Nadal (Wimbledon 2008) vs Djokovic (Wimbledon 2011)

125downthemiddle said:

Fed played BAD in 09 final imo, his serve totally bailed him out and he was for all the world looking like he was about to go down 2 sets to 0 to Roddick of all people.

Not sure (well actually I am) why that form is being overrated so badly.

Fed had just won RG in 09 finally remember and I think he was a bit flat for awhile, he also blew the USO 09 final if you recall.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

I said I removed two of the top 5 servers of all time, Roddick and Karlovic, to give a clearer picture and to make it more fair which still favored 2012 overall, but I'm not about to pump up Soderling who had a 17-14 record on grass before Wimbledon that year and an opponent in 2008 that Federer won 39% of return points against compared to 22% in 2009. It's not like Soderling just decided in 2009 to serve big since in 2008 he averaged 126 mph on the 1st and 107 on the 2nd. In 2009, he averaged 124 mph on the 1st and 107 on the second, and in both years served about 55% 1st serves. He served more aces in 2009 so let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he served better in 2009. That still doesn't explain why Federer had a -17% differential from one year to the next, even though he won both matches in straight sets, on the same opponent's serve without conceding that he returned worse in 2009.

Federer had two great returning performances, against Djokovic and Murray, so not sure how you think he didn't return well against Djokovic. Also, Haas didn't serve better than Djokovic did in 2012. Djokovic averaged 120 mph on the 1st and 94 mph on the 2nd and Haas averaged 119 mph on the 1st and 102 on the 2nd. Djokovic had 9 aces, 2 double faults and Haas had 11 aces, 5 double faults and they both served in the mid 60% range. Federer actually won more return points against the Djokovic 1st serve which was slightly bigger than Haas', 29% on Djokovic's compared to 26% for Haas, but Haas got his 2nd serve hammered by Federer even though his 2nd serve was bigger. Haas only won 45% of those points where Djokovic won 57% of his meaning Djokovic protected his 2nd serve a lot better.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

dunno what you are on about.

FEderer had a streak of 32/33 matches or something from Madrid 2009 to USO 2009 SF.

Federer was excellent in Wim 09 before the final. Form dipped in the final, was still pretty good.

choked the Montreal match vs tsonga, but was brilliant in Cincy SF/F beating Murray/Djoko back to back.
Even in the USO, he was brilliant in the QF/SF vs Soderling/Djokovic.

hence the final was a shocker, especially the serving.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

this is a joke. Malisse couldn't even do that much vs a hobbled Federer in Wim 12 4R.

If that was 2009 Soderling 4R, he'd have sent Federer packing.

Edit : Re: Soderling and reaching 4th round of Wimbledon for the 1st time, well, getting taken out by Nadal in 5 sets in 2007 and in straight sets in 2008 by Federer didn't help that cause, did it ?

Click to expand...

abmk said:

dunno what you are on about.

FEderer had a streak of 32/33 matches or something from Madrid 2009 to USO 2009 SF.

Federer was excellent in Wim 09 before the final. Form dipped in the final, was still pretty good.

choked the Montreal match vs tsonga, but was brilliant in Cincy SF/F beating Murray/Djoko back to back.
Even in the USO, he was brilliant in the QF/SF vs Soderling/Djokovic.

hence the final was a shocker, especially the serving.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

Malisse who has taken Federer to 5 at Wimbledon in the year he upset Sampras actually won a set in 2012 which is more than Soderling has ever done at Wimbledon. But yea let's hypothetically say Soderling, with a is 17-14 grass record going into 2009 Wimbledon is going to upset Roger Federer at Wimbledon in 2012. LMAO.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

yep, apparently only Djokovic can back up his serve. Soderling cannot improve upon that from 2008 to 2009. Genius at work !

Soderling served better AND backed up his serve better in Wim 09.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

okay let me get this straight, according to you his form was excellent but dropped a bit in the final in 09 but was still pretty good.

