means I think Djokovic on grass is worse than Borg, let alone Sampras/Federer.

Djokovic's last 3 Wimbledons are the weakest level wise not just this century, but since like mid 70s atleast for a winner. Quite a runner ups better too. Some SFists/QFists as well.
people trying to just number count for showing he's up there level wise with Sampras/Federer on grass is just being shallow/bias IMO.

what does it really matter?
you ok with such ****ty level of darkness in tennis continuing for so long as Djokovic wins?

When we get out of this darkness of inflation era+asterisk era, then come and talk. its brought down tennis significantly.
Till then I'll only watch the important stuff/players I like and more of tennis in the past (1970 to 2015)

Click to expand...

Djokovic2011 said:

But if it really is an inflation era why couldn't Nadal capitalise from it as well? Could it be that, and I'm gonna go out on a limb here, he's simply not as good a grass court player as Djokovic? Just a thought.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

He isn't. Close thread. Lol

Click to expand...

NatF said:

It's not mutually exlusive, Djokovic can be better than Nadal on grass and Nadal can still be unlucky/Djokovic an overachiever. Don't think there's a huge difference between their best forms at Wimbledon either, what Djokovic has is a clearly better base game (due to serve/return) that allows him to navigate the draw better when he's not at his best.

Click to expand...

Djokovic2011 said:

I think you've gone completely insane.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

There is a difference. Some (Federer fans) were complaining when Djokovic reached 3 Wimbledons, saying he wasn't on Becker and McEnroe's level, nevermind when he reached 7. No wonder everyone is going mad now. The serve/return is the coup de grace, something Djokovic has on grass that Nadal never had to that level. I don't understand why posters who have watched this game for years and years cannot seem to grasp it. That's why once Nadal lost that crazy speed, he couldn't keep up because the way he played is not a long term formula to dominate on grass. There are levels to this game, especially on grass, that Djokovic has and Nadal simply doesn't.

Click to expand...

The Fedfather said:

Twisting my words you are. Not even once did I claim that hitting more aces or any other single aspect of macthplay is what made Federer the overall better player of that final. No, the point is that he was better because there is not a single thing that he overall did worse than Djokovic. NOt from the baseline, not at the net, not on serve and not on return. Djokovic's level was unquestionably superior to Federer's in TBs. In other words, he was superior in crucial yet small portions of the match. Over the course of the ENTIRE match, and I'm hoping this point is coming through on the 100th attempt, Federer was the superior player. It's not subjective, it's not my opinion, it's how the match unfolded.

BTW, even if you remove the 2nd set completely, because back in time I recall you appealing to the 2nd set skewing stats, Roger only just barely loses the total points, games and first serve% won advantage. That's that. In 1 set won and 3 sets lost Federer won just 1game fewer than Djokovic. lol What a skew.

Anyway, at this point I've confirmed my thoughts and see no need to further torture both of us with this useless uninspiring exchange. Just next time you start questioning somebody's tennis knowledge and understanding, think twice.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

The idea that Djokovic is "levels" above Nadal on grass, plural, is farcical I'm sorry. Better in terms of consistency and longevity? Absolutely. Better in terms of top level, I think it's closer but can definitely see the arguments for Djokovic. But levels above...lol drinking the cool aid there.

Click to expand...

Djokovic2011 said:

I think you've gone completely insane.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

The idea that Djokovic is "levels" above Nadal on grass, plural, is farcical I'm sorry. Better in terms of consistency and longevity? Absolutely. Better in terms of top level, I think it's closer but can definitely see the arguments for Djokovic. But levels above...lol drinking the cool aid there.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Man I've missed out by not frequenting this thread

Click to expand...

duaneeo said:

I'll keep repeating that 90s-born players won zero slams during the entire decade of 2010-2019, and won just two (one by default) since 2020. That's the only data point needed to show men's tennis has been in the weakest period ever.

Click to expand...

RS said:

Your coined words caused this

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Career Inflation Era is real, hopefully the Asterisk Era takes off soon too.

Click to expand...

GabeT said:

We do keep going round in circles but that’s because you keep pretending that your opinions are somehow facts.

you say Novak did not do a single thing better than Fed. But, of course, that’s incorrect. Novak was better at winning the key points and winning the 3 sets. That’s much more relevant than winning more points overall.

it’s your right to opine that a player that loses a match may have played better because of certain stats, even if they won less of the key points (and even if that’s the whole purpose of tennis). I respect that. But don’t tell me that I don’t understand tennis because I don’t agree with your completely subjective definition of what it means to be better

Click to expand...

