Nadal: Novak Djokovic reached a higher level than Roger Federer

[NatF]

They should probably change the rule about mandatory tournaments and let all players opt out of 2 of them by choice. I liked the idea of AO being med/slow and USO being fast, which they were always traditionally, and should just keep it that way. Maybe speed the USO back up to 2004 levels. The indoor season has already been sped up so that's pretty much changed now, and then just wrap the ATP final up in mid October. I think it would make a big difference.

They'd need to remove a couple of masters and other events to finish up in October and move the slams closer together I guess? Problem is that would lose a lot of money so they're unlikely to go for that. Still the absolute collapse of the top 10 this year has to have made the top dogs take note.

 

[NatF]

I would cut from the masters events. If the season were to stay the way it is, I would ditch Madrid, Canada and Shanghai. Madrid is too close to Rome. A nice break between MC and Rome would be good and would help players recuperate a bit. Cut down Canada. Cincy is enough preparation for the USO. Cut down Shanghai too since it's not even an indoor event and thus put Paris earlier in the fall season as preparation for the WTF. So 4 slams, 6 masters and the WTF is enugh to not over-stress the players.

The best option in my book would be to ditch Madrid an replace it with a grass masters.

Canada has so much history, too much for it to be removed IMO. I think if you could only get points from say 5 masters out of 7 then that would accomplish the same thing.

 

[mike danny]

Canada has so much history, too much for it to be removed IMO. I think if you could only get points from say 5 masters out of 7 then that would accomplish the same thing.

Yeah agreed. Make only 5 of the 9 mandatory an not all of them. Make the others like MC: non-mandatory.

 

[NoleFam]

I would cut from the masters events. If the season were to stay the way it is, I would ditch Madrid, Canada and Shanghai. Madrid is too close to Rome. A nice break between MC and Rome would be good and would help players recuperate a bit. Cut down Canada. Cincy is enough preparation for the USO. Cut down Shanghai too since it's not even an indoor event and thus put Paris earlier in the fall season as preparation for the WTF. So 4 slams, 6 masters and the WTF is enugh to not over-stress the players.

The best option in my book would be to ditch Madrid an replace it with a grass masters.

I would actually ditch Madrid and add a grass Masters, and make the grass season a little longer. I know this wouldn't solve the problem we are discussing but tennis needs a grass Masters. I wouldn't remove anymore Masters besides that one and I say make them less mandatory. Give players the option to skip at least two so therefore they can take the necessary breaks to recover, but keep them in place for players who want to play them. I think some of these smaller tournaments can be removed though so the calendar can be moved around a bit.

 

[mike danny]

I would actually ditch Madrid and add a grass Masters, and make the grass season a little longer. I know this wouldn't solve the problem we are discussing but tennis needs a grass Masters. I wouldn't remove anymore Masters besides that one and I say make them less mandatory. Give players the option to skip at least two so therefore they can take the necessary breaks to recover, but keep them in place for players who want to play them. I think some of these smaller tournaments can be removed though so the calendar can be moved around a bit.

Only a month of off-season is a joke.

The break after Wimb is probably longer.

 

[NoleFam]

They'd need to remove a couple of masters and other events to finish up in October and move the slams closer together I guess? Problem is that would lose a lot of money so they're unlikely to go for that. Still the absolute collapse of the top 10 this year has to have made the top dogs take note.

Remove some of those smaller events that crowd up the calendar but keep the Masters. They're just too important. If you remove them, then you can adjust the calendar better by keep the big tournaments the main focus and a bit more spread out. As long as the game stays as physical as it is, it's going to be a big problem going forward so they need to do something about it.

 

[NatF]

Yeah agreed. Make only 5 of the 9 mandatory an not all of them. Make the others like MC: non-mandatory.

Well I'm assuming you still want Madrid and Shanghai removed to make more space for an off season.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

And for all the bagels he ate in 2004, Hewitt still took a set against peak Fed a few times.

When was the last time Murray won a set against old man Fed?

While I understand your point well, this comparison is a bit unfair. Murray had back surgery and it took him a while to get the wind back in the sails, heck USO 2014, he went toe to toe with Djokovic for about set and then vanished, and that very same year Federer hammered him in WTF.

2004 Hewitt was not coming for any serious surgery like Murray did. Yes, Murray lost a few matches where he was outclassed by Federer, W 2015 prime example, but you are putting one of Hewitt's best years in comparison with a returning from injury Murray. They did not play at all in 2016, when Murray really started hitting his stride again.