Yet in 2015 it was excellent in SF and dipped just like in 09 but not still pretty good.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

again, absolutely clueless stuff. Federer was hobbling around with back pain. He got lucky his opponent was Malisse who wasn't playing well in the match ...if it was a better opponent, he'd have sent Federer packing.
Benneteau nearly sent him out and Federer's condition was even worse in the 4th round match.

yeah, bring up a match in 2001 vs an inconsistent 19 year old federer because that is so relevant, but not that Soderling had just come off a great run at RG was playing well in Wim 09 and would be a fixture in the top 10 for 2 more years.

yeah, bring up Malisse-Fed match in 2001, but ignore Sod taking Nadal to 5 sets in Wim 07, also him reaching QF in Wim 10 !

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

Yea at RG versus Nadal. Two key points that you are missing. (1)Wimbledon is not clay and (2) Soderling matches up much better against Nadal than he does against Federer which is why he has pushed Nadal to 4 and 5 sets on grass. But yea let's hypothetically say that 2009 Soderling would defeat 2012 Federer even though he has never taken a set off Federer in 2 matches at Wimbledon just because he had a great run at RG. Not only is that clueless. It's pure lunacy. Who cares about 2010 Wimbledon when you are talking about his 2009 Wimbledon form?

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

From 2003-2008 Wimbledon, the worst Federer has ever done in returning against any opponent is Karlovic in 2004 where he won 29% of all return points. In 2009 Wimbledon, Federer went below that benchmark 3 times where he won 22% against Soderling, 26% against Karlovic and 28% against Roddick. Federer has never had worse returning numbers against Roddick since in 2003 he won 36% return points, in 2004 he won 39% and 2005 he won 41%. Yet some don't want to concede that Federer's return was not good in 2009? Step into the light guys.

Click to expand...

Athique Rehman said:

Funny how Nadal in a hypothetical situation is defeated by peak Federer or peak Djokovic. History tells us Nadal is 9-4 up in majors against Novak and 9-3 against Federer

Click to expand...

Hitman said:

Djokovic, but it will be much tougher than the 2011 final. Match up plays a massive part in tennis.

2015 Djokovic though could only be stopped by the peak form of Federer.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

Federer's returning in 2008-09 was below his returning in 2003-07 on grass. doesn't mean it was anywhere near as poor as you are thinking it to be. something less than absolutely stellar returning (2003-07 returning) isn't poor returning.
Federer didn't face anyone serving as well as Karlovic/Roddick/Soderling himself in 2009 as he did in 2008.

Roddick's Wim 09 final serving performance was also better than any of his previous ones vs Federer at Wimbledon. (better than 2004, which was his best serving among the 3)

2009 Wimbledon was also Karlovic's best Wimbledon run/best serving form. He was unbroken in the grass season until then (8 matches or so) ...served both Verdasco & Tsonga out of court.
Federer broke him early in the 1st set and then once more in the 2nd set with 2 excellent return games.

and again, you chose to ignore blatant realities put in front of you :

Even Haas was serving big (bigger than usual), playing well and Federer got a clear measure of his serve (won 36% of his return points vs Haas). Djoko in the QF won only 27% of return points in contrast. Yeah, Haas played better in the Djoko match, but a significant part was because he was allowed to.

And like I said before, the conditions in Wim 09 were faster than usual because of the hotter conditions. Commentators kept mentioning that in the final.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

I see Borg in the modern era as more of Djokovic type player, except probably playing with more margin and patience - similar strengths in terms of balance off the ground and serve/return.

Click to expand...

NoleFam said:

What do you mean? Overrate Nadal to build up Federer? 2007 is severely overrated. Neither of them played their best match in their Wimbledon careers in my opinion.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

Why in this hypothetical should we reduce the more advanced player's technology to the less advanced?

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

Anyway though, I don't agree he is only a product of his era, he sure uses a moden topspin game (which Borg originated) and the technology makes the insane spin possible, but he's still hitting with tons of force. And his movement is all time incredible.

Click to expand...

Dolgopolov85 said:

Because technology has progressed in the direction of making it easier for players to do whatever they please with the ball. So...


