Djokovic similar to Nadal in terms of

[abmk]

Federer benefited more than you claim IMO.
Homogezation made all surface adapting easier and meant less upset prone. That includes Federer IMO.
In my opinion the benefits outweighs the vise versa.
Homogezation would have favoured guys like Isner as well maybe Fed wouldn’t have seen as much slams as well.

The they are slow and the Homogezation points seem this way. That’s why I balanced it out with the slow debate. It isn’t fair that people do this to make out one player is harmed and not list the same vise versa IMO.

Whatever benefit federer gained vs the rest of the field, he lost quite a bit more to nadal/Djokovic.

If so yes. But we don’t know how this would pan out. Still my point was if tennis had a 2nd slam on a clay slow HC things could be different for Nadal and worse for a Federer. My point was we shouldn’t come up with speculation to belittle Nadal but pro Federer like you mentioning the Homogezation out of no where..

except I am speculating based on what the conditions were before homogenization (which existed for so many years).
2 clay slams is something that we've only had for 3 years.

if I wanted to go for belittling say Djokovic, I would bring up spectulation of AO being on grass as it was from 69-87.

if I wanted to go for belittling say Nadal, I would bring up the pro seasons of Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Hoad etc. where they played so much indoors.

 

[metsman]

lets see :

Nadal played at a similar level in AO 09 and AO 12 vs fed, yes ? more agressive in 09, yes.


AO 09 : 109 winners+errors forced - 41 UEs --out of 347 points = 68/347 (19.6%)
AO 12 : 83 winners+errors forced - 34 UEs -- out of 276 points = 49/276 (17.75%)

A lower % inspite of being up vs a slower/worse federer in AO 12. (please don't tell me that I have to show that federer was slower/worse in AO 12 than in AO 09 match !)


Difference in AO 08 vs AO 11 fed-djoko matches is even more stark.

djoko :

AO 08 : 86 winners+errors forced - 32 UEs -- out of 222 points = 54/222 (24.32%)
AO 11 : 75 winners+errors forced - 35 UEs --- out of 230 points = 40/230 (17.39%)


you say this was because federer was better in AO 11 match than in AO 08 ?

fed :

AO 08 : 72 winners+errors forced - 32 UEs -- out of 222 points = 40/222 (18.08%)
AO 11 : 76 winners+errors forced - 44 UEs --- out of 230 points = 32/230 (13.91%)

if you don't see much of a difference in those speeds, you seriously need to improve your observation skills.

Nadal's level was clearly better in 09 vs 12. Djokovic's level was similar, just different, so that's a good argument for the AO court slowing down

 

[abmk]

Nadal's level was clearly better in 09 vs 12. Djokovic's level was similar, just different, so that's a good argument for the AO court slowing down

I don't think there was much of a difference in Nadal's AO 12 semi level and AO 09 final level tbh. I'd put them on a similar level.
yeah, his level dipped in the final vs Djokovic, so that final level is not the same as AO 09 semi/final.

I'd take djokovic's AO 11 semi level marginally over AO 08 semi level.

 

[abmk]

Ok. They historically are fast but the game has changed. The can be resurfaced to be made faster in slower. But yes they are mostly faster Historically yes

which is the whole point.

Yes it would be different but the slower side off clay will somewhat mean he might not be favoured vs somebody like Nadal.
Ok fine then. I will just say medium-fast allows Federer to play his game plan better as does RG for a Nadal.
I meant Nadal game is helped by the slowness of RG.

federer wouldn't be favored in Bo5 on blue clay once Nadal got used it. But he'd still win atleast one match vs him, maybe even 2. maybe nadal gets upset once more.
so good chance federer ends up with 3 RGs instead of 1.

yes, medium-fast allows Federer to play his game better than Nadal, just as clay allows to Nadal to.
But these are not significant change in circumstances favoring either player. These are what their games are.

 

[metsman]

I don't think there was much of a difference in Nadal's AO 12 semi level and AO 09 final level tbh. I'd put them on a similar level.
yeah, his level dipped in the final vs Djokovic, so that final level is not the same as AO 09 semi/final.

I'd take djokovic's AO 11 semi level marginally over AO 08 semi level.

FH (due to cross court), movement, and BH clearly better in 09 imo. Serve better in 12 and maybe a tad less error prone off the ground because he was more tired in the 09 final and going for a bit more, but against that version of Federer, taking less initiative and waiting for the error was an actual option, it was not against 09 Federer. He was dropping the ball short a lot in 2012 and paid the price for that in the final, whereas Berdych and Federer were not consistent enough to take advantage.

Difference between Federer 09 and 12 in those AO matches is definitely greater than Nadal 09 and 12, but Nadal's 09 level is still clearly superior imo.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal Got his first in 2005 and Roger had two years before to collect 4 GS titles with very little competition, and really it took Nadal a few years to get his ATP legs under him. So yeah...weak pasta. Then the rivalary commenced and it had been epic to around 2011/12 when Djo found the winning roid recipe. Of course, he got his soft ban and Fedal got to make a run again in 2017, but the damage was already done.

And thanks, I will carry on with the facts while dislikeing Djo.

You talk as if 2 years is a lot LOL.

Nadal won GS at an earlier age than Fed and until he was 25, Nadal had more slams than Roger accounting for age. So those 2 years before 2005 had little impact.

But since you talk about very little competition, shall we talk about the 14 years and counting of weak competition on clay for Nadal?

 

[ChaelAZ]

So those 2 years before 2005 had little impact.

Right! What's 4 GS titles and a few years of weeks at number 1 amongst friends during those years before Fed had a rival.