 

[swordtennis]

2011 and 2015 were unreal thats all to say. The greats of the game got my back. Thats all that matters.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

While I understand your point well, this comparison is a bit unfair. Murray had back surgery and it took him a while to get the wind back in the sails, heck USO 2014, he went toe to toe with Djokovic for about set and then vanished, and that very same year Federer hammered him in WTF.

2004 Hewitt was not coming for any serious surgery like Murray did. Yes, Murray lost a few matches where he was outclassed by Federer, W 2015 prime example, but you are putting one of Hewitt's best years in comparison with a returning from injury Murray. They did not play at all in 2016, when Murray really started hitting his stride again.

Hewitt has his years post surgery held against him so why not?

And anybody could see Murray was back to form in 2015 - just had more competition in Roger & Novak which prevented him from winning anything.

And my point is if Fed at 35 is denying for all intents and purposes prime Murray every time in GS tournaments then why hold it against Roddick or Lleyton? Proof doesn't show Murray would have done any better.

 

[NatF]

Remove those smaller events that crowd up the calendar but keep the Masters. They're just too important. If you remove them, then you can adjust the calendar better by keep the big tournaments the main focus and a bit more spread out. As long as the game stays as physical as it is, it's going to be a big problem going forward so they need to do something about it.

The smaller events are a necessity. There needs to be enough events so that lower ranked guys have a chance to play and earn points. Not everyone can play masters.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Hewitt has his years post surgery held against him so why not?

Then make a fair comparison, and compare them both post surgery. Murray was doing just fine against a much younger Federer pre-surgery. Your bias against Murray is telling, hey, I like Hewitt also, but it is clear you are propping one up while purposefully putting the other down.

 

[killerboi2]

Hewitt has his years post surgery held against him so why not?

Still keeping this up lmao. Murray is better than Hewitt. Even his record, awful as it is vs Fed, it is still better than Hewitt's.

 

[NoleFam]

The smaller events are a necessity. There needs to be enough events so that lower ranked guys have a chance to play and earn points. Not everyone can play masters.

I don't mean remove all of them but some of them so the calendar can be changed. It's too many events really and there's already more than enough for lower ranked players.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Then make a fair comparison, and compare them both post surgery. Murray was doing just fine against a much younger Federer pre-surgery. Your bias against Murray is telling, hey, I like Hewitt also, but it is clear you are propping one up while purposefully putting the other down.

Murray hasn't had 3 surgeries smack bang in the middle of his peak all on his feet/legs.

Murray had his sciatica relieved. No real comparison so the way I do it is fair.

Nothing wrong with being biased - and hey, if I didn't need to read crap about how Fed has to watch out for Murray next year (rofl) I wouldn't be this harsh.

Still, Fed is 5 years older than Murray and he still creams him.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Add Belgrade as a grass Masters.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Still keeping this up lmao. Murray is better than Hewitt. Even his record, awful as it is vs Fed, it is still better than Hewitt's.

Well I know Hewitt is like 50x better than Kafelnikov.

But he was a decent player right?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Murray hasn't had 3 surgeries smack bang in the middle of his peak all on his feet/legs.

Murray had his sciatica relieved. No real comparison so the way I do it is fair.

Nothing wrong with being biased - and hey, if I didn't need to read crap about how Fed has to watch out for Murray next year (rofl) I wouldn't be this harsh.

Still, Fed is 5 years older than Murray and he still creams him.

Murray goes away right in the middle of his peak to sort his back out, that is huge. He had just completed one of the greatest runs of recent times, from Olympics 2012 to Wimbledon 2013. Sure, nothing wrong with being biased, but then get ready to be called out on it, when you make unfair comparison.

As for Federer worrying about Murray, I don't even know if Murray will even be competitive on any level, by the way he was moving in his exho with Fed. There is no substantial evidence to say Murray will be a threat to anyone, let alone Federer, with the way he has been moving on court. So, why get riled up about what a bunch of Fed haters are saying, when even they know, they are saying it just to get a reaction from Fed fans.

 

[Deleted member 756514]

If peak Djokovic had played during the weak era we would have been looking at 3 or 4 calendar year Grand Slams.

I doubt if Nadal would have let him do it in 2005-08. Without Nadal, even Federer would have had 3 CYGS. Nadal was the final frontier.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray goes away right in the middle of his peak to sort his back out, that is huge. He had just completed one of the greatest runs of recent times, from Olympics 2012 to Wimbledon 2013. Sure, nothing wrong with being biased, but then get ready to be called out on it, when you make unfair comparison.

As for Federer worrying about Murray, I don't even know if Murray will even be competitive on any level, by the way he was moving in his exho with Fed. There is no substantial evidence to say Murray will be a threat to anyone, let alone Federer, with the way he has been moving on court. So, why get riled up about what a bunch of Fed haters are saying, when even they know, they are saying it just to get a reaction from Fed fans.

