abmk
Bionic Poster
it was about individual matches, not whole tournaments.
Nadal has no real rivals in tennis record books
- Thread starter clayqueen
- Start date
it was about individual matches, not whole tournaments.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Do you actually know what you are talking about? Nadal doesn't have a negative h2h against any of the big servers and Djokovic does - against 3 of them.
Nadal vs Roddick 7:3
Nadal va Ljubicic 7:2
Nadal vs Karlovic 5:0
Nadal vs Isner 6:0
Nadal vs Raonic 7:2
Nadal vs Kyrgios 1:1
Djokovic vs Roddick 4:5
Djokovic vs Ljubicic 7:2
Djokovic vs Karlovic 1:3
Djokovic vs Isner 8:2
Djokovic vs Raonic 8:0
Djokovic vs Krygios 0:2
TrustTheNinja
Semi-Pro
lmao thats from my local newspaper.
Hitman's Gurl
Professional
Hitman's Gurl
Professional
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
You should check the facts before making your pronouncements
Nalbandian vs Roddick 2:4
Nalbandian vs Ljubicic 4:5
Nalbandian vs Karlovic 2:1
Nalbandian vs Isner 2:1
Nalbandian vs Raonic 1:0
abmk
Bionic Poster
and maybe if had actually read what I wrote, I didn't talk about their records, but rather returning.
nadal has a better record vs big servers because of his better/more solid serve/hold game. (which is a factor that I already mentioned )..
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Splitting hairs.
I agree Fed's 04 final would beat anyone but where would you rank Fed's 05-08 finals among that list? In particular I thought his 08 final performance was lightning. And 06 very good too.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
well thats an ignorant and foolish way of looking at it!
Federer's 04 final was against a near weaponless Hewitt who had lost peak footspeed (his greatest asset) and was also developing a mental block vs Federer - a player he used to dominate in their early meetings (his second greatest asset)!
Federer nearly lost to an aged Agassi (more about condition than years) in 04 and Baghdatis (sic) took a set off him.
Nadal dominated 2010 USO from front to back, losing only one set in the final. he was in complete control!
abmk
Bionic Poster
1. hewitt was at his peak in 04-05 , just as he was in 01-02 ( he had lost half a step , but had beefed up his serve and groundstrokes ). you calling him near weaponless is your plain ignorance.
2. agassi in USO 04 QF was way better than djoko in USO 10 final.
3. rafa faced a really weak draw until the final in USO 10 ..only djoko in the final was decent.
4. People do compare individual matches , you know, not the whole tournaments ...or is that too tough to understand ?
If we're talking about whole tournaments, federer's USO 06 was his best overall at the USO.
hell, in 2007, he took out roddick, davydenko, djokovic back to back without losing a set.
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, its not. But the nuances would be lost on someone like you - who thinks nadal is some sort of genius, LOL !
Fiero425
Legend
So few times he's that dominant! It's like he has to go away for a while to get rejuvenated! From '08; took it to Roger winning on clay and grass! Injury-ridden '09, but came back to take 3 majors in '10! Nole owned it over for a while; legitimately beating a "prime" Rafa 7 straight times! Roger had a resurgence in '12, then Rafa came back strong in '13! It been downhill ever since; lucky to take '14 FO and a couple Masters! Without Roger this season, Nadal might have owned it this season, but like Nole in '11, he's just been so close!
Mazz Retic
Hall of Fame
Well done clay queen. I might not agree with your post but you certainly riled a lot of people.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I'd put 06 and 08 probably up there with safin's performance in USO 00 final.
05 and 07 rank lower IMO. I'd say he was capable of increasing his level if required, but the actual performances were not as dominant.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Hewitt was not peak in 04/05. he was slow (for him) and starting to develop hip issues. and so what if he beefed up some, he was still a primarily defensive player
with his defenses in noticeable decline.
oh please! Agassi was not prime in 04 USO. he still had offensive play, but his defenses had notably declined leaving him far fewer options against a player like young Federer (in his baggy shorts). yet he still nearly won their match!
