GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Nadal is one of the greatest players ever, I don't doubt he can compete.
I think outside of clay the H2H is 16-9 in Nole's favor.
2015 ATP WTF RR: Djokovic (1) vs. Federer (3)
- Thread starter Krish872007
- Start date
I think outside of clay the H2H is 16-9 in Nole's favor.
Right, but I think it's somewhat telling how much closer it becomes at the biggest tournaments.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
well, you can slice and dice it a million ways. If you only look at finals Nole leads 13-10.
duaneeo
Legend
As if Djokovic has something new to show.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
hehe, yeah Novak has hell of a surprising weapons to show up for us
So full of surprises 
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
That's all I'm saying. As for the extra finals they are nice and should be used to indicate who the better player is at an event if two players are tied with the same number of titles which is the case with Djokovic and Nadal at the USO but other than that, they don't mean that much to me in the grand scheme of things.
With respect to h2h, I do think it is a useful tool to gauge two ATGs who who have played each other so many times. The fact that Nadal is tied with two USOs and has a slightly better winning record vs Djokovic at the USO doesn't speak highly for Djokovic's dominance over Nadal at that event IMO. You would think given Djokovic's superiority over Nadal on hc that Djokovic would have a few more USO titles than Nadal which for me is the real decider to determine which player is greater at an event.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
The point is Djokovic vs Nadal at USO is marginal either way. There's not much in it. Djokovic fanatics are claiming that such things offset Nadal's 9 RGs lol. At least with Federer or Sampras vs Nadal, you can make the argument that they are better at 3 slams because they are well and truly ahead of Nadal at 3/4 slams. There's a clear difference in titles. Wrt to Djokovic vs Nadal, it is disingenuous to claim that Nadal is "only" better at one slam because Djokovic barely has any advantage at USO(even if we accept his overall record is better) and even at Wimbledon it is close....Nadal still has an extra final and Nadal faced peak Fed on grass. Djokovic at his best slam is about half as good as Nadal at his best slam(!) and outside of their best slams, Nadal is easily better as he has shown he can win all slams even outside of his best whereas Djokovic has time and again shown he cannot win all slams outside of the AO despite his gamesmanship and weak competition.
JohnnyMac Fan!
Legend
How that prediction came out for you?Djokovic in 2! 22-21 by end of play!
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Right so first, extra finals while tied on titles doesn't make much difference but when Djokovic has one more Wimbledon you THEN point out that Nadal has an extra final. Like extra finals are nothing, but an extra final actually beats an extra title. Eh?
Also if you're going to say that Nadal faced peak Federer then might be worth considering that Djokovic was stopped at the US Open 3 times by Federer who was still pretty much in his prime all 3 times while Nadal never had to face him and in fact had a very easy draw both US Opens he won and in 2010 Djokovic had been playing his worst tennis since becoming a top 10 player. It works both ways.
Look I see it as simple, Djokovic doesn't have a massive lead but he has a better record at 3 of the 4 slams. 4 more titles at AO, 1 more title at Wimbledon and same titles but 3 more finals than Nadal at US Open.
I suppose if Murray won RG next year beating Federer, you and cc0509 would say Murray had the better record at RG because he had the same amount of titles but led the RG H2H?
Ps, funny a fed fan talking about weak competition. Fed couldn't win RG in 2004 BEFORE Nadal even showed up, could he?
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
Are all Djokovic fans dense or what? I even conceded that I would rather have Djokovic's record at the USO than Nadal's...I am just saying those are only used as tiebreakers when slam totals are equal and not really relevant in the grand scheme of things. You cannot equate a "better" record like that to 9 vs 0.
Nadal would have been favourite in the 2010 and 2013 USOs vs Fed if Fed had got there anyway.
