2015 ATP WTF RR: Djokovic (1) vs. Federer (3)

[cc0509]

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.

I'm not saying that Nadal's failure to make it to Djokovic or Federer in the past has been a positive thing because obviously the further you make it at a slam the better but FOR ME I see Nadal and Djokovic tied at two USO titles and slam titles are the main goal for these ATGs not making a final. If Djokovic had two more USO titles, I would have no hesitation in saying he was the superior USO player but with two titles apiece, I'm not feeling the Djokovic superiority. He lost too many USO finals IMO. On top of it all, Nadal leads their h2h at the USO 2-1. You can try and dismiss that but what it tells me is that when those two players faced each other at the USO, Nadal was a tad better. Obviously it's marginal but it is what it is. For example when you look at the Federer-Nadal h2h at the AO which is 0-3 for Federer, you can still look at the fact that Federer has three more AOs than Nadal and thus is the superior AO player but with Djokovic and Nadal at the USO you can't do that at this stage when both have the same number of titles IMO. It's a subjective opinion but that's how I feel about it.

 

[cc0509]

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.

IMO there is something debatable about it. Of course it means that Djokovic has been more consistent at the USO than Nadal has but with two titles each (and hello titles are what matter most) it's very difficult to say Djokovic is superior. Given his hc pedigree he should have more USO titles than Nadal if you really want to say he is superior. That's the way I see it and I know some others agree with me and others agree with you. That's the way it goes. It's not an open and shut conversation.

Let's look at it this way, is anybody going to say a one-slam wonder who has made only one final at a slam is less successful than a player who has made four finals at the same slam but never won the title? Maybe you would but I sure wouldn't.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I'm not saying that Nadal's failure to make it to Djokovic or Federer in the past has been a positive thing because obviously the further you make it at a slam the better but FOR ME I see Nadal and Djokovic tied at two USO titles and slam titles are the main goal for these ATGs not making a final. If Djokovic had two more USO titles, I would have no hesitation in saying he was the superior USO player but with two titles apiece, I'm not feeling the Djokovic superiority. He lost too many USO finals IMO. On top of it all, Nadal leads their h2h at the USO 2-1. You can try and dismiss that but what it tells me is that when those two players faced each other at the USO, Nadal was a tad better. Obviously it's marginal but it is what it is. For example when you look at the Federer-Nadal h2h at the AO which is 0-3 for Federer, you can still look at the fact that Federer has three more AOs than Nadal and thus is the superior AO player but with Djokovic and Nadal at the USO you can't do that at this stage when both have the same number of titles IMO. It's a subjective opinion but that's how I feel about it.

I agree with you that it is subjective, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion on it. No issues with what you feel. But on that same note, for me, failure to even make it to the showdown, which should have happened this year, because you lose to a lesser opponent in my eyes doesn't put Nadal ahead in my opinion. Had that match happened this year, had Nadal not choked in epic fashion against Fognini, I don't think you and I would be having this conversation.

That loss to Fabio Fognini is the perfect example of demonstrating that tennis isn't boxing, this isn't truly one on one, it is against a field of players. And at the US Open, Djokovic is better against the field than Nadal.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I agree with you that it is subjective, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion on it. No issues with what you feel. But on that same note, for me, failure to even make it to the showdown, which should have happened this year, because you lose to a lesser opponent in my eyes doesn't put Nadal ahead in my opinion. Had that match happened this year, had Nadal not choked in epic fashion against Fognini, I don't think you and I would be having this conversation.

That loss to Fabio Fognini is the perfect example of demonstrating that tennis isn't boxing, this isn't truly one on one, it is against a field of players. And at the US Open, Djokovic is better against the field than Nadal.

Meh, I think he's just lucky to be the fittest dude on the entire planet. Rafa had to miss 2 years with injuries also. I agree he has an argument to be better than Rafa at the USO. I wouldn't tell any Novak fan they're wrong, but I don't feel like he's done more than Rafa there tbh besides 2011.

 

[RF-18]

I'm not saying that Nadal's failure to make it to Djokovic or Federer in the past has been a positive thing because obviously the further you make it at a slam the better but FOR ME I see Nadal and Djokovic tied at two USO titles and slam titles are the main goal for these ATGs not making a final. If Djokovic had two more USO titles, I would have no hesitation in saying he was the superior USO player but with two titles apiece, I'm not feeling the Djokovic superiority. He lost too many USO finals IMO. On top of it all, Nadal leads their h2h at the USO 2-1. You can try and dismiss that but what it tells me is that when those two players faced each other at the USO, Nadal was a tad better. Obviously it's marginal but it is what it is. For example when you look at the Federer-Nadal h2h at the AO which is 0-3 for Federer, you can still look at the fact that Federer has three more AOs than Nadal and thus is the superior AO player but with Djokovic and Nadal at the USO you can't do that at this stage when both have the same number of titles IMO. It's a subjective opinion but that's how I feel about it.

Djokovic has two more finals there and no h2h can make up for that because in this sport the results are the first priority. And with Djokovic's results at the USO, he is better.

Tennis is not a 1v1 format where only two players clash in one tournament, you play against a field. It's time for you to start realize tennis is not what you think.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Meh, I think he's just lucky to be the fittest dude on the entire planet. Rafa had to miss 2 years with injuries also.