Nadal made the entire tour look weak from the French Open on, especially at the majors, with his new found different spin using Babolat's new string and after being rejuvenated after one of his injury breaks the previous year.
its stupid to compare just one match when there would be different opponents in these hypothetical matchups. different characteristics will change the outcome. better to look at the entire tournament.
Mazz Retic
Hall of Fame
Not sure why you think Hewitt declined so much. I'll even give you he wasn't peak but he was number 3 in the world (after uso 04 arguably 2). He did lose some speed but he was still a great champion and yes he did build a mental block against Federer. That should be evidence of how scary federer was as hewitt feared no one else in that period bar him. Everyone knows federer cost roddick potential slams but he did the same to hewitt in this period.
Fiero425
Legend
Hewitt won matches with his legs; being overpowered, he wasn't given the chance to win! You have to give more credit to his opponents that came into their own! One of my faves was Safin; too bad he was a psycho! He had the most complete game, but only took 2 Majors, both over apparent GOAT's at the time; Sampras USO final and Federer "down under" in '05 semi! He had the serve, the power, touch, and nerve, but like any artist he might go insane on court; sorta like Ilie Nastase!
TheFifthSet
Legend
Going into the 2004 US Open final Hewitt was on insane run, reeling off 22 match wins to only 1 defeat, losing 5 sets in the process, and only 1 in his last 13 wins. In the eyes of most commentators, there wasn't much separating Federer and Hewitt before the final, and it was actually predicted to be a cracker. He was pretty good in 2005 as well. Not much difference from his peak result years, there was just a certain junkballer in his way.
kabob
Hall of Fame
I think you guys are forgetting that Hewitt had the same chronic hip injury as Guga Kuerten and it cut out a lot of his mobility later in his career. Hewitt credits advances in medicine for having a successful hip surgery and keeping his career going whereas Guga having the same surgery 10 years prior pretty much ended his career.
Mazz Retic
Hall of Fame
Agree. Thankfully can't say the same about Hewitt. He put everything in to becoming a better player and I truly think he was in 04/05 despite his best results coming earlier. He was unfortunate like safin to have many injuries which meant he wasn't a contender post 06 (people say 05 which is true in hindsight but he still put up good results at the back end of 06). Safin will always be an enigma and that will probably enhance his reputation like ille. In saying that I believe drive, motivation, and commitment are often forgotten talents which people don't give enough credit to. He was definitely lacking in those.Hewitt won matches with his legs; being overpowered, he wasn't given the chance to win! You have to give more credit to his opponents that came into their own! One of my faves was Safin; too bad he was a psycho! He had the most complete game, but only took 2 Majors, both over apparent GOAT's at the time; Sampras USO final and Federer "down under" in '05 semi! He had the serve, the power, touch, and nerve, but like any artist he might go insane on court; sorta like Ilie Nastase!
abmk
Bionic Poster
1. Hewitt's decline was in 06, not in 04-05.
He was far more consistent in slams in 04-05 than he was in 01-02.
in all the 7 slams he played in 04-05, he only lost to eventual winner of the slam - federer 5x, safin 1x, gaudio 1x
in 01-02, he was losing to alberto martin, escude, moya etc. in slams.
His win %s in those years are similar.
2. agassi was playing at prime level in USO 04. The wind helped him as well, making it a shootout in the last 2 sets. Else, federer would've probably closed it in 4 sets. He was fine movement wise as well, though obviously not peak level. His movement was compromised in 05, not in 04.
3. Re : 2010, the tour was weak, nothing to do with nadal.
Nadal only faced 8 top 10 players before the YEC IIRC -- that doesn't have to do with him, rather the tour being weak.
in any case, talk was mainly about USO 10.
youzhny was tired after back to back tiring matches; verdasco sprayed after having a good start in the 1st set ; Simon was mediocre - he had got the news of his first baby and probably thinking about that....etc.
But the hip surgery took place in 2008, well before 2004/2005 when he was playing his best tennis.