 

[mike danny]

Right! What's 4 GS titles and a few years of weeks at number 1 amongst friends during those years before Fed had a rival.

That has been compensated by Nadal's 2017-2018.

 

[kevaninho]

That has been compensated by Nadal's 2017-2018.

Not really, as Nadal still had Federer to contend with at AO 17, then Djokovic at W 18. He would've won both titles had it not been for those 2. Fed had no such challenges before Nadal appeared.

 

[mike danny]

Not really, as Nadal still had Federer to contend with at AO 17, then Djokovic at W 18. He would've won both titles had it not been for those 2. Fed had no such challenges before Nadal appeared.

Oh yeah, a 35-36 year old as a rival. Fed dodged that bullet...

 

[RF-18]

Nadal had sporadic domination. Djokovic is the best 2011-2016.

 

[kevaninho]

Oh yeah, a 35-36 year old as a rival. Fed dodged that bullet...

Yeh cos Fed is the same as every normal 35 year old former tennis player If that's how you want to class him LOL

 

[mike danny]

Yeh cos Fed is the same as every normal 35 year old former tennis player If that's how you want to class him LOL

A 35-36 year old player is not a tough rival.

 

[kevaninho]

A 35-36 year old player is not a tough rival.

He was as good as anyone in the world last year. His age is irrelevant

 

[mike danny]

He was as good as anyone in the world last year. His age is irrelevant

Except it is. Due to Fed's age, Nadal was able to end the year as no.1.

 

[mike danny]

He was as good as anyone in the world last year. His age is irrelevant

Fed in that case had Agassi in 2003-2004 before Nadal arrived in 2005. So I don't see why Nadal's 2017-2018 is any special (especially since he won his major in 2018 before Djokovic returned).

 

[RS]

which is the whole point.
The slams now are slower “historically since most of Tennis was played pre Homogezation.
It is also the point that we don’t know that they really play that slow as being said or if it played faster in the final which it should do it was averaged not far from medium. And we have to remember ATP who carry out the CPI ratings are not even responsible carry out court measurement so we don’t know if it’s even as credible as people think. Cincy being medium on it is baffling to be honest. ITF use two other measurements have higher figures for a lot of these events.


federer wouldn't be favored in Bo5 on blue clay once Nadal got used it. But he'd still win atleast one match vs him, maybe even 2. maybe nadal gets upset once more.
so good chance federer ends up with 3 RGs instead of 1.
But we don’t even know Nadal will get that far to lose to Federer. He might lose earlier to a lower ranked and that’s the kick he needed. We have small evidence to base that one as well. Maybe the longer practice would even be enough for Nadal to the more slippery surface.

yes, medium-fast allows Federer to play his game better than Nadal, just as clay allows to Nadal to.
Agree.
If Wimbeldon and AO are that in 2018 than that means 2 of 4 allow Federer to play his game better. That’s still something. It is a counter to argue the Nadal is lucky arugements. Not even by you but generally.
But these are not significant change in circumstances favoring either player. These are what their games are.

True. But then you could say the same about the slow surfaces people complain about constantly.

 

[RS]

Whatever benefit federer gained vs the rest of the field, he lost quite a bit more to nadal/Djokovic.
You could say clay being faster helped him as well generally. Clay courts are actually faster.



except I am speculating based on what the conditions were before homogenization (which existed for so many years).
2 clay slams is something that we've only had for 3 years.
I am not 100% saying 2 clay slams. Another slower HC playing closer to the lower to mid 20s range even. Or even Hard-Tu a faster green clay which is more like slow HC but higher bouncing but not as much as red clay.
People say Federer should have faster slams or more of a certain things so it isn’t bad to counter that since had the Homogezation not happened faster surfaces will be a lot faster thus allowing Federer to play his attacking game more.
And we know Nadal is the most dominant on single surface but it could depend on his body and how it holds up at the 2nd clay slam.

if I wanted to go for belittling say Djokovic, I would bring up spectulation of AO being on grass as it was from 69-87.
You don’t have to always go that far. People do it to Nadal and vise versa to Federer in other ways. They say Nadal is a clay bully and Fed is a “weak era champ”. Some going more far than others.

if I wanted to go for belittling say Nadal, I would bring up the pro seasons of Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Hoad etc. where they played so much indoors.

People do it on other ways. People usually compare him to Pete anyways without back going to the 60s and 70s. Even though that wasn’t his era of tennis. Sampras is more well known than all of them with Laver maybe coming close.

 

[RS]

A 35-36 year old player is not a tough rival.

Federer was amazing in 2017 and best Nadal 4 times. I don’t see how that isn’t a tough rival. And he looked fresh in a tense AO match esp the last set. Age does factor but you also have to look at level of play.

 

[clout]

Nadal's had a better career from start to finish but peak wise, Djokovic is superior

 

[RS]

Nadal's had a better career from start to finish but peak wise, Djokovic is superior[/QUOTED
Djokovic could be closing the gap big time though. It’s not a massive margin.

 

[Towser83]

The difference is, is that while not matching Fed levels of dominance all the time, he still managed to do enough to be clearly the best player for a long stretch of time, where as Nadal never had back to back seasons as the top player. Even now, what looked like a certain back to back YE number 1 finish for the first time in his career (even though he has won less slams than Djokovic so being best player would still be debateable) could slip away.

2011, 2012, 2014, 2015 were all years where Djokovic finished number 1 and he was arguably the better player in 2016 too having 2 slams to Murray's 1. 2 of those years he won 3 slams and 2 he won just a single slam but he overall outperformed his rivals. Nadal never really outperformed his rivals on a one slam season.