As for weak competition, at least Fed could win the FO final "Federer fan" vs someone not named Nadal. Djokovic typically crapped his pants. No amount of time wasting between points, cheating, fake MTOs will give him a better record than Nadal. PERIOD.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
WHERE did you say you'd rather have Novak's record? I can't see that in any of what you posted. And you have the nerve to call me dense. I'm a Fededer fan first and foremost, but Djokovic is a big favourite too, I just don't like fanboys of any fanbase. As I've said numerous times, Djokovic doesn't dominate and his record is not as dominant as Nadal at RG, what I was arguing about was that having a 2-1 H2H over someone at an event makes you a better player at that event when the other guy has reached the final more times - it's not about H2H otherwise you could wind up with player A being better than player B who is better than Player C, but C is better than A. It's not me who is dense mate. This is a funny part I forgot about -
Well he IS only better at one slam. Even if he and Novak were dead even at 3 slams, that means he is not better at any of those 3 slams. If he's even with Novak at an event how can he be better? And I'd say Novak is slightly ahead because he has gone deeper at the UO, only stopped by fairly prime Federer 3 times
Fed nearly crapped his pants twice in RG 2009 and what is his excuse for losing at RG 2004? At least Djokovic managed to beat Nadal there and he lost against a slam winner, Fed had Soderling. Stan had beaten Nadal and Fed in slams and beaten Fed at MC when Fed had the chance to finally win that without Nadal around.
I take it you're a fan of Fed and Nadal and being a Nadal fan you come out wit accusations about Djokovic of cheating fake MTOs etc? Seriously? Yeah dude, he learnt all that from Nadal.
Basically, both cc0509 and whoever he was arguing with were partly wrong. Nadal is the better player because he has more slams, but Djokovic does have a better record at 3 of the slams and a more complete record across the masters too, Nadal being the better player is mostly due to his clay genius. Don't see what's wrong in admitting this, it still counts. They're just different player, Nadal is utterly dominant on a surface and a good all rounder, Novak is a better all rounder but not as good on one single surface.
Last edited:
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
I said this in the other post ""even if we accept his overall record is better"" in reference to their USO records. Continue being dense though.
Djokovic is a time rule abuser and a fake MTO taking cheat. References to Nadal are neither here nor there. The part in bold shows you are being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative...Fed-oops ND fan!
As for RG 2004 - same as Noquack's excuse for losing AO 2014 to Stan and USO 2014 to Nishi
(at least Kuerten had established claycourt pedigree!).
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Please forget about the word "dominance". I used it and it was a mistake. What is clear is that Nole has a better record at 3 of the 4 Slams, and that includes the USO.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
I said this in the other post ""even if we accept his overall record is better"" in reference to their USO records. Continue being dense though.
Djokovic is a time rule abuser and a fake MTO taking cheat. References to Nadal are neither here nor there. The part in bold shows you are being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative...Fed-oops ND fan!
As for RG 2004 - same as Noquack's excuse for losing AO 2014 to Stan and USO 2014 to Nishi
Well excuse me for not reading every post you'd made on this thread. It wasn't in your reply to me so it's you being dense for assuming I had read all your other posts. And that's not even you admitting that, it's playing a hypothetical situation.
Hahaha references to Nadal are neither here nor there? Why? This is about 2 players, Djokovic and Nadal, so if you want to start insulting Djokovic and calling him a cheat etc, why can't I bring up the fact Nadal is known for doing the exact same thing? Sorry dude, you're a hypocrite and you've not got a leg to stand on. Very poor attempt to ignore the fact Nadal was doing it before Djokovic (not that either one is half as bad as made out)
No the part in bold says you have no logic. But no point arguing with you, any person who has to bring up fake MTO, cheater etc every chance they get, is obviously a fanboy/troll and not capable of any sort of unbiased discussion.
It's funny you keep calling me a Djokovic fan. Fed is and will always be my number one player of all time and it was a pleasure to see him win the other day and keep ahead in the H2H which no doubt annoyed the Djokovic fan boys. And that's the thing, when Novak fanboys have a go at Federer, I waste no time in putting them in their place. I've even done it when they have a go at Nadal. But you're quite obviously a Djokovic hater doing the same thing to a different player. So I will point out how you're gods also have a few stains on their records.
The point about Guga is what I meant. It doesn't have to be Nadal to beat you, it wasn't like the only time Federer didn't have Nadal he won, because first time he didn't win.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
Ummm that was in a post addressed to you. Thank you for admitting you didn't even read it. Another veronique/chico noquack fanboy. I'm not surprised. You can try to act like a Fed fan or whatever, it doesn't matter.