I just don't get how Murray is going to trouble Fed when he never really did in majors even if he comes back all guns blazing/at his 2016 level.

I know it won't happen and I know from watching guys like Michael Chang, and yes, Lleyton Hewitt, that once your speed starts to go and you rely heavy on it your results really start to suffer.

I think the best thing for Murray at this point is avoiding another surgery. That will be what curtails his career, or takes him from being a steady top 5-10 player to simply being an average top 15-20 one.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I just don't get how Murray is going to trouble Fed when he never really did in majors even if he comes back all guns blazing/at his 2016 level.

I know it won't happen and I know from watching guys like Michael Chang, and yes, Lleyton Hewitt, that once your speed starts to go and you rely heavy on it your results really start to suffer.

I think the best thing for Murray at this point is avoiding another surgery. That will be what curtails his career, or takes him from being a steady top 5-10 player to simply being an average top 15-20 one.

In regards to your first point. We don't even know if he can handle The Fogs and Uncle Sams of this world atm, so there is no point even looking to see how he will do against the elite. His body is badly beaten up, and I would not be surprised if the thoughts of retirement crept into his mind at some point.

In reference to your third point, he will have to call it career if he needs surgery now. He and everyone else knows that.

 

[smoledman]

If peak Djokovic had played during the weak era we would have been looking at 3 or 4 calendar year Grand Slams.

Absolute nonsense. Djokovic got to be the player he was in 2011-2016 because of having to play Federer & Nadal(2007-2010). Nothing happens in a vacuum, existing tennis players who set the standard force the up&comers to level up or die.

 

[mike danny]

Absolute nonsense. Djokovic got to be the player he was in 2011-2016 because of having to play Federer & Nadal(2007-2010). Nothing happens in a vacuum, existing tennis players who set the standard force the up&comers to level up or die.

The younger players have been doing the second option for many years now.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

The younger players have been doing the second option for many years now.

LOL

 

[merlinpinpin]

If peak Djokovic had played during the weak era we would have been looking at 3 or 4 calendar year Grand Slams.

Well, he did, and still, he only won four in a row (which is still awesome), but not in the same year.

Oh, maybe you meant 96-98? Granted, competition was pretty bad, but he would have struggled on fast grass, even against a lower-tier player like Sampras, so he probably ends up with 0 CYGS anyway (because, let's face it, if he's not doing it in 2015, and especially in 2016, he's not doing it like ever, or he'd have to play on the WTA).

 

[RS]

2011 RG
2011 USO
2012 Wimbledon
2012 Cincy
2015 Cincy


Proves this wrong. And that was Federer past his peak.

If you watched those matches you would see Federer was playing near is best. Those were prime Esq performances. Federer won the latter two without dropping a serve or facing a BP if i am not mistaken. Throughout the whole torn.And they were on fast courts which do allow older players to play better and roll.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Jim Courier certainly agrees with him.

 

[RS]

Ok let's do a breakdown of 2006 Fed vs 2015 Djokovic.

AO: Djokovic
IW: 50/50
Miami: Djokovic
MC: Djokovic
Rome: 50/50 (2006 was Fed's best form in Rome)
RG: 50/50 (neither played great in their respective finals)
Wimb: Federer (but it would be close)
Canada: Djokovic
Cincy: Federer (if he even gets that far)
USO: Slight edge to Federer (something like 60/40 or 55-45)
Madrid/Shanghai: Federer
Paris: Djokovic
WTF (Shanghai: Federer, London: 50/50)

Federer might be favored at Canada though he won it with a very tough draw and Novak lost to Andy.
The rest i agree with. Wimbeldon might be a little more convincing if Federer plays the way he did in 2006 i would go as far as saying he might have 65-35/70-30 vs Djokovic their.

 

[GoldenSwing]

I mean it’s hard to set up a game plan with Djokovic...

Serve and Volley and add variety with aggression? Nope. Roger has tried that the past four years.

Grind him out so he makes mistakes and crumbles under pressure? This will almost never work unless your name is Nadal, and even then he has a losing head to head

The only way to beat Djokovic when he’s healthy and in form is if the entirety of your game is working very well.

I don’t know if I would say Novak reached an overall higher level than Federer though. From the baseline though, Novak has probably reached the highest level for a human when hes at his peak.

On the other hand I think Federer when hes zoning is the ulimate all court player.

Definitely arguable though, Novak’s game when hes zoning is just as smooth and dangerous as Federers

 

[RF-18]

Nadal: ''Since I know this sport I never saw somebody playing this level ever'' Asked about Djokovic.