In a sense this is because of the 3 way and sometimes 4 way split with the others, for instance in 2012 we had the big 4 each win a slam, but one had to finish number one with just a single slam. Could say it's lucky, could say it's unlucky to have 3 rivals where as earlier it was 1 or 2.

Djokovic also had a long period of time as world number 1 and he is the only player since Laver to hold all 4 slams at the same time. That's dominance.

 

[Towser83]

Clay is softer on the body and Nadal knees. That why his pain doesn’t flair up.
As for the courts being faster in the 1990s and early 2000s Federer wasn’t doing so well as well. Feds rise started by the time they got slower. Nadal beat Federer on the courts Fed made his name on.
Federer has had health issues throughout his career but Nadal has had relatively more.
Federer never had a genetic bone disorder nor take as many long breaks like Nadal did in 2004,2005-2006,2009,2012,2014,2016,2018 to look after his health.

Also,Tennis is a physical game. Djokovic game is as physical as is Ferrer,Monfils and so many others. Yet most of them have not had Nadal bad luck in his career.

Agree that Nadal has had many more injuries than Fed, but is it bad luck to have more physical weaknesses than other players any more than it's bad luck to have less talent? Or be below average height? Or not be mentally as strong? As you say, tennis is a physical sport and if you get injuries, most of the time it's either down to training, game style or your natural genetics, and sadly having less genetic flaws are part of being a top player.

I'm not sure that it's not a bit of everything with Nadal, physical issues but not the best handling of them

 

[abmk]

Whatever benefit federer gained vs the rest of the field, he lost quite a bit more to nadal/Djokovic.
You could say clay being faster helped him as well generally. Clay courts are actually faster.

clay is only marginally faster at best. and I don't see how that marginal improvement has helped fed , if at all.
at his prime, federer did better at Monte Carlo (slow&high bouncing), Hamburg (slow and low bouncing) than at Rome. (which is faster than both and the bounce is in b/w the 2)
its just a non-essential point brought in by you because you can't admit the part in bold.

I am not 100% saying 2 clay slams. Another slower HC playing closer to the lower to mid 20s range even. Or even Hard-Tu a faster green clay which is more like slow HC but higher bouncing but not as much as red clay.

And we know Nadal is the most dominant on single surface but it could depend on his body and how it holds up at the 2nd clay slam.

again, something that hasn't existed (or existed only for 3 years) , is a significant departure from the norm.

People say Federer should have faster slams or more of a certain things so it isn’t bad to counter that since had the Homogezation not happened faster surfaces will be a lot faster thus allowing Federer to play his attacking game more.

ok, I am not sure, but you are agreeing with me here, right ?

People do it on other ways. People usually compare him to Pete anyways without back going to the 60s and 70s. Even though that wasn’t his era of tennis. Sampras is more well known than all of them with Laver maybe coming close.

no, that's mostly in response to oh, Nadal/Djokovic are soooo versatile, Sampras sucked ..... well face it, Nadal/Djokovic aren't as versatile as the homogenization era makes them out to be. Many a times, reality check is needed.
The career GS of Agassi is quite clearly significant than that of Fed/Nadal/Djoko.
The triple Channel Slam of Borg quite clearly more significant than that of Fed, Nadal(2x)

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Time wasting?

lol - I was going to say number of times they bounce the ball before serving

 

[Towser83]

Ok HC is debatable as Nadal beat Djokovic on HC trough 2007-08. Maybe he wasn't as consistent a player but in the matchup it wasn't set in stone that Djokovic was guaranteed to beat Nadal on HC.
Regardless, the fact is Nadal was the best player in the world in 2008 across the board. He had the best results between all surfaces. Yes?

As for W 09 ive seen this discussed so many times by people like you. You can mention Andy Murray as some sort of threat if you like, but the fact is Nadal straight setted him at W 08. He wasn't going to be a threat to Nadal there in 09. Roddick? Well we only have 1 grass meeting to compare, and again Nadal won in straights. I wont even touch on how silly it is to mention Hewitt. he had been a non factor for years before that W 09 run, which by the way, he battled his heart out in brutal matches to get as far as he did. He was never in a million years troubling that version of Nadal on grass. This 09 rubbish is massively clutching at straws. Bringing up guys who suddenly 'hit amazing form' that year, and would've hurt Nadal, the defending Wimbledon and Queens champ .

In 2010 on the way to winning Wimbledon, Nadal was twice taken to 5 sets by worse players than Roddick, Hewitt and Murray. He was also taken to 5 sets on the way to the final in 2006 and twice in 2007. So it wasn't like Nadal was rock solid at Wimbledon and there's no reason to think he'd be in 2008 form in 2009 because that form seems like a one off. In fact maybe the real issue here is who knows what player in 2009 could have taken Nadal to 5 sets, because I wouldn't have called Petzschner, Youzhny, Soderling or Haase so then does that tire him out or does he even lose, and having just about beaten Federer at his lowest can he beat him when he's just won RG? Not certain at all especially considering Nadal has never defended a non clay title

 

[abmk]

It is also the point that we don’t know that they really play that slow as being said or if it played faster in the final which it should do it was averaged not far from medium. And we have to remember ATP who carry out the CPI ratings are not even responsible carry out court measurement so we don’t know if it’s even as credible as people think. Cincy being medium on it is baffling to be honest. ITF use two other measurements have higher figures for a lot of these events.

Cincy uses faster balls than the ones at USO for one. its a slightly higher altitude and ball flies faster over there. CPI obviously doesn't account for that.

federer wouldn't be favored in Bo5 on blue clay once Nadal got used it. But he'd still win atleast one match vs him, maybe even 2. maybe nadal gets upset once more.
so good chance federer ends up with 3 RGs instead of 1.
But we don’t even know Nadal will get that far to lose to Federer. He might lose earlier to a lower ranked and that’s the kick he needed. We have small evidence to base that one as well. Maybe the longer practice would even be enough for Nadal to the more slippery surface.