The part in bold means nothing. The bottom line is, Nadal is a much better player. Whether that is to do with one event or 567 events is irrelevant, as irrelevant as Djokovic leading at certain events by 0.5%.
Guga was an established multiple time FO champion when he beat Fed. Noquack lost to a first time finalist who had lost in R1 the year before
The more pertinent point is, Roger has never lost a FO final to someone other than Nadal. Period.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Is Stan better than Rafa at AO? That should tell you everything you need to know about using H2H to compare who is better at a slam .
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
I agree with your point, but Nadal and Wawrinka are 1-1 at the AO.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
But who won the slam final?
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
That seems very arbitrary.
A better example would be Djokovic vs. Coria at the French Open.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Ummm that was in a post addressed to you. Thank you for admitting you didn't even read it. Another veronique/chico noquack fanboy. I'm not surprised. You can try to act like a Fed fan or whatever, it doesn't matter.
The part in bold means nothing. The bottom line is, Nadal is a much better player. Whether that is to do with one event or 567 events is irrelevant, as irrelevant as Djokovic leading at certain events by 0.5%.
Guga was an established multiple time FO champion when he beat Fed. Noquack lost to a first time finalist who had lost in R1 the year before
No I know what post, but you said you conceded you'd rather have Novak's record, and that isn't what you posted. Just a hypothetical "even if we say he has the better record"
Nadal is a better player, but ther's no harm in saying why he is better which is because he's a good all rounder but amaing on one surface. Nole is a better all rounder but not as amazing on his best surface. Nadal is the better player but doesn't mean Novak isn't better in some areas.
No surprise you can't get this. Do you notice YOU are the one insulting a player, calling him names as well as saying he's a cheater etc? Do you think this is what a fair unbiased poster does, or do you think it's what a fanboy/hater/troll does? Think hard now.
About RG, Fed also never beat Nadal did he? And I suppose it's better to lose to Soderling in the quarters than it is to make the final and lose to a slam winner? Back to the stupid Sampras fans who argue he's better at Wimbledon because he never lost a final.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not insulting Federer, just saying all players have marks on their record. Federer at his best would have never lost to Djokovic at Wimbledon or the USO, probably not to Nadal either. But that doesn't mean he didn't also have some bad losses.
Funny you talk about Vero. You've got under 100 posts here. I've debated and argued against her Fed hatred for YEARS now, while you were not here. And most of her bile is always based around boasting about her favourite who is NADAL. Djokovic is a distant second for her. Yet even she can sometimes give props to Federer.
I'm all for fairness. Funny how you ignored that I took issue with the same poster you did for saying that Djokovic was better everywhere except RG - see below
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Ha! Didn't even think of that one. No of course he's not, Nadal is a 3 times finalist there.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Does the same not apply for Djokovic and Nadal at the US Open? Djokovic is a 6-time finalist there.
ETA: Sorry, I seem to have gotten mixed up here. Disregard my post.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
My issue is not with saying Djokovic is better at Wimbledon or USO(USO is arguable but like I said I would take Novak's record but I could also see why others would take Nadal's). But the problem is when you (generic) claim that this is akin to Nadal being BETTER than Novak at the USO. The fact of the matter is Nadal away from his best slam is still better than Djokovic(5 vs 5, but Nadal has won everything).
I did not say it is better to lose earlier than in a slam final. I'm saying as soon as he got someone non Nadal in the RG final he took the chance. Djokovic couldn't. I don't care that Fed never beat Nadal(I'd rather the RG trophy than have him beat Nadal w/o a trophy ala Djokovic). Djokovic deserves every bit of hate he gets...no wonder the crowds don't like him because of his antics.
I'm not saying Novak isn't better in some areas than Nadal. We're shouting past each other here. GabeT is insinuating that Djokovic is already greater than Nadal which is pure nonsense.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Yes Nadal has won all slams which Djkovic hasn't.
Going slam by slam, Djokovic has a better record at 3 of the 4.
Nadal dominates one slam far more than Djokovic does.
Overall Nadal still ahead of Djokovic in greatness.