TheFifthSet
Legend
I've already addressed the Isner and Karlovic examples in other exchanges that I've had with you, but here we go again:
Djokovic has won 38.2% of his return points against Isner, Nadal only 33.9%. This is despite the fact that 9 of 10 of Djokovic's and Isner's matches have taken place off clay, whereas only 2 of the 6 encounters between Nadal and Isner were off the dirt. Also, in their 2012 IW showdown, Djokovic won a much higher % of return points but Isner managed to eke out two tiebreakers. With Karlovic, it's a lot simpler: they've played once in the past 8 years (their head-to-head is 1-2, not 1-3). The Madrid match was before Djokovic was at or near his peak. Nadal has fared better against those two because his serve has been more clutch and he hasn't let them get that odd break. It has little to do with returning ability.
Very selective comparison, too. Here is a fuller list of their records against some of the biggest servers they've faced:
Djokovic vs
Tsonga: 16-6
Roddick: 4-5
Ljubicic: 7-2
Cilic: 14-1
Karlovic: 1-2
Raonic: 8-0
Kyrgios: 0-2
Isner: 8-2
Feliciano Lopez: 8-1
Berdych: 25-2
Anderson: 5-1
Soderling: 6-1
Safin: 0-2
Ancic: 3-1
Pim-Pim: 1-0
Muller: 4-0
Gulbis: 6-1
Querrey: 8-2
Fish: 7-0
132-31: 80.9%
Nadal vs
Tsonga: 8-4
Roddick: 7-3
Ljubicic: 7-2
Cilic: 4-1
Karlovic: 5-0
Raonic: 7-2
Kyrgios: 1-1
Isner: 6-0
Lopez: 9-4
Berdych: 19-4
Anderson: 4-0
Soderling: 6-2
Safin: 2-0
Ancic: 4-2
Pim-Pim: 0-1
Muller: 5-1
Gulbis: 7-0
Querrey: 4-1
Fish: 8-1
111-29: 79.2%
And that's not even taking into account that this doesn't isolate the return, nor does it account for how many times they played on surfaces that blunt the serves of the opposition in question (i.e clay, slow HC). Success against big serves is different from success against big servers; @abmk was clear about what he meant.
How is he splitting hairs? You chose to distort what he was saying. Your fault. You're also the one that started the back-and-forth, by splitting hairs.
Last edited:
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
80.9 - 79.2 is splitting hairs. Also take into account that Nadal was playing the likes of Ljubicic, Feli & Roddick as a teenager.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
If you can't return the serve how can you beat big servers?
abmk
Bionic Poster
when did I say nadal can't return serve ? just that he's worse at it than djoko(&fed/murray) .
he beats them by holding more solidly than djoko (being a bit more clutch)
(was mainly thinking about their records vs karlovic/isner there )
as FifthSet's post pointed out, given a wider range of big servers, djoko's record is a tad better.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Is this a serious reply? YOU started the exchange by spin-doctoring what @abmk was arguing. Additionally, your language was provocative ('do you have any idea what you're talking about' ring a bell)? If you have an issue with another posters 'hair-splitting', don't tear down arguments that they weren't making, and don't rattle away at their supposed lack of knowledge without bringing some actual facts to the table. Of course, the instant somebody pokes holes in your comparison of hand-picked h2hs, you call it hair-splitting. Where was this non-combative attitude in your original post directed at him? Answer: nowhere to be found. Typical bait-job-followed-by-a-contrived-attempt-at-deescalation.
As for your attempt (ahem) at an argument: Nadal played those three 8 times as a teenager, Djokovic played them 4 times, and 6 of the 9 wins the three notched over Nadal were after his teenage years.
Last edited:
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Always add the caveat 'in my opinion' after you've made sweeping statements when the evidence is to the contrary.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Whatever nuance you want to put on it. But it's hardly worthwhile to make pronouncements about who plays big servers better with a margin of 1.7%. It's such a waste of time.
TheFifthSet
Legend
But he stated, in plain language, that it wasn't about who 'plays' big servers better, it's about who returns them better. Overall success was not factored in, which is why he included somebody like Davydenko, whose return, as a stand-alone shot, is better than Nadal's despite trailing him in win% against just about any type of player you can think of.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Mazz Retic
Hall of Fame
I can't remember which commentator it was but they were saying how Hewitt hit at a perfect pace. It wasn't too fast so the opponent could use the pace but it wasn't slow enough for them to dictate either. It was in between these two which made him awkward to play for so many.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hewitt's groundstrokes are underrated, he could unload with winners when he wanted to - off the forehand he could mix it up and change the direction on the ball well. His backhand was very solid, he had a good backhand DTL, though he tended to go cross court.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Hewitt in his 2004 USO run lost the same amount of sets as Nadal leading up to the final (zero) since you're using that as an indication of form.