I don't get your point over here. This is what I said :
"federer wouldn't be favored in Bo5 on blue clay once Nadal got used it. But he'd still win atleast one match vs him, maybe even 2. maybe nadal gets upset once more.
so good chance federer ends up with 3 RGs instead of 1."

you are just repeating what I said, in essence, just in different words.

If Wimbeldon and AO are that in 2018 than that means 2 of 4 allow Federer to play his game better. That’s still something. It is a counter to argue the Nadal is lucky arugements. Not even by you but generally.

no, its not. If existing surfaces allow Federer's game to shine better, it means his style works better over a range of surfaces, (the range of surfaces known to everyone and that they've practised on), not that he's lucky.
OTOH, it the surfaces are slowed down or are made higher bouncing --they end up favoring players like Nadal/Djoko ---- that's luck

But these are not significant change in circumstances favoring either player. These are what their games are.
True. But then you could say the same about the slow surfaces people complain about constantly.

incorrect. Their game styles are their own choices.

The surface changes/ball changes etc. aren't. That's where the luck comes in.

 

[helterskelter]

@abmk @metsman Just a comment: while I admittedly haven't watched it in years, I have a different opinion of the AO 2009 final and do not rate it as highly as you seem to and as I've seen other people on this board do. I much preferred the Nadal/Verdasco semi-final, and also thought that both the two previous Wimbledon finals were better, too. While I agree that the 2012 final was far too much of a slow burn, and should have been an hour or more shorter even if Djokovic didn't finish it off in four relatively comfortable sets by breaking for 5-7 6-4 6-2 5-3, I thought it came to an absolutely rousing crescendo, whereas the 2009 final had a disappointing final set. Overall, I probably would rate the 2012 final slightly higher than the 2009 one, but it would be close. I don't think Nadal played as well in 09 as you do, although I do agree that he fought like a lion.

 

[abmk]

@abmk @metsman Just a comment: while I admittedly haven't watched it in years, I have a different opinion of the AO 2009 final and do not rate it as highly as you seem to and as I've seen other people on this board do. I much preferred the Nadal/Verdasco semi-final, and also thought that both the two previous Wimbledon finals were better, too. While I agree that the 2012 final was far too much of a slow burn, and should have been an hour or more shorter even if Djokovic didn't finish it off in four relatively comfortable sets by breaking for 5-7 6-4 6-2 5-3, I thought it came to an absolutely rousing crescendo, whereas the 2009 final had a disappointing final set. Overall, I probably would rate the 2012 final slightly higher than the 2009 one, but it would be close. I don't think Nadal played as well in 09 as you do, although I do agree that he fought like a lion.

I rate the Wim 07 final higher than AO 09 final as well.
As far as Wim 08 final goes, slightly over AO 09 final because federer actually served well. But groundgame-wise, definitely AO 09.
AO 09 semi rates higher than AO 09 final because of the 5th set.
But I don't see AO 12 final being higher than AO 09 final.
Nadal played clearly worse in this AO 2012 final than AO 09 final (where he played at his best). And djokovic was hardly at his best either.

I'm not sure what else you expected from Nadal in the AO 09 final. He was playing the very best he could on HC.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Fed fans will be hating on Djokovic in a couple of years the way they are hating on Nadal now.

My guess on this is many of the fans would’ve jumped to the Djokovic ship - assuming Djokovic has a decent few years.

Rules of Tennis Fandom
FedFans must hate Nadal. Following from this must also hate clay.

NadalFans must hate Djokovic. Following from this they must hate WTF.

Djokovic has no fans. The people that like him must either be cynical Federer or Nadal fans.

 

[RS]

Cincy uses faster balls than the ones at USO for one. its a slightly higher altitude and ball flies faster over there. CPI obviously doesn't account for that.
That would explain. I was pointing out Cincy being rated medium and even medium-slow seemed very low.


I don't get your point over here. This is what I said :
"federer wouldn't be favored in Bo5 on blue clay once Nadal got used it. But he'd still win atleast one match vs him, maybe even 2. maybe nadal gets upset once more.
so good chance federer ends up with 3 RGs instead of 1."

you are just repeating what I said, in essence, just in different words.
I didn’t agree and my point was we wouldn’t know Fed would have won 2 BO5 meetings vs Nadal before he got used to blue clay because he may hsve adjusted quick with the practice window before RG. He would have had time to get used to it assuming it was a last minute thing.


no, its not. If existing surfaces allow Federer's game to shine better, it means his style works better over a range of surfaces, (the range of surfaces known to everyone and that they've practised on), not that he's lucky.
OTOH, it the surfaces are slowed down or are made higher bouncing --they end up favoring players like Nadal/Djoko ---- that's luck
In Federer era plays picked up on attacking quicker due to the fast courts. Nadal grew up on clay but had to adjust to attacking. It wasn’t as natural for him as it was for Federer. Federer had longed to work on it due to the era and environment he was brought up in. And some surfaces suit players better than others.

It means Federer style does work better but it also means the style he worked on and his strengths which a lot were developed in the 1998-2001 era were Rafa and Djokovic were not around. That is often were you adjust to the game style you use in you career (even though players do change)


incorrect. Their game styles are their own choices.
Or were their strengths lie. Clay players would be more defensive because that is what works on the surface. And vise versa for fast court players.
The surface changes/ball changes etc. aren't. That's where the luck comes in.