My only point here was Djokovic had a better record at the USO because 3 extra finals were more important than a 2-1 h2h which I explained meant you could have a situation where 3 players were all better than eachother with no solution. Also Murray could beat Fed and win RG and instantly be better at RG.
As for other things, saying Djokovic deserves the hate he gets is pathetic. Nadal is far worse at MTO and excuse making and even he doesn't deserve the hate he gets. I don't like Murray but would never say he deserves to be hated, these are all basically good guys. Shame there are psters like you who must hate a player and use every chance to have a go at them. You're no better than Chico or Vero.In fact I can't even imagine Vero saying Fed deserved to be hated.
As for RG, playing Soderling is easier than playing Stan who had won a slam and has beaten Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in slams.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
That's not a fact. It's debatable. Outside of their best Slams:
Djokovic-Nadal
Titles: 5=5
Runners-up: 8>6
You might think Nadal has the better record, but I think Djokovic has the better record, because he has two more runners-up, and better results overall. It's not a fact that Nadal is better outside of their best Slams.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
If Federer abused the time rule, took fake MTOs, bounced the ball 50 times extra before important points, grunted louder on important points and faked claps only when the opponent then he'd deserve the hate too. He deserves the hate on the court. Off the court I don't know any of them so can't comment.
Wawrinka was only a slam champion before RG because Djokovic couldnt keep him in check. Nadal was injured in AO 14 and Murray in slams is basically useless(just because Djokovic couldnt beat him in 2 slam finals it doesn't mean Murray is some sort of benchmark)...and Federer this year on clay lost to people like Kygrios and got pushed by Cuevas lol.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
Nadal has won each slam outside of his best slam. Djokovic has not. The discussion ends there.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Could you show me the rulebook which states that winning all Slams has precedence over having more runners-up? If you can't, no, the discussion doesn't end there, and you should learn what a "fact" is.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
No one cares about who is the runner up? What?
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Another opinion. You know what they say about them. They're like certain orifices. Everybody has one.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Have fun with the runner up thing
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
Well Djokotrolls claim 10>14 so obviously everyone has an opinion...but when you know you have to bring up runner ups to mask lack of a slam on a surface then the argument is already lost.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
Exactly. Great all surface fair sportsman Novak Djokovic does not have a slam at each event outside his best slam. Evil claycourting moonballer Nadal does. So let's say runner ups>>>>>>>>>>>>>all slam wins.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Like you said, they're insecure fanboy trolls.
No, it isn't. Stop being a troll by pretending your opinion is fact.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
Most REASONABLE people would see it as fact. Having all slams away from your best slam is a big deal. No one cares about runner ups outside of resident forum trolls.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Frankly, only idiots would see it as fact, because it simply isn't a fact. Do you even know what a "fact" is?
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, 25 runner ups are still less than a slam winner. It says all about the lack of mental strength if one is not able to take home a slam. Mentality is a huge deal in sports.Exactly. Great all surface fair sportsman Novak Djokovic does not have a slam at each event outside his best slam. Evil claycourting moonballer Nadal does. So let's say runner ups>>>>>>>>>>>>>all slam wins.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Federer doesn't, he's not perfect though, he can be ungracious in post match interviews and not credit his opponent. Maybe it's just being number 1, because Nadal and even Djokovic have followed him.
You are a Nadal fan right? Nadal takes ages between serves, complains when he gets called on it, grunts loud on points, takes MTO at key points in the match, makes injury excuses every time he loses (you of course do it wit the AO 2014 despite the fact Stan was a set up before Nadal even got injured) He doesn't fake clap (neither does Djokovic, he claps for real) he just grimaces when his opponent plays a great shot. He even lied about challenging a point at the WTF so he could get a replay and then had the nerve to call out the tournament director when they wouldn't buy it. But that's fine, because it's Nadal, right? Still the level of hate he gets is uncalled for.
Murray has also beaten Nadal in slams as far back as 2008 when he was a "baby" and could have beaten him the year before if he wasn't a sperm. Murray is on a level with people like Hewitt and certainly tat guy Nadal beat to win his first RG, miles better than Berdych and everyone Nadal beat in the US2010 including lacklustre Djokovic. Fed also made the Rome final so was going into RG with decent form. Stan is easily better than someone like Nalbandian who was from Fed';s era, both great players n their day.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
If idiots would see it as fact, you would too...so that automatically precludes that possibility.