That really says something about the current field.
Rafa is playing better than he did last year, but he is still so far away from his best tennis, it's outstanding, that he still wins everything on clay so far.
His backhand and his serve look very good, but his movement and his forehand are levels below his peak and he still plays the same style he did ten years ago.
Let's see if Fed can challenge him in Roland Garros.
The big 4 dont need their peak tennis to beat the tour right now. T
Mazz Retic
Hall of Fame
The only thing which I thought was a weakness or lesser stroke was his serve. I don't know his percentages but just from instincts I recall him not getting his first serve in as often as he needed. That and it was never a weapon but only really became a problem after his decline. As a caveat on grass it was quite good and skidded through.
Fyi I found your youtube channel and all I can say is thank you. You have uploaded some great matches/highlights.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hewitt had a good first serve, very good placement - when he got it in. He led Federer in terns if aces in 2004. But his serve percentage was terrible often. I think had he remained injury free then he might have seen his serve percentage trend upwards a bit with the rest of the tour.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
How do you measure who returns them better?
eliars
Hall of Fame
More than just a player, he seems in some ways to be an explorer, venturing where no athlete has.
Nadal is afraid of the dark, very family-oriented, not good with hot plates, comfort-seeking rituals on court and this guy calls Nadal an explorer?
He might be an explorer of his own rectal area, but he's not a bloody explorer.
Nadal is afraid of the dark, very family-oriented, not good with hot plates, comfort-seeking rituals on court and this guy calls Nadal an explorer?
He might be an explorer of his own rectal area, but he's not a bloody explorer.
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Bring an injured Djokovic to play an in-form Nadal and see what happens. In spite of Djokovic's recent domination he only leads their h2h by 3.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
2005 was Hewitt's best year slam wise. 1 final and 2 semis, losing them to a red hot Safin and peak Federer. He was losing to much better players than in 2001 or 2002.
Hewitt might have won a slam in 2005 without peak Fed. He could have also been a 3 time slam finalist in 2005 at least.
TheAssassin
Legend
Decline (and injuries) didn't strike Rusty at that point yet. He was doing a pretty good job back in 2004 and 2005, at the Majors he was always denied by the eventual champion, with peak Federer standing out in 2004. And although he had great results against Federer before that year, you can't deny that Federer was on a whole new level from 2004 onward (at least that's the case on hard courts).
Agassi was past his prime of course but he displayed a prime level performance against Federer. Just like Federer has a memorable performance here and there even today, but not very often. That's what happens to all players as they get older, nothing complex.
Since you are talking about the entire tournament form when mentioning Nadal only losing one set during the 2010 US Open, then you shouldn't ignore the fact Hewitt didn't drop a set before the 2004 US Open final, while he won two tournaments prior to that and played a Cincinnati final, resulting in a pretty solid form and winning streak going into the USO final. He just couldn't do anything to stop the forehand tsunami.
The bold part is really interesting. You talk how Hewitt and Agassi were already past their best when Federer beat them at the 2004 US Open, but who did Nadal face and make look weak at the Majors in 2010? Freaking Melzer and Soderling at Roland Garros? Playing 5 setters in early Wimbledon rounds and then facing Berdych in the final? Let's not forget Djokovic, who barely got past Federer as well as Troicki in the 1st round, gave us better USO performances so I guess that should be equally unimpressive as Fed's wins over "declined Hewitt and old Agassi". Same applies for Murray at Wimbledon.
In the end I would honestly say that the tour did a pretty good job at making itself look weak despite Nadal's great performances that year.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
So when Federer and Djokovic were cleaning up in their dominant years, they didn't make the tour look weak, instead the tour WAS weak.
But when Nadal does the same thing, then he makes the tour look weak.
Double standards much?