But going by your logic isn’t it that all players got to play on it so that’s fair? Going by this Federer had chances to play on thr different surfaces and slower balls as did Nadal/Djokovic so this isn’t a disadvantage for him as well?

 

[RS]

clay is only marginally faster at best. and I don't see how that marginal improvement has helped fed , if at all.
at his prime, federer did better at Monte Carlo (slow&high bouncing), Hamburg (slow and low bouncing) than at Rome. (which is faster than both and the bounce is in b/w the 2)
Clay used type 1 balls for clay
They use type 3 now.
So Clay is likely clearly faster now not way way but clearly. Even MC which Fed done better on than Rome consistency wise. Federer did come closer to winning Rome in 2006 than he did at MC though. That’s still type 3 balls in use for all of them. Type 1 balls are clearly slower so that would mean even more long rallies and more defensive skills in play for Federer.
its just a non-essential point brought in by you because you can't admit the part in bold.
If you say that that clay and some slow HC being faster helps Fed then I would agree Wimbeldon being slower helped Nadal and Djokovic adapt more in the match up vs Federer.



again, something that hasn't existed (or existed only for 3 years) , is a significant departure from the norm.
It hadn’t happened due to ATP history. But Nadal domination on clay and the fact that people degrade him and say he is lucky that we don’t have grass masters or they are all slower could be countered. what would happen if we had another slower slam to wonder since the Nadal haters come up with ideal arugement against him.
Both are assumptions because the pre Homogezation has a far longer history but Fed in his Prime never got a chance to show what he could do nor do you know Nadal/Djokovic couldn’t have adapted. So they are both as questionable but as each other possibly.




no, that's mostly in response to oh, Nadal/Djokovic are soooo versatile, Sampras sucked ..... well face it, Nadal/Djokovic aren't as versatile as the homogenization era makes them out to be. Many a times, reality check is needed.
The career GS of Agassi is quite clearly significant than that of Fed/Nadal/Djoko.
The triple Channel Slam of Borg quite clearly more significant than that of Fed, Nadal(2x)

I thought people use it in the Federer vs Nadal debate and they say what if thr courts had not got slower? Then Nadal would be toast and Federer would have like 25 slams.
The same arugement goes for all the Big 4 then. More people diss Nadal ability that is mainly used for Federer
As for Borg and Agassi I agree. I know surfaces were tougher to adapt to in their era. That is also why it’s hard to compare different eras and call on guy the Undisputed GOAT. Slow surfaces were slower and fast and medium surfaces were faster so yes Borg winning 5 Wimbledon titles and 6 FOs does hold more weight on the adapting arugement. But that still applies to Fed as well.
Nadal and Djokovic have still proven to be able to adapt well they are not one dimensional like people claim.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

But going by your logic isn’t it that all players got to play on it so that’s fair? Going by this Federer had chances to play on thr different surfaces and slower balls as did Nadal/Djokovic so this isn’t a disadvantage for him as well?

Not sure what the Fed fans is complaining about. Most of the year is on fast surfaces, clay season isn't that long. WTF indoors.
Thats a big advantage for HC players. Cherrypicking fast and slow HC I go like

 

[abmk]

Clay used type 1 balls for clay
They use type 3 now.
So Clay is likely clearly faster now not way way but clearly. Even MC which Fed done better on than Rome consistency wise. Federer did come closer to winning Rome in 2006 than he did at MC though. That’s still type 3 balls in use for all of them. Type 1 balls are clearly slower so that would mean even more long rallies and more defensive skills in play for Federer.

not sure what you're talking about wrt to the balls. any links ?
But IMO, its poly which has helped with more hitting with consistency on clay.
federer's biggest problem on clay is the high bounce, not the speed. Hamburg is probably the slowest CC around, but its low bouncing.

If you say that that clay and some slow HC being faster helps Fed then I would agree Wimbeldon being slower helped Nadal and Djokovic adapt more in the match up vs Federer.

ok, which slower HC is faster now ?

apart from AO 17/AO 18 (AO/USO have sort of switched in the last 2 years, so doesn't need to be mentioned)

and its not just Wimbledon, its the YEC as well. AO in 10-13 (esp. 11-12) ..

It hadn’t happened due to ATP history. But Nadal domination on clay and the fact that people degrade him and say he is lucky that we don’t have grass masters or they are all slower could be countered. what would happen if we had another slower slam to wonder since the Nadal haters come up with ideal arugement against him.
Both are assumptions because the pre Homogezation has a far longer history but Fed in his Prime never got a chance to show what he could do nor do you know Nadal/Djokovic couldn’t have adapted. So they are both as questionable but as each other possibly.

I'm not talking about fantasy situations to suit particular players.Just the conditions which existed for quite some pre-homoegenization.
Nadal/Djokovic could have adapted to an extent. Question is how much they did they benefit due to the homogenization.

if Nadal couldn't get success on the indoor courts of today, he's not getting them on faster indoors courts (HC) or carpet ! I don't think it takes a genius to figure that out.
same goes for his struggles on grass in the 1st week of Wimbledon, when its faster, less consistent bouncing than in the 2nd week.

Given djokovic's struggles on multiple occasions when rhythm is taken away from him on the current courts, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that he'd struggle more under varied, faster conditions.