Fedalforever
Semi-Pro
Being ungracious in post match interviews doesn't in any way affect the opponent. That's different from cheating.
Djokovic doesn't clap. Show me an instance where he claps when the opponent is AHEAD in the match(not against some qualifier or mug player). Djokovic is a cheat, bottom line.
Murray was a sperm in 2007? Wtf are you on about? Murray is only on Hewitt's level because Djokovic lost 2 slams to him. Ditto with Stan. If Federer had lost 2 slams to Nalbandian and Roddick, then they'd be great players too lol.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Pretty sure Djokovic has clapped while behind. But according to you everyone is a mug so it wouldn't count anyway.
Again Nadal has done all the same things Djokovic has done and worse and you still love him. You are every bit as bad as veroniquem and chic. Bottom line. A playing cheating had nothing to do with what was being discussed anyway but you have to bring it up because of your huge hatred of one player. Just like fed fans hated Nadal, nadal fans now hate Djokovic.
Lol how did Hewitt get his slams? Beating old man Sampras and who in 2002 for his second slam? Yeah that's roght Nalbandian who never even made a slam final after that. Murray would easily win wimbledon with that draw. Tge dude almost beat Nalbandian at Wimbledon in I think he first season on the main tour. He also beat Roddick there as a novice
I don't like Murray but respect to him he beat a peak Nadal at the us open in 2008. Why did the great us open player Nadal allow that to happen? Murray also as painful as it is to admit, routine Fed on grass at the olympics so not too shameful djokovic losing to hin there the following year.
3fees
G.O.A.T.
what you seen was Djokovic 1.0 vs Federer 2.0 and Djokovic is still in the knockout semi finals with Frederer. Federer 1st serve here was in 1st class.
You seen Djokovic 2.0 vs Nishikori 1.0,, 61 61
Federer 1.5 vs Nisikori 1.25,, 75 46 64, Federer 1st serve here was in coach class.
Cheers
3Fees
You seen Djokovic 2.0 vs Nishikori 1.0,, 61 61
Federer 1.5 vs Nisikori 1.25,, 75 46 64, Federer 1st serve here was in coach class.
Cheers
3Fees
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
USO is not arguable. It is close, meaning everything can still change before they both retire, but, as it stands, it is not arguable.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes it is. It is absolutely arguable. It depends whether or not one gives ample credence to more slam finals to determine whether a player is better at a slam. For me Nadal and Novak being tied at two USO titles and Nadal having the 2-1 winning h2h takes precedence over the extra finals Novak has. If Novak was so much better than Nadal at the USO he would have more USO titles and given the fact that Novak is a superior hc player to Nadal, Novak should have more USO titles. Reaching more finals and failing to win them is not necessarily a positive for Novak in this discussion. TITLES MATTER MORE IMO and there is no substitute for winning the title. The history books currently have Novak and Nadal tied with 2 USOs.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
We are comparing achievements not head to head. (Especially in an event where they have met so few times but regardless)
There is nothing debatable about 2 titles + 4 finals > 2 titles + 1 final.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
(titles matter more doesn't = finals don't matter at all. Or winning % for that matter )
Similar situation for grass and Wimbledon
Federer: 7 W titles + 3 finals > Sampras: 7 W titles + 0 final
ETA: the thing about Djokodal is that they're still active. So it is very imaginable that Nadal could win an extra title at W or USO. That's what he needs to recover the edge in those events.
Similar situation for grass and Wimbledon
Federer: 7 W titles + 3 finals > Sampras: 7 W titles + 0 final
ETA: the thing about Djokodal is that they're still active. So it is very imaginable that Nadal could win an extra title at W or USO. That's what he needs to recover the edge in those events.
Last edited:
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Nice to see how Nadal's monumental choke against Fabio Fognini has helped him cement himself above Djokovic at the US Open, considering they were on course to play each other in the quarters, Djokovic was there waiting. Even when Rafa loses, he still wins.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
