Four each:Gonna go with Nole for this. Pretty much equal at the slams except Federer had that poor performance in 2004. Worth noting, however, that Federer also faced Nadal once more than Djokovic did. Difficult to compare peak levels between Federer and Djokovic for obvious reasons.
Masters is a clear win for Novak. 7 wins compared to Fred's 4. Plus, Novak won all 3 masters at least twice in this period. Fred only won Hamburg and Madrid. Federer has some Bo5 finals and didn't have byes in some of his runs, so that's a factor, but not enough to swing it in his favour. Novak also more successful against Nadal too.
Don't vote.Where's the "they are tied" option?
Maybe he’s talking about clay overall and not just the French Open?Four each:
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
It's the opposite in that case. Djokovic 12 matches, Federer 11.Maybe he’s talking about clay overall and not just the French Open?
Hmm, not sure where he got his numbers from.It's the opposite in that case. Djokovic 12 matches, Federer 11.
Let's just forget nadal wasn't big factor in either 2015 or 2016 (the years inflating djok numbers)2004-09 Federer
Matches won: 86.44%
Big Tournaments: 84.47%
Roland Garros: 86.49%
Vs top-10: 61.54%
2011-16 Djokovic
Matches won: 87.85%
Big Tournaments: 87.13%
Roland Garros: 87.18%
Vs top-10: 73.17%
2004 and 2009?Djokovic had the luxury of Crapdal in 2015-2016
2004..... Ok, but not 2009. Nadal won MC, Rome, Barcelona, and had Madrid final.2004 and 2009?
I'm not sure what you're talking about.2004 and 2009?
Nadal beat Djokovic 4 times on clay w/DC included as well.I'm not sure what you're talking about.
2004, yeah no nadal, but still plenty of RG champs and clay courters around.
2009, nadal won 2 clay masters, was world no.1 & had won 3 of last 4 slams. Soderling just happened out of nowhere
Haha forgot about 2015. Ok then, Fed faced Nadal when he was 'in-form' one more time than Djokovic.Four each:
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
The part in bold is not really fair. Federer would have much more success if the had to face 2014-2016 Nadal instead of peak Nadal. Of course you can only beat the player who is on the other side of the net, but bringing head to head against Nadal for the comparison is not fair IMO. Prime Nadal and 2014-2016 Nadal is not the same player by any means, even if it is the same person.Gonna go with Nole for this. Pretty much equal at the slams except Federer had that poor performance in 2004. Worth noting, however, that Federer also faced Nadal once more than Djokovic did. Difficult to compare peak levels between Federer and Djokovic for obvious reasons.
Masters is a clear win for Novak. 7 wins compared to Fred's 4. Plus, Novak won all 3 masters at least twice in this period. Fred only won Hamburg and Madrid. Federer has some Bo5 finals and didn't have byes in some of his runs, so that's a factor, but not enough to swing it in his favour. Novak also more successful against Nadal too.
I would agree that 2014-16 Nadal was definitely below the level of Nadal that Federer faced (especially 2015-16), but I think that 2011-13 Nadal is comparable. Federer beat Nadal twice between 2005 and 2009; Hamburg 2007 and Madeid 2009. He also had match point in Rome 2006. Djokovic beat 2011-13 Nadal 3 times, at Madrid and Rome 2011 then at Monte Carlo 2013. Outside of RG, Djokovic was 3-2 vs Nadal in this period. He then went on to have further success against a weaker Nadal in 2014-16.The part in bold is not really fair. Federer would have much more success if the had to face 2014-2016 Nadal instead of peak Nadal. Of course you can only beat the player who is on the other side of the net, but bringing head to head against Nadal for the comparison is not fair IMO. Prime Nadal and 2014-2016 Nadal is not the same player by any means, even if it is the same person.
I would agree that 2014-16 Nadal was definitely below the level of Nadal that Federer faced (especially 2015-16), but I think that 2011-13 Nadal is comparable. Federer beat Nadal twice between 2005 and 2009; Hamburg 2007 and Madeid 2009. He also had match point in Rome 2006. Djokovic beat 2011-13 Nadal 3 times, at Madrid and Rome 2011 then at Monte Carlo 2013. Outside of RG, Djokovic was 3-2 vs Nadal in this period. He then went on to have further success against a weaker Nadal in 2014-16.
I think Federer had the tougher Nadal, but it's not enough to dismiss Djokovic's greater success against Nadal IMO
Yes, this is a fair point. Fed may have had a good chance of beating Nadal in Rome 2006 had it not been Bo5. I doubt he wins Monte Carlo that year though, which was their only other non-RG Bo5 match on clay.Another factor, Roger had to play Rafa in 5 set masters finals. Rafa is a different beast in 5 sets on clay than 3 sets.