I thought people use it in the Federer vs Nadal debate and they say what if thr courts had not got slower? Then Nadal would be toast and Federer would have like 25 slams.
The same arugement goes for all the Big 4 then. More people diss Nadal ability that is mainly used for Federer
As for Borg and Agassi I agree. I know surfaces were tougher to adapt to in their era. That is also why it’s hard to compare different eras and call on guy the Undisputed GOAT. Slow surfaces were slower and fast and medium surfaces were faster so yes Borg winning 5 Wimbledon titles and 6 FOs does hold more weight on the adapting arugement. But that still applies to Fed as well.
Nadal and Djokovic have still proven to be able to adapt well they are not one dimensional like people claim.
.

except fed has won on grass SnVing in 2003 (when grass was faster/lower bouncing than in the later years) and on indoor faster courts. I already said fed's career slam/channel slam doesn't hold as much weight as the earlier ones. But he's proven himself on the conditions that were lessened/gone as a result of homogenization gradually.

oh and yeah, its also brought in when people try to argue stuff like Nadal is as surface versatile as Federer.

Nadal/Djokovic aren't one-dimensional and they would adapt to an extent. But Lendl wasn't anywhere one-dimensional and still couldn't come close to winning Wimbledon.
This is not to say Nadal/Djokovic would be the same. But just pointing out the enormity of the struggle/change required.

 

[abmk]

I didn’t agree and my point was we wouldn’t know Fed would have won 2 BO5 meetings vs Nadal before he got used to blue clay because he may hsve adjusted quick with the practice window before RG. He would have had time to get used to it assuming it was a last minute thing.

I said atleast 1, maybe 2. Not set on 2 wins for fed here.

In Federer era plays picked up on attacking quicker due to the fast courts. Nadal grew up on clay but had to adjust to attacking. It wasn’t as natural for him as it was for Federer. Federer had longed to work on it due to the era and environment he was brought up in. And some surfaces suit players better than others.

It means Federer style does work better but it also means the style he worked on and his strengths which a lot were developed in the 1998-2001 era were Rafa and Djokovic were not around. That is often were you adjust to the game style you use in you career (even though players do change)

well, guess what ? those players in 1998-2001 also had to pick up playing on the slower courts as well. Wider variety of courts.

IOr were their strengths lie. Clay players would be more defensive because that is what works on the surface. And vise versa for fast court players.

but what about djokovic ? he was an aggressive player in 07-08. then he/his team realized the homogenization/slowing down of surfaces and he became a more defensive player and that worked for him on all surfaces.

IBut going by your logic isn’t it that all players got to play on it so that’s fair? Going by this Federer had chances to play on thr different surfaces and slower balls as did Nadal/Djokovic so this isn’t a disadvantage for him as well?

this is incomprehensible to me.

 

[moonballs]

Whatever the similarities, only one of them is good at getting cakewalk draws.

 

[helterskelter]

I rate the Wim 07 final higher than AO 09 final as well.
As far as Wim 08 final goes, slightly over AO 09 final because federer actually served well. But groundgame-wise, definitely AO 09.
AO 09 semi rates higher than AO 09 final because of the 5th set.
But I don't see AO 12 final being higher than AO 09 final.
Nadal played clearly worse in this AO 2012 final than AO 09 final (where he played at his best). And djokovic was hardly at his best either.

I'm not sure what else you expected from Nadal in the AO 09 final. He was playing the very best he could on HC.

I didn't expect more from Nadal in the 09 final. I expected more from Federer in the key moments. Like the US Open final that year, it was a match he was pretty close to winning easily.

 

[Northern]

My guess on this is many of the fans would’ve jumped to the Djokovic ship - assuming Djokovic has a decent few years.

Rules of Tennis Fandom
FedFans must hate Nadal. Following from this must also hate clay.

NadalFans must hate Djokovic. Following from this they must hate WTF.

Djokovic has no fans. The people that like him must either be cynical Federer or Nadal fans.

Absolutely brilliant. Murygoat tho.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Absolutely brilliant. Murygoat tho.

Murygoat has exactly one fan, @Red Rick. The one fan a tennis player really needs.

 

[kevaninho]

In 2010 on the way to winning Wimbledon, Nadal was twice taken to 5 sets by worse players than Roddick, Hewitt and Murray. He was also taken to 5 sets on the way to the final in 2006 and twice in 2007. So it wasn't like Nadal was rock solid at Wimbledon and there's no reason to think he'd be in 2008 form in 2009 because that form seems like a one off. In fact maybe the real issue here is who knows what player in 2009 could have taken Nadal to 5 sets, because I wouldn't have called Petzschner, Youzhny, Soderling or Haase so then does that tire him out or does he even lose, and having just about beaten Federer at his lowest can he beat him when he's just won RG? Not certain at all especially considering Nadal has never defended a non clay title

Id argue that Federer of 08 wasn't any different to 09. He performed great in both seasons, and mono is a hell of an excuse for 08. He was going deep in every slam both years.
Infact his FO and W wins of 09 he was being taking to a lot of 7-5, 7-6 sets, and several 5 set matches.
Got to laugh at people who want to downplay Federer of 08, yet claim he was in as good a form as ever in 09 just because he final won RG, then went through a very average draw to win Wimbledon LOL

 

[Towser83]

Id argue that Federer of 08 wasn't any different to 09. He performed great in both seasons, and mono is a hell of an excuse for 08. He was going deep in every slam both years.
Infact his FO and W wins of 09 he was being taking to a lot of 7-5, 7-6 sets, and several 5 set matches.
Got to laugh at people who want to downplay Federer of 08, yet claim he was in as good a form as ever in 09 just because he final won RG, then went through a very average draw to win Wimbledon LOL

He wasn't at his best form wise in 2009 but he was certainly better than 2008 and had more confidence which is key. He was dire in 2008 by his own standards but managed to get some confidence back by winning the USO which carried on into 2009. Also Nadal was at his absolute best in 2008, at his most confident and Federer mentally damaged after his drubbing at RG. Yet Nadal at 2 sets to 0 up still couldn't finish Fed off easily, so a bit of a stretch to act like he would have been the favourite a year later when he wasn't at his absolute best, wasn't at his most confident and didn't have a mentally wounded Federer. Also Nadal has never defended a non clay title, so odds say he wasn't the favourite.

