At this very moment who you rate higher: Djokovic or Nadal
- Thread starter lud
- Start date
The Fedfather
Legend
Really? Because the way I see it, Djokovic already had 2 easy years, as you call it, and he now has 12 Slams which means that Novak could go on to win the CYGS twice, which is virtually impossible, and that still wouldn't put him over 20. The question here is whether I missed something or you just failed at belittling Federer's achievements in a thread that had nothing to do with Federer in the first place?
O
OhYes
Guest
Even as biggest troll of all that pretends to be someone else from another forum, you are still here and still writing same rubbish.
Someone should give you a medal for effort, this is really something that very few men can or would do.
O
OhYes
Guest
You are right, I should give Fed another weak year like 2009, or Nole to stay injury free until the end of year(2016).
Reason why I'm belittling Fed's achievements you could find right after UO final was over between Nole and Stan. No one asked Fed fans to make so much belittling and obnoxious topics about Djokovic, yet Fed fans never fail to deliver.
O
OhYes
Guest
Unless you haven't noticed, Novak was recovering from injury.
Why are they playing that damn thing which is rated higher than Masters, and why all players want to participate manically collecting points in the second part of calendar year ?
Here were the highlights of Federer's career posted on ESPN during the US open. As you can all see nobody cares about the Tour finals, they are not as big and historic as the Olympics and Davis cup where Rafa as a clear edge over Djokovic, in addition to the slams.
The Fedfather
Legend
Have no idea what you meant to say by this.
Well that's about the only difference between you and those Fed fans. You fail every time. Stay classy.
O
OhYes
Guest
Livedeath
Professional
Rafa is ahead of Novak accomplishments wise, but not by much, but once you say that Rafa is a superior player, then i will disagree with you. If by base tennis skills we judge a player then Novak is a superior player, Rafa has not been able to perform well in conditions which are conducive for a player to showcase his core tennis skills. Where Rafa excels is the clay where the conditions perfectly match his game, and with his unique and singular quality of adding extra bounce with exorbitant amount of spin in his shots he has been able to leverage this aspect to its maximum on clay surface. His records speak for itself.
Once we consider other aspects of like how he has been able to reinvent himself, the ability to adapt to other aspects of the game, off late either he has been too inflexible to make necessary amendments, or he has reached the limit of his efficacy. I do agree that his progress has been stymied due to his injuries which have come in his career intermittently, but yet he does not fall in the category of Delpo where he had start all over again.
As some of the posters have said here before myself, Rafa is undoubtedly a superior player than Novak as far as clay is concerned, but in other facets of the game Novak is better.
5555
Hall of Fame
talicnitom
Rookie
I had my own system for years, and it is steel the same. To avoid all subjective criteria I create a GOAT point system (but it is also subjective in how much points is each worth). I think this is pretty good at least for compare latest generations (Agassi, Sampras, Fed, Rafa, Nole…).
YE#1 - 1 point
GS - 1 p
WTF - 0,5 p
M - 0,25 p
GS F - 0,2 p
bonus:
CGS - 1 p
a week at no1 - 0,01 p (100 weeks = 1p)
(CM - 0,5 p, CGS + CM + WTF = 2p)
4 in a row?
If difference between 2 players is < than 1p than you need a closer look at h2h, competition, other titles, W-L record etc..
Fed: 5 + 17 + 6x0,5 + 24x0,25 + 10x0,2 + bonus: 1 + 3,02 = 37,02
No1e: 4 + 12 + 5x0,5 + 30x0,25 + 9x0,2 + bonus: 1 + 2,2 = 30,53 (+1 if YE#1 for 2016, 90% done)
Sampras: 6 + 14 + 5x0,5 + 11x0,25 + 4x0,2 + bonus: 2,86 = 28,91
Rafa: 3 + 14 + 1x0,5 (if OG counts same as WTF) + 28x0,25 + 6x0,2 + bonus: 1 + 1,41 = 28,36
Rafas big issue is that he, unlike every other of the greats, never had his own era. He never manage to dominate more than one year, never putted together 2 YE#1. No1e is also better in 2 of 3 surfaces. Feds issue is having negative H2H with both main rivals, catastrophic against Rafa and very poor against both in slams and overall finals.
If No1e finish this year as no1 (almost given if healthy), No1e will definitively hammer it.
YE#1 - 1 point
GS - 1 p
WTF - 0,5 p
M - 0,25 p
GS F - 0,2 p
bonus:
CGS - 1 p
a week at no1 - 0,01 p (100 weeks = 1p)
(CM - 0,5 p, CGS + CM + WTF = 2p)
4 in a row?
If difference between 2 players is < than 1p than you need a closer look at h2h, competition, other titles, W-L record etc..