Nadal has always been high praising of Djokovic game and his highest level when that subject comes up. He never holds on to the words, he is purely just telling it as he sees it.

 

[KINGROGER]

If you watched those matches you would see Federer was playing near is best. Those were prime Esq performances. Federer won the latter two without dropping a serve or facing a BP if i am not mistaken. Throughout the whole torn.And they were on fast courts which do allow older players to play better and roll.

I don’t get where this BOAT thing comes from. Did people not watch Federer play back during his peak? Or even the 2011 RG match, or 2012 Wimbledon or any Cincy / fast court match between the two.

 

[abmk]

Ok let's do a breakdown of 2006 Fed vs 2015 Djokovic.

AO: Djokovic
IW: 50/50
Miami: Djokovic
MC: Djokovic
Rome: 50/50 (2006 was Fed's best form in Rome)
RG: 50/50 (neither played great in their respective finals)
Wimb: Federer (but it would be close)
Canada: Djokovic
Cincy: Federer (if he even gets that far)
USO: Slight edge to Federer (something like 60/40 or 55-45)
Madrid/Shanghai: Federer
Paris: Djokovic
WTF (Shanghai: Federer, London: 50/50)

Wim 06 takes down djoko 15 in 4 tight sets most probably. (something like RG 2011 semi)
USO 2006 fed also beats djoko 2015, no way in hell is that remotely close to 55-45.
70-30 fed atleast.

even 2011 djoko is 35% chance vs 2006 USO fed, nothing more, IMO.

fed probably scraps through Canada over djoko.

MC final is at worst even. Fed played well in the last 3 sets of the final vs Nadal. and he's 3-0 vs djoko at MC (incl. wins in 08 and 14, make it 2-0 to ignore their 06 encounter)

Edit : This is an old post. Just noticed I had previously replied to it similarly.

 

[RF-18]

Wim 06 takes down djoko 15 in 4 tight sets most probably. (something like RG 2011 semi)
USO 2006 fed also beats djoko 2015, no way in hell is that remotely close to 55-45.
70-30 fed atleast.

even 2011 djoko is 35% chance vs 2006 USO fed, nothing more, IMO.

fed probably scraps through Canada over djoko.

MC final is at worst even. Fed played well in the last 3 sets of the final vs Nadal. and he's 3-0 vs djoko at MC (incl. wins in 08 and 14, make it 2-0 to ignore their 06 encounter)

lol

 

[abmk]

If you watched those matches you would see Federer was playing near is best. Those were prime Esq performances. Federer won the latter two without dropping a serve or facing a BP if i am not mistaken. Throughout the whole torn.And they were on fast courts which do allow older players to play better and roll.

he was nowhere near his best in USO 2011 or Wim 12.

 

[abmk]

lol

yes, you faker.

Considering you fakeness/cowardice, you wouldn't even have the courage to watch fed at his peak. you are deluding yourself if you think anyone sane with some common sense believes you saw much of fed at his peak.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I don’t get where this BOAT thing comes from.

"BOAT" is an invention of the fans of Nadal (25%)and especially Djokovic. They can't possibly argue their guy is GOAT, so the "BOAT" idiocy was invented. If there was a true BOAT, it was Mac in 1984, but about 2% of Novak fans were even born at that time and couldn't pick McEnroe out of a police lineup.

 

[RF-18]

yes, you faker.

Considering you fakeness/cowardice, you wouldn't even have the courage to watch fed at his peak. you are deluding yourself if you think anyone sane with some common sense believes you saw much of fed at his peak.

it wouldn't be as lopsided as you suggest. Just quit

 

[abmk]

it wouldn't be as lopsided as you suggest. Just quit

yes, it would.
the only ones where djoko has the clear edge is AO, Miami, Cincy (since fed bombed out in R2) and Paris.

everything is clearly fed or slight edge to fed or about even.

a much worse than 2006 USO fed in USO 2011 was up 2 sets and had 2 MPs vs 2011 djoko. you can actually delude yourself into think 2011 USO djoko would have that good a chance vs peak fed in USO 2006 ?
and 2015 final djoko was worse than 2011 USO djoko.

and 12 wim fed was about as far as away from 2006 wim fed as 2012 wim djoko was from 2015 wim djoko. 2012 fed took care of prime djoko in Wim 12 in 4 sets.