Also I've said nothing about mono

In 2008 he had bad losses to Fish and Roddick at IW and Miami, in 2009 he lost to Murray and Djokovic in final sets in the semis. He also had a 3 set loss to Djokovic in Rome but won Madrid beating Nadal in the final. He also won Cincy beating Djokovic and Murray. In 2008 he lost first round in Canada and then maybe second round to Karlovic even though he was very unlucky to lose that I admit. Also I admit Fed in 2008 was actually in a way playing decent on clay, he should have won Hamburg but he choked and he even had chances at MC. The thing is these losses then gave him no confidence at RG which then led to Wimbledon and he didn't get it back til the USO. After that he got a bit of form though was set back with a back issue, but in 2009 he played amazing vs Nadal in australia, far far better than at Wimbledon in 2008, he just missed his chances in the 3rd set and paid the price

 

[Federev]

Winning H2H against Fedr

And for some more dead horses to beat:

They are also older by at least 5 years than Gramperererer

 

[CYGS]

And for some more dead horses to beat:

They are also older by at least 5 years than Gramperererer

That fully explains why Fed's slam count is ahead and it's no big deal.

 

[Federev]

That fully explains why Fed's slam count is ahead and it's no big deal.

yup. he def had like 13 at novak's age.

 

[RS]

Whatever the similarities, only one of them is good at getting cakewalk draws.

I said atleast 1, maybe 2. Not set on 2 wins for fed here.
Even at least 1 is still hard to speculate. Blue Clay did suit Federer better but it only took place once so we don’t know. One set could happen but it’s not a lock since if Nadal needs time to get used to a surface he might lose to early to face Federer and that might be all he needs to adjust.



well, guess what ? those players in 1998-2001 also had to pick up playing on the slower courts as well. Wider variety of courts.
True. But in 2001 things started slowing big time and was still gradually slowed until 2003. Nadal actually turned pro in 2001 and Djokovic in 2003 so Federer had time to get used to it before they came along. And he did. This would only be a disadvantage if Federer had less to get used to it. He had quite a bit of time. Or if Federer was winning a lot and the it ruined his momentum big time.




but what about djokovic ? he was an aggressive player in 07-08. then he/his team realized the homogenization/slowing down of surfaces and he became a more defensive player and that worked for him on all surfaces.
I felt Djokovic was still very agressive even up till Becker came. Watch his 2011-12 matches at slams vs Roger he threw the kitchen at Roger. I feel he became more offensive in 2013-2014 and improved his serve and was wiser in some ways.




this is incomprehensible to me.

I didn’t word the best. I meant it is fair to point out the slams being faster if we talk about Nadal/Djokovic being luckier due to fast courts being slower than in the early 2000s and before.

 

[RS]

not sure what you're talking about wrt to the balls. any links ? Scroll down to the year 2000 to see thr Homogezation ball rule.
http://www.itftennis.com/technical/publications/rules/balls/history.aspx
But IMO, its poly which has helped with more hitting with consistency on clay.
federer's biggest problem on clay is the high bounce, not the speed. Hamburg is probably the slowest CC around, but its low bouncing.
I agree with you. But it still doesn’t bounce as high as it used to.



ok, which slower HC is faster now ?
Not sure about this but it did mention slower surfaces using faster balls. It applies to clay but not sure about slow HC.
apart from AO 17/AO 18 (AO/USO have sort of switched in the last 2 years, so doesn't need to be mentioned)

and its not just Wimbledon, its the YEC as well. AO in 10-13 (esp. 11-12) ..
They speed up AO though and Nadal came close in AO 17.
AO was never really slow or fast even if some additions were faster than others.
Nadal actually did better when YEC was faster then when it was slower too.



I'm not talking about fantasy situations to suit particular players.Just the conditions which existed for quite some pre-homoegenization.
Nadal/Djokovic could have adapted to an extent. Question is how much they did they benefit due to the homogenization.
Quite a bit as we see. All surface adapting easier (not easy)

if Nadal couldn't get success on the indoor courts of today, he's not getting them on faster indoors courts (HC) or carpet ! I don't think it takes a genius to figure that out.
Nadal issue is not always the speed. He isn’t healthy a lot of the time the swing is around. He has won and done well on surfaces that play similar or like AO 2017 for instance. In his earlier years he won Madrid 2005 on a fast HC and his genetic foot condition hasn’t helped. If he played pre Homogezation 5years older like Fed it is possible his serve will be better than the real Nadal and he would have been riper in the second half of the season.
It is likely his attacking play would be better allowing him a better chance to win on fast indoor events. but his defensive would decrease.

same goes for his struggles on grass in the 1st week of Wimbledon, when its faster, less consistent bouncing than in the 2nd week.
It is also due to Nadal being a Rhythm player he takes time to get used to things. And he knows the BO5 format gives him time. He might have found a way to start faster if he really had to as well.
A lot of people say Wimbeldon is fast in week 1 and slow or slower in week 2 but Ed Steward has not confirmed this. He also says Wimbeldon is the same speed as well. It could be the balls having more of a factor as well.