Fed: 5 + 17 + 6x0,5 + 24x0,25 + 10x0,2 + bonus: 1 + 3,02 = 37,02
No1e: 4 + 12 + 5x0,5 + 30x0,25 + 9x0,2 + bonus: 1 + 2,2 = 30,53 (+1 if YE#1 for 2016, 90% done)
Sampras: 6 + 14 + 5x0,5 + 11x0,25 + 4x0,2 + bonus: 2,86 = 28,91
Rafa: 3 + 14 + 1x0,5 (if OG counts same as WTF) + 28x0,25 + 6x0,2 + bonus: 1 + 1,41 = 28,36
Rafas big issue is that he, unlike every other of the greats, never had his own era. He never manage to dominate more than one year, never putted together 2 YE#1. No1e is also better in 2 of 3 surfaces. Feds issue is having negative H2H with both main rivals, catastrophic against Rafa and very poor against both in slams and overall finals.
If No1e finish this year as no1 (almost given if healthy), No1e will definitively hammer it.
Tenisfan3
Professional
Always knew Martina was a better player than Novack. Would probably take him in a 1 on 1 even now....
uscwang
Hall of Fame
My system:
Larry's Tennis Greatness Index (Sep 1, 2016)
1. Federer 463 (out of 500 pts)
2. Sampras 392
3. Djokovic 366
4. Nadal 361
5. Lendl 354
6. Connors 349
7. Borg 310
8. McEnroe 284
9. Agassi 262
10. Becker 207
11. Edberg 198
12. Wilander 182
Murray 147
IMHO, the most important and telling criteria for greatness include: GS titles, weeks at #1, winning percentage against top 10 players, and total non-GS titles. The top 12 GS winners in the open era are ranked in each category. Each player receives points calculated as a percentage of the maximum achievement in each category.
___________________________________________________________________________
GS titles (The points are doubled for the GS titles category since it reflects the most prestigious achievement. * Players winning Career GS get 1 bonus GS count.):
1. Federer* 17+1=18 (200 pts)
2. Nadal* 14+1=15 (167)
2. Samprasl 14 (156)
4. Djokovic* 12+1=13 (144)
5. Borg 11 (122)
6. Agassi* 8+1=9 (100)
6. Connors/Lendl 8 (89)
9. McEnroe/Wilander 7 (78 )
11. Edberg/Becker 6 (67)
Murray 3 (33)
__________________________________________________ ______________
Weeks at #1:
1. Federer 302 (100 pts)
2. Sampras 286 (95)
3. Lendl 270 (89)
4. Connors 268 (89)
5. Djokovic 214 (71)
6. McEnroe 170 (56)
7. Nadal 141 (47)
8. Borg 109 (36)
9. Agassi 101 (33)
10. Edberg 72 (24)
11. Wilander 20 (7)
12. Becker 12 (4)
Murray 0 (0)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players)
__________________________________________________ ______________
Winning percentage against Top 10 opponents:
1. Borg 70.00% (100 pts)
2. Djokovic 68.5% (98)
3. Becker 65.0% (93)
4. Federer 64.9% (93)
5. Nadal 64.8% (93)
6. Lendl 64.0% (91)
7. Sampras 63.6% (91)
8. McEnroe 56.9% (81)
9. Agassi 54.8% (78 )
10 Murray 54.7% (78)
Connors/Edberg/Wilander no data, estimated to be 50% (71)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_-_men's_singles)
__________________________________________
Total non-GS titles (ranked by total titles):
1. Connors 109-8=101 (100 pts)
2. Lendl 94-8=86 (85)
3. Federer 88-17= 71(70)
4. McEnroe 77-7=70 (69)
5. Nadal 69-14=55 (54)
6. Djokovic 66-12=54 (53)
7. Borg 64-11=53 (52)
7. Sampras 64-14 = 50 (50)
9. Agassi 60-8=52 (51)
10. Becker 49-6=43 (43)
11. Edberg 42-6=36 (36)
12. Murray 39-3=36 (36)
13. Wilander 33-7=26 (26)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_-_men's_singles)
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Clipped out of image, but ol' RF acknowledged as the #1. Nice list here, and agree w/ Djok over Nadal.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Djokovic had 3 easy years (2014-2016) and he still lost to Nishikori, Querrey and Wawrinka 3 (THREE!!) times.
Players prime Fed would never lose to at his peak (except maybe Wawrinka once,as he did lose to Safin once, but he definetely would not lose 3 times to Stan.)
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Don't want to sound rude, but 2009 was a stronger year than 2016. No comparison really.
2009 was actually one of the strongest years in recent times.
N
nowhereman
Guest
According to this list, you must acknowledge that Federer is the greatest of all time because he is number 1 and this is a credible source.
N
nowhereman
Guest
Nadal is still greater for now, but only slightly IMO. Novack will probably surpass him in the near future.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
2009 puts today to shame, chump. Today is the equivalent of 2002.
You wanna belittle Fed? Let's belittle Novak then, shall we? He won half his slams in the weakest "era" (if you want to call this two year void that) ever - where his biggest rivals were either geriatric or suffering from injury.
O
OhYes
Guest
Nadal was injured in 2009, Novak was having serious crisis that year. Really tough year.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You do know that a strong year doesn't consist of just 2 players, right?
2009 had a very strong top 10, certainly much stronger than the top 10 of the last 2 years.
For the record, Nadal in 2009 was still better than the Nadal of the last 2 years, despite his injury problems.
Rafa the King
Hall of Fame
2009 was a good year, I liked the field. Shame Rafa got injured, would have been interesting to see how he would have done had his knees kept up for 2 more months.