Which he originated some 40 years back. So you have to be kind of super biased by a recency effect to think Borg is going to play the same way with today's technology as he did back then. If he strove to play a completely freakish game back then with THAT tech, why wouldn't he do something completely unprecedented now? See, what you are doing is looking at his physique and extrapolating Borg as somebody who would play like a current player with his physique. But those current players aren't Borg; there is only one Borg. We do not have the ability to imagine what he would be able to do with a 100 sq in racquet and RPM. It is best to leave comparisons across era so far apart well alone. Can Fed volley better than Mac with his big fat 97 sq inch? Sure. Would he be able to do it with that tiny 65 sq inch head? Just how do we know?

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

Besides the point. Because the whole point is to adjust for that in the hypothetical by having them play under 1 set of conditions. In either case the player who had to change would obviously have to adjust. As I said before one solution would be to have the hypothetical match in inbetween conditions.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

If you think this hypothetical mind game is impossible to analyze based on the chasm between eras and the unknown of how players would adjust , then fine...that's one opinion. But the rest of what you wrote about Borg is irrelevant to the topic and superfluous.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

Anyways it is a fact that Nadal is further above his peers than Borg was on clay. That is one way to adjust for era and technology, is it not?

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

Also dear reader , please note hypocrisy of certain poster liking Dolgopolov85's post which suggests we can't compare eras, when this whole kerfuffle started because it was decreed that me saying Borg would lose in 4 was ridiculous, implying he could take it to 5 or even win! It was not said back then "we cannot compare".

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

Also dear reader , please note hypocrisy of certain poster liking Dolgopolov85's post which suggests we can't compare eras, when this whole kerfuffle started because it was decreed that me saying Borg would lose in 4 was ridiculous, implying he could take it to 5 or even win! It was not said back then "we cannot compare".

Click to expand...

zagor said:

I disagree I'm being hypocritical. Dolgo essentially said that you can't compare eras because we don't know how Borg would look/play if he grew up in modern era, it's a part of the same argument.

All thing being equal (which means growing up in the same era with all the benefits/downsides) I expect ATGs to have close matches, especially if they share the same favourite surface.

I can't know exactly how Sampras would look if he grew up in today or Fed if he did in the 90s but put them in the same era and I expect plenty of close encounters.

Furthemore, Borg was as much as dominant on clay in his day as Nadal was in his era. What Borg didn't prove is longevity (for obvious reasons) which Nadal did in spades.

Click to expand...

Dolgopolov85 said:

Since I have already said it is best not to compare, it implies that any comments suggesting Borg would win are also ridiculous. I do not have to make that express, but since you insist, here's a candy for you. Now go home.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

Why so hostile? I wasnt criticizing you in that post. Perhaps I have to make it express...

Click to expand...

Dolgopolov85 said:

This is a better solution (like The Don and Jong at Singapore) but even harder to imagine. Say you give mid 80s graphites to both. Still, what do we really know about how the two would play?


It is not. I repeat, we do not know what Borg would have played like in the current era so trying to imagine it based on how we have seen today's players play is not the way to go. You were doing that and hence I had to point it out.


Only by dint of longevity. Of course, that's not Nadal's fault but Borg already had 6 RGs when he left the game at the age of 26. So had he played on, he may have won more RGs. Does the greater number of RGs make Nadal the greater player at RG? Absolutely and by a huge distance. But it does not indicate anything about how a hypothetical match up would go simply because the game has changed way too much.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

Wasnt referring to you actually

Click to expand...

zagor said:

I disagree I'm being hypocritical. Dolgo essentially said that you can't compare eras because we don't know how Borg would look/play if he grew up in modern era, it's a part of the same argument.

All thing being equal (which means growing up in the same era with all the benefits/downsides) I expect ATGs to have close matches, especially if they share the same favourite surface.

I can't know exactly know how Sampras would look if he grew up in today or Fed if he did in the 90s but put them in the same era and I expect plenty of close encounters.