Given djokovic's struggles on multiple occasions when rhythm is taken away from him on the current courts, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that he'd struggle more under varied, faster conditions.
He can start fast when he needs to though. He knows the BO5 format gives him time. In 2011-AO 2012 he was in no nonsense mode he started quite fast in most of the slams. In 2012-16 he was more vulnerable in the earlier rounds.




except fed has won on grass SnVing in 2003 (when grass was faster/lower bouncing than in the later years) and on indoor faster courts. I already said fed's career slam/channel slam doesn't hold as much weight as the earlier ones. But he's proven himself on the conditions that were lessened/gone as a result of homogenization gradually.
I agree he showed it on 2003-05 fast WTFs closer to pre Homogezation speeds. But those were still with modern balls. For details read the top.
oh and yeah, its also brought in when people try to argue stuff like Nadal is as surface versatile as Federer.
Yeah. But most of the time on TTW at least before argue in favour of Federer ability of Nadal/Djokovic. Which is the reason I have turned a little biased in favouring of Nadal and Novak on TTW. IMO Djokovic looks like he has the most balanced record across different speeds but I by no means was comparing him to those of other era.
Also,Wimbledon and French Open are probably the hardest slams to adapt to and Nadal has won 2 channel slams which Fed and Djokovic have not done. Not comparing to Borgs 5 BTW.





Nadal/Djokovic aren't one-dimensional and they would adapt to an extent. But Lendl wasn't anywhere one-dimensional and still couldn't come close to winning Wimbledon.
I agree with you.
This is not to say Nadal/Djokovic would be the same. But just pointing out the enormity of the struggle/change required.

I agree with you. You are more open minded than those saying they have no chance.

 

[Sport]

Djokovic's domination in the NCYGS is winning 4 Grand Slams in a row. But Nadal dominated the Slams in 2010 by winning 3 Grand Slams in a row. So the only difference between Djokovic's NCYGS and Nadal's 2010 is that Djokovic won one more consecutive Grand Slam.

P. S.: I am talking here about domination in Grand Slams, not domination in Masters 1000, which are less relevant than Grand Slams. Nadal dominated in Grand Slams in 2010. Plus, Nadal is the ONLY player in the history of the Open Era to win 3 Grand Slams on 3 surfaces the same calendar year.

 

[Sport]

Plus, both Nadal and Djokovic are tied in Grand Slam seasons with at least 2 Grand Slams (4). But it is true that Djokovic has one more season with 3 GS and the NCYGS (which is only one more consecutive Major than Nadal in 2010).

Even if Djokovic has a slight edge in domination, Nadal has a clear edge in CONSISTENCY. Nadal is the ONLY player in the history of tennis to win at least one Grand Slam during 10 consecutive years. Djokovic has never spent more than 5 consecutive years winning a a Grand Slam.

So Djokovic has a slight edge in domination and Nadal a clear edge in consistency.

 

[kevaninho]

He wasn't at his best form wise in 2009 but he was certainly better than 2008 and had more confidence which is key. He was dire in 2008 by his own standards but managed to get some confidence back by winning the USO which carried on into 2009. Also Nadal was at his absolute best in 2008, at his most confident and Federer mentally damaged after his drubbing at RG. Yet Nadal at 2 sets to 0 up still couldn't finish Fed off easily, so a bit of a stretch to act like he would have been the favourite a year later when he wasn't at his absolute best, wasn't at his most confident and didn't have a mentally wounded Federer. Also Nadal has never defended a non clay title, so odds say he wasn't the favourite.

Also I've said nothing about mono

In 2008 he had bad losses to Fish and Roddick at IW and Miami, in 2009 he lost to Murray and Djokovic in final sets in the semis. He also had a 3 set loss to Djokovic in Rome but won Madrid beating Nadal in the final. He also won Cincy beating Djokovic and Murray. In 2008 he lost first round in Canada and then maybe second round to Karlovic even though he was very unlucky to lose that I admit. Also I admit Fed in 2008 was actually in a way playing decent on clay, he should have won Hamburg but he choked and he even had chances at MC. The thing is these losses then gave him no confidence at RG which then led to Wimbledon and he didn't get it back til the USO. After that he got a bit of form though was set back with a back issue, but in 2009 he played amazing vs Nadal in australia, far far better than at Wimbledon in 2008, he just missed his chances in the 3rd set and paid the price

So what youre saying is the only version that Nadal could beat Federer on grass, was Nadal at his peak, Fed no confidence, Fed mentally damaged, and that Nadals very best still struggled to beat the worst Fed?
Honestly people need to get over that defeat. Federer was the 5 time defending champion going into 08. Maybe his form wasn't spectacular every year he won Wimbledon, but its hilarious how the only year Fed was supposedly not that good, was the year in which Nadal dethroned him. Then when Fed wins again in 09, suddenly hes back to great form.

Listen if those demons Fed had in 08 were a big deal, then im sure those same demons would've been even worse in 09 knowing that Nadal beat him the year before on grass, and in AO 09. Him winning RG 09 has nothing to do with the fact Nadal owned him in the matchup on every surface at that point.

 

[RS]

Plus, both Nadal and Djokovic are tied in Grand Slam seasons with at least 2 Grand Slams (4). But it is true that Djokovic has one more season with 3 GS and the NCYGS (which is only one more consecutive Major than Nadal in 2010).

Even if Djokovic has a slight edge in domination, Nadal has a clear edge in CONSISTENCY. Nadal is the ONLY player in the history of tennis to win at least one Grand Slam during 10 consecutive years. Djokovic has never spent more than 5 consecutive years winning a a Grand Slam.

So Djokovic has a slight edge in domination and Nadal a clear edge in consistency.

Nadal has better longevity. But Djokovic is was more consistent at his best. reached 28 consecutive QF at slam level. As well as his 15 consecutive F at top tier events he played in 2015.
Consistency and Longevity in some ways are 2 different things.