The Fedfather said:

That's not an opinion that Federer played better overall for the majority of Wimbledon 2019. He just did. You choose to hammer on the point that Djokovic played better in key points. Nobody is denying that he was. Did anyone in this discussion deny that? Anyone? You're fighting invisible enemies on that one. I've explained and reasoned, however, why Federer was the better player overall, for the majority of the match, over the course of the entire match, for bigger stretches of the match. But it's okay, as I said, I saw what I needed to see.

Your objective definition hinges on the fact that it was Djokovic who won the match. That's the only reason you refuse to accept the obvious.

Click to expand...

Djokovic2011 said:

You really need to let it go abmk.

Click to expand...

GabeT said:

Sorry, no, it IS an opinion that Fed played better, one that is based on you defining playing better as having better stats. you are free to define what makes a “better’ player however you see fit, just don’t pretend this is some universally accepted definition when it’s not.

I prefer another, much simpler definition. I don’t pretend that you agree with it. But I don’t share your definition.

Click to expand...

The Fedfather said:

Thanks for informing me about your preferences. I didn't really ask though.

The stats, the match recording is there for everyoine to see who played better. We can end on this peaceful note.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

I didn't say he was levels above him. I said there are levels to the game of tennis, especially grasscourt tennis. Djokovic in 2018 beat Nadal mainly with his serve and his guile. He didn't even return that great, for his standards, and wasn't firing like he does at his best from the baseline. Meaning, Djokovic had more levels that he didn't even have that day probably because he was low on confidence and was struggling to reach his top level again. Nadal played about as well of a match he could play at thst point in time and still didn't get the win. So it's not a mystery why Djokovic has 7 and he has 2. Djokovic is one of the best Wimbledon players of all time, never losing in the 1st round and only once losing in the 2nd round. Even Sampras and Federer don't have those bragging rights who lost in the 1st round multiple times. The record at Wimbledon says it all.

Click to expand...

RS said:

Would you say Nadal was much closer to his best in 2018 than Novak?

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

I didn't say he was levels above him. I said there are levels to the game of tennis, especially grasscourt tennis. Djokovic in 2018 beat Nadal mainly with his serve and his guile. He didn't even return that great, for his standards, and wasn't firing like he does at his best from the baseline. Meaning, Djokovic had more levels that he didn't even have that day probably because he was low on confidence and was struggling to reach his top level again. Nadal played about as well of a match he could play at thst point in time and still didn't get the win. So it's not a mystery why Djokovic has 7 and he has 2. Djokovic is one of the best Wimbledon players of all time, never losing in the 1st round and only once losing in the 2nd round. Even Sampras and Federer don't have those bragging rights who lost in the 1st round multiple times. The record at Wimbledon says it all.

Click to expand...

jl809 said:

I swear if another Djokovic fan argues that Djokovic wasn’t at his best on grass in the 2018 SF, when he hasn’t played better than that vs a decent opponent even ONCE since then…

… I won’t be surprised tbh

Click to expand...

jl809 said:

I swear if another Djokovic fan argues that Djokovic wasn’t at his best on grass in the 2018 SF, when he hasn’t played better than that vs a decent opponent even ONCE since then…

… I won’t be surprised tbh

Click to expand...

RS said:

Would you say Nadal was much closer to his best in 2018 than Novak?

Click to expand...

abmk said:

lol, you ask a question. I reply to it. You can't deal with the answer because deep down you know its true, but it rains on your parade.
and this is your answer?
That is the sickness of arrogant delusions.
Get well soon, mamu.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

no, that was the best Djokovic could play on grass in 18.
Djokovic was clearly worse on grass/Wimbledon in 19/21/22 compared to 18.
the mythical better Djokovic on grass you are looking for in 18 doesn't exist.

Edit: funny how Djokovic's confidence is talked about, but not that Nadal's confidence given he hadn't made QF at Wim from 12-17 or that Nadal had a 5-set war vs delpo the round before while djoko won his QF vs a significantly easier opponent in Nishi much easier.
After Queens 18, Djoko was 3rd fav for me in Wim 18 after Fed&Cilic.

Click to expand...

RS said:

Would you say Nadal was much closer to his best in 2018 than Novak?

Click to expand...

RS said:

2018 SF 8.5-9/10
2022 F 8-8.5/10

@NoleFam

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Even on a post 2016 scale that's too high for 2022 lol.

Click to expand...

Kralingen said:

Many people including myself felt Nadal was in better form coming in, not just with the RG win but his general play at the tournament. Djokovic had a dicey match vs Edmund and there were big questions about his power and stamina against a challenge in Nadal

Odds were about 50-50 to be fair, a true genuine toss up in that match. But all that was affected by the Rafa-DelPo 5 setter. Djokovic got a boost because he had more rest — on form, Nadal was widely viewed as the favorite and playing better coming into the match.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

Djokovic played better in 2022 final than he played in the 2018 SF. Disagree.

Click to expand...