Furthemore, Borg was as much as dominant on clay in his day as Nadal was in his era. What Borg didn't prove is longevity (for obvious reasons) which Nadal did in spades.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

The rest is fine but your middle paragraph is dodgy. And several users in this thread have discussed hypothetical matchups like me and @zagor who agreed on Guga being a tough one.



How come you specifically took issue with my statement? Perhaps I need you to clarify and give me another candy.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

I disagree we can't compare certain aspects. Nadal has a superior physique regardless of era. It may or may not make a difference. He is also taller but not so tall it affects his movement negatively. That may or may not make a difference. I speculated very little about technique or how Borg would attempt to play except for Nadal's exceptional RPM which I surmised might have something to do with his physique as well as technique.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

And while I wasnt referring to you, you did compare eras with Guga.

It's a bit of a cop out to come in and just say you cant compare eras. If that's what you really think just say that. How come it came from him with all this other crap and only in response to me who dared to say Nadal would beat Borg?

Click to expand...

Dolgopolov85 said:

Oh dear, you are so thin skinned indeed. There was no specific reason other than it seemed like a good post to respond to in a very long thread that I am not interested in reading in detail. But thank you for barking, will take care not to next time, heavens no. For the record, I think Nadal would destroy Guga. Guga used poly IIRC so no equipment disadvantage there and it's quite comparable.




Which is not a sound inference because Dominic Thiem does hit similar RPM as Nadal and his physique is closer to Borg than Nadal.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

You're using the game of calling one thin skinned in response to your own emotional expression. when You originated that vibe in your response to my "snide" post. Before that, we had no issue.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

We agreed eras aren't comparable (or at least you asserted so), that the 90s was intermediate and not the same era, and now you are saying we can compare because poly was used. Okay.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

Do you have any tennis ranking all time at all? Maybe all time really is to hard to compare so what about Open Era? Or you can't compare eras? As I said, seems a bit of a cop out position and seemed to come with a lot of "pro Borg" stuff on the side.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

I think there is some nuance here where yes we can never know for sure (which is why it is fun to argue), but it seems a stretch to just insist we can't compare at all as a blanket rule.

If that is truly your position, then only one sentence needed to be written.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

Also dear reader , please note hypocrisy of certain poster liking Dolgopolov85's post which suggests we can't compare eras, when this whole kerfuffle started because it was decreed that me saying Borg would lose in 4 was ridiculous, implying he could take it to 5 or even win! It was not said back then "we cannot compare". Rather, arguments for Borg taking it to at least 5 were given!

Now, seems the position shifts to "we can't compare eras" when it's convenient but then also "Let's boost Borg up so you'll think he will do well in this hypothetical matchup while if you talk about Nadal's advantages, I'll switch to saying we can't compare the 2"

Click to expand...

Dolgopolov85 said:

Yes, indeed, we had no issue until you decided to be snide purely on a hunch and without provocation. Now why would you do that.


Please read my post carefully. I said the eras are too far apart to compare. There are factors which make the mid-late 90s players more comparable but these comparisons rarely come up because other than Federer they didn't produce an ATG. Kuerten at best and with 3 slams he is way down in the pecking order.


All time rankings are only based on achievements. A hypothetical one and one match up is an entirely different issue.


I think it can be fun but it usually doesn't end up being fun because people get so freaking attached to one or other player in the comparison. I am trying to keep it real, nothing more. Hypotheticals are fine as long as people don't argue very confidently about no. of sets as if they have any basis for saying so. Because even the basis is made up out of thin air and nothing more. To believe otherwise is to delude yourself and I don't care if that's you or NatF or whoever else. It's why I am rarely seen in the Former Players section; people hurling insults over Laver/Rosewall is too much crazy for me to handle.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Guessing this is aimed at me, stop being a clown please. Not sure what your problem is the last couple of days. Guess I offended you with some of my expressions? That's just how I talk, don't take it too seriously of literally...