 

[RF-18]

yes, it would.
the only ones where djoko has the clear edge is AO, Miami, Cincy (since fed bombed out in R2) and Paris.

everything is clearly fed or slight edge to fed or about even.

a much worse fed in USO 2011 was up 2 sets and had 2 MPs vs 2011 djoko. you freakin' think 2011 USO djoko would have that good a chance vs peak fed in USO 2006 ?
and 2015 final djoko was worse than 2011 USO djoko.

and 12 wim fed was about as far as away from 2006 wim fed as 2012 wim djoko was from 2015 wim djoko. 2012 fed took care of prime djoko in Wim 12 in 4 sets.

Not even gonna counter that. As usual crap logic with you.

 

[abmk]

Not even gonna counter that. As usual crap logic with you.

oh , whom do you think you are kidding ?
you have nothing to actually talk about since you've watched jack squat of fed's peak.
and obviously with your bullsh*t agenda of propping up djoko in every possible way ......

 

[3lite]

Still after 38 matches, both H2H's have been similar:

Nadal-Djokovic: 22-16 Nadal

Nadal-Federer: 23-15 Nadal.

What's the H2H after Djokovic was found to be allergic to gluten?

 

[NoleFam]

What's the H2H after Djokovic was found to be allergic to gluten?

Djokovic/Nadal: 20-9

 

[abmk]

@RF-18 :

Unlike you, I know what's going on/what went on and give credit where its due. quoting what I posted previously.

@mike danny :

other points:

1. djoko was in rare form in shanghai 15 SF/F , making both Murray and Tsonga helpless. (In fact , his whole China form was scary - Beijing+Shanghai. Isner, Ferrer, Nadal, Lopez, Tomic, Murray, Tsonga. 14 sets won by Djokovic, only set where he lost more than 4 games - *drumroll* - Tomic in Shanghai, which went to a TB)

18 games lost in 10 sets in Beijing
25 games lost in 10 sets in Shanghai

Federer was in great form in Madrid 06 of course.
So this one would be close.

2. Cincy 06 vs 15 has to go to djoker, since fed was cooked.

3. Federer didn't play Paris in 06, so there's no point of comparision there.

 

[swordtennis]

Nadal stated this. Might want to go after him with the "eye test" and "prime peak weak era". Like to actually observe his response. Lol.

 

[Sport]

Well, you can find arguments for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic to have the highest level ever.

Federer: 2004, 2006 and 2007 seasons, wtih 3 Grand Slams each one.
Nadal: 2010 season with 3 Grand Slams on 3 surfaces, leading H2H in Grand Slams over both Federer and Djokovic.
Djokovic: 2015-2016 4 consecutive Grand Slams on 3 surfaces, plus leading overall H2H over both Federer and Nadal.

But the opinion of Nadal doesn't authomatically make Djokovic the player with the highest level ever. To consider something true only because an authority on the topic said so, is a logical fallacy (an invalid argument) known as Appeal to Authority:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

Agassi said Nadal is the GOAT. Does it mean that Nadal is really the GOAT just because Agassi said so? The opinion of authorities (tennis legends) is interesting, but not as relevant as statitics and records.

 

[Nadal_Django]

lol

Haha, RF-18 i see you've met the Lord Delusion.

 

[3lite]

Nadal stated this. Might want to go after him with the "eye test" and "prime peak weak era". Like to actually observe his response. Lol.

I mean.. if you read his book, "My Story", he literally spells it out for you. Both Nadal and Federer feared Djokovic even before his rampage in 2011.

 

[Steve0904]

Novak has beaten Nadal more so not really surprising. Pretty sure I'm repeating myself from some earlier point in a 10 page thread that was posted in 2017 though.

 

[3lite]

Absolute nonsense. Djokovic got to be the player he was in 2011-2016 because of having to play Federer & Nadal(2007-2010). Nothing happens in a vacuum, existing tennis players who set the standard force the up&comers to level up or die.

Nadal mauled Federer when he was at his best and Djokovic dismantled Nadal when he was at his best. Nadal's dominance would have loomed over all of 2011 as well if it wasn't for the discovery of gluten.

 

[swordtennis]

I mean.. if you read his book, "My Story", he literally spells it out for you. Both Nadal and Federer feared Djokovic even before his rampage in 2011.

Wow i never knew that or read the book. Def going to aquire a copy and read it. Great stuff picking the brains of these legends.

 

[ABCD]

But the opinion of Nadal doesn't authomatically make Djokovic the player with the highest level ever. To consider something true only because an authority on the topic said so, is a logical fallacy (an invalid argument) known as Appeal to Authority:

He is not authority on the topic, he is much more than that. Authority on the topic would be, as an example, Patrick Mouratoglou. Rafa talks about his personal experience, something that he physically experienced. His statement is effectively an account of event and no one can argue with that.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Meh. Neither Djokovic or Nadal have played a level that has caused them to pass Federer’s GS count.

Oh boy