O
OhYes
Guest
Right. But when you don't have only 2 players who can beat you in the final, it really doesn't matter who the other guys are in the field.
When Rafa is healthy he wins even the haters knows this.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Djokovic wasn't beating Federer in any big matches in 2009 and you know it. Unless you think he would have beaten still prime Fed at Wimb on grass when he couldn't even do it at the USO on a more favorable surface.
Bottom line, Fed in 2009 would have been a favorite over Djokovic in every slam.
You forget that Delpo actually did beat Fed in a GS match that year and was very close to doing it again at the FO. Also Roddick was very close to beating him at Wimb too. These 2 made life much harder for Federer than Djokovic did that year.
So really, as long as Delpo and Roddick were threats to Federer, who cares if Djokovic wasn't really at an amazing level? At least there were other guys to substitute him.
Djokovic in 2009 was still better than anybody from the lost generation and the current younger generation.
TupeloDanger
Professional
As long as we can all agree they're both below Borg.
O
OhYes
Guest
Novak beat Fed at AO previous year in case you forgot, that should be big match for Fed. In case you forgot Djokovic has beaten Federer 5 times, while Delpo first win against Federer was at UO 2009.
And don't talk about Roddick who played 24 times against him and won only 3 ! Some obstacle.
It's like making a case of Monfils being Djokovic biggest rival.
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
So what you're saying is that all the titles that Rafa has won off clay are flukes?!?
That's harsh..
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yeah, brilliant comparison...notNovak beat Fed at AO previous year in case you forgot, that should be big match for Fed. In case you forgot Djokovic has beaten Federer 5 times, while Delpo first win against Federer was at UO 2009.
And don't talk about Roddick who played 24 times against him and won only 3 ! Some obstacle.
Monfils has never beaten Djokovic. Roddick at least beat Fed 3 times.
Roddick played better against Fed in that Wimb final than Monfils ever played against Djokovic. What you've just made is a silly comparison. Comparing Roddick to Monfils
Djokovic defeated prime Fed just once in a slam bach then, exactly as many times as Delpo.
And don't put Djokovic in the same category as Nadal. Nadal was by far the bigger threat back then. Djokovic even playing better would not have impacted Fed that much as you make it sound.
atp2015
Hall of Fame
So what you're saying is that all the titles that Rafa has won off clay are flukes?!?
That's harsh..
I did not say/imply that. I like to cap titles to 3 for reasons I have explained in my post.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Nadal
14>12
14>12
They ranked Borg > Nole, but I know you strongly dispute this notion in the past.
cockneyDjoker
Hall of Fame
Djokovic because of his consistent level of dominance. Djokovic unlike Nadal had his own era just like Federer and Sampras before him. Djokovic is more feared on the tour than Rafa. Players step on the court against Nadal thinking they have a chance of winning where with Novak they don't believe they can win. Even Nadal said that after Doha that he couldn't beat Djokovic when Djokovic is playing at such a high level, that tells you what you need to know on who the greater player is between the two.
atp2015
Hall of Fame
It makes a lot of sense. Borg did not compete in AO - not because he was injured, but AO was not considered a great major title. His win percentage is higher than Novak's (89%-86%) in majors.
Even though Borg did not win USO, he competed in 4 finals and has a win percentage of 81%.
Borg - A(>90% win percentage) in FO, Wimby. B in USO.
Novak - A in AO, B in FO, Wimby and USO (does not exceed 90% win in 3 majors).
Isn't it similar to a student with As in 2 subjects and a B in one, but another student with A in only 1 subject and B in others?
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Nadal. Tennis careers are judged primarily on the number of majors won. Until Novak gets #15, he is not above Nadal, even with way more weeks at #1 and a more varied tennis resume. Nadal has many things going against him in any GOAT discussion. The fact he spent more weeks than anyone else as the #2 player in the world speaks volumes. I don't care if he basically owned Roger in majors, H2H is not a stat. Fed beat the field while Nadal beat Fed.
5555
Hall of Fame
What is the standard of proof here? Are you saying the threshold requires 100% certainty?
Last edited:
More YE at #1, probably 5-3 end of 16
More YE at #1, probably 5-3 end of this year. Davis Cup is a Team sport. The Olympics are only played once every four years, therefore, neither of these stats should be considered in a players resume.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
How is Wawrinka a real rival then? Crap H2H against Weakeraovic.Novak beat Fed at AO previous year in case you forgot, that should be big match for Fed. In case you forgot Djokovic has beaten Federer 5 times, while Delpo first win against Federer was at UO 2009.
And don't talk about Roddick who played 24 times against him and won only 3 ! Some obstacle.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
And comparing Roddick and Monfils is just plain dumb. Roddick is a totally different class of player.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Because Stan beat ND 3 times in slams, Roddick never beat Fed in a slam
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Everywhere else though Roddick is a better player than Stan.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
are you saying roddick was better outside of the slams than wawa or better overall?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Outside slams, not altogether.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Maybe Fed is better than ND.
using that logic would be ugly if you compared how nadal did against fed to other players...
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Similar threads