I liked that Dolgopolov85 recognised how unique Borg was in his era. I glossed over the comparing era's stuff even though he's probably right. Comparing era's is probably impossible but I enjoy doing it, I try to compare relative to peers rather than in absolute terms. Which is what I did in our discussion.

My point was not that Borg would win or lose in five but that suggesting all he could manage was losing in four was really selling him short.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

Also, Thiem is 6 1 not sure about his physique. Andreev hit tons of RPMs as well. None hits RPM and hardness combo. Rafa hits with a ton of force (spinxspeed) almost sure his ball would be heavier than those 2. Anyways it was 1 idea as to why I think Rafa would win... not the be all end all.

Rafas 2008 RG more impressive than Borgs best run at RG and against a better opponent too!

Click to expand...

Dolgopolov85 said:

I am not sure what is meant by hardness or force. I know RPM and spin. Thiem matches Nadal on both. My point is that physical aspect is less important and has not much to do with what makes Nadal so hard to beat on clay. His reading of the clay court game ranks way up higher as a factor for me.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

The post wasnt directed at you though. People who were comparing eras in an argument were liking your post saying in essence we cant compare eras. That was my point.

Of course we cant know for sure but I dont think as far as hypotheticals go that it is this inconceivable mental gymnastics.

Would you be uncomfortable saying Peak Fed at Wimbledon would likely beat peak Becker?

Or Djokovic at AO would beat 5 foot 8 Rod Laver?

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

Disagree all the clay greats have that. Of course just physicality in a less than great player means little. But Nadal's physicality is what sets him apart from all the other greats who of course all have the pre requisites anyway.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

The 2 clauses in your last sentence connected by the word "but" mean the same thing.

Click to expand...

125downthemiddle said:

You're using the game of calling one thin skinned in response to your own emotional expression. when You originated that vibe in your response to my "snide" post. Before that, we had no issue.

We agreed eras aren't comparable (or at least you asserted so), that the 90s was intermediate and not the same era, and now you are saying we can compare because poly was used. Okay.

Do you have any tennis ranking all time at all? Maybe all time really is to hard to compare so what about Open Era? Or you can't compare eras? As I said, seems a bit of a cop out position and seemed to come with a lot of "pro Borg" stuff on the side.

I think there is some nuance here where yes we can never know for sure (which is why it is fun to argue), but it seems a stretch to just insist we can't compare at all as a blanket rule.

If that is truly your position, then only one sentence needed to be written.

Click to expand...

JackGates said:

I think Fed is so above the rest, that we don't even have to compare eras. Sorry, but in any freaking era to make 18 out of 19 finals and 23 semis and to be nr.1 at age 37, you have to be the goat, no matter what era. Nobody comes close.

You think if Rafa and Pete are losing to guys outside of top 100, that magically they won't be losing if they switch eras? Fed is so great, that competition doesn't even matter.
Also, when you lose 4 GS finals in your peak to Wawrinka/Murray type players, this means competition doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

JackGates said:

I think Fed is so above the rest, that we don't even have to compare eras. Sorry, but in any freaking era to make 18 out of 19 finals and 23 semis and to be nr.1 at age 37, you have to be the goat, no matter what era. Nobody comes close.

You think if Rafa and Pete are losing to guys outside of top 100, that magically they won't be losing if they switch eras? Fed is so great, that competition doesn't even matter.
Also, when you lose 4 GS finals in your peak to Wawrinka/Murray type players, this means competition doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

icedevil0289 said:

I don't even know how saying 2007 nadal wasn't a baby is an excuse for 2008 Wimbledon. I swear even the normally sane rafa fans are grating on my last nerves and now the dude has a **** easy draw. apparently fed fans need a good dose of humility, despite the fact that he actually just lost very recently and failed to defend his sunshine double, meanwhile rafa fans have gotten 10x more obnoxious with some other fan bases joining them. idc how petty this is, at this point I need for the guy to lose within the first 3 rounds.

Click to expand...

Djokovic2011 said:

Click to expand...

icedevil0289 said:

i know I'm being petty, I admit it.

Click to expand...