Even before Rafa lost some foot speed in 2009, Novak was showing some matchup problems with prime clay Rafa that Roger never had. But does that mean he’s better on clay than Roger or just had the better weapons vs Nadal?
I think it’s a tie, but OP has an agenda so didn’t want to include that as an option.
Yeah, those BO5 matches in 2006 were very important from the mental perspective, given that they were at the beginning of their clay rivalry.Still, it is what it is and Djokovic was more successful against the Nadal.Another factor, Roger had to play Rafa in 5 set masters finals. Rafa is a different beast in 5 sets on clay than 3 sets.
Even before Rafa lost some foot speed in 2009, Novak was showing some matchup problems with prime clay Rafa that Roger never had. But does that mean he’s better on clay than Roger or just had the better weapons vs Nadal?
I think it’s a tie, but OP has an agenda so didn’t want to include that as an option.
BerrettiniLOL Fed fans talking about Nadal's slight differences but if you ask them about Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Philippoussis they say that competition doesn't count.
Well, what they should tell you is that those guys put in more legit performances than you'd care to admit. Gonzo was absolutely awesome in AO 07, as Nadal would tell you, and the final was also high quality.LOL Fed fans talking about Nadal's slight differences but if you ask them about Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Philippoussis they say that competition doesn't count.
Nadal on clayObviously Djokovic matches up better with Nadal on clay with his two hander. Any idiot knows this. Federer’s one hander is susceptible to Nadal on clay. Federer on the other hand has beaten Djokovic multiple times on clay when he was past his best and djokovic was peaking. Federer can wrong foot Djokovic on clay like no other.
Nadal on clay
vs one-handed bh excluding Federer: 89.73% of wins
vs two-handed bh excluding Djokovic: 94.77% of wins
I'm saying that Nadal deals better with two-handers, whatever is the reason. This stat is clear.Are you trying to say that returning a high bouncing topspin shot on a clay court is easier with a one hander than a two hander? If you are welcome to the ignore list.
LOL Fed fans talking about Nadal's slight differences but if you ask them about Roddick, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Philippoussis they say that competition doesn't count.
How do you measure level of play objectively?More lies. No one says competition doesn't count, what they say is that level of play is more important than name.
Keep trolling putting Roddick in with Baggy, Gonzo and Philippoussis as well.
How do you measure level of play objectively?
Why was Nadal better in 2004-09?
It is hard to measure level when you have small differences between them but not if it is a moderate to big difference. A ton of people love and create hypotheicals to just favor Federer at times and he wins most of these matches but it woud be boring talking tennis if you dont debate level.How do you measure level of play objectively?
Why was Nadal better in 2004-09?
I can see only one way: win percentage stats over the field. In that case clay 2004-09 Nadal is slightly better than 2011-16, but the rest of competition on all surfaces in 2004-09 was not comparable to 2011-16. You can't have both. You have to be consistent.
It is hard to measure level when you have small differences between them but not if it is a moderate to big difference. A ton of people love and create hypotheicals to just favor Federer at times and he wins most of these matches but it woud be boring talking tennis if you dont debate level.
Using the word objective doesn't make you objective lol. Tennis is a zero sum game and every win or loss is relative to the field - and every field is different. Not to mention the thousands of permutations that can happen in every single match.
Your attempt to ignore judging actual match play is about as far from objective as possible. I use a combination of match stats and watching to determine level of play. Which you know.
I consider the three best years and three worst years all better in 2004-09.
04, 05, 09 > 14, 15, 16
06, 07, 08 > 11, 12, 13
2005 Nadal was better on clay (and even hard) than 2006 Nadal. 2006 Nadal was only better on grass.
Clay is pretty close though. Rome close. MC better in 2006 and RG close as well. Went unbeaten on clay in 06 and lost some matches but played far more of them. Competition tough in as well in both years. I think both are behind 07-08,10 and 12 and near par with 17.2005 Nadal was better on clay (and even hard) than 2006 Nadal. 2006 Nadal was only better on grass.
Forced errors as well is good one as well.Yeah sometimes it's two high quality matches and it's splitting hairs to pick. Other times one match is marred by poor errors and the other features good shotmaking and healthy winners to errors. Obviously you need to account for game styles and court speeds too but ignoring actual game play is silly...
Clay is pretty close though. Rome close. MC better in 2006 and RG close as well. Went unbeaten on clay in 06 and lost some matches but played far more of them. Competition tough in as well in both years. I think both are behind 07-08,10 and 12 and near par with 17.
Berrettini
Forced errors as well is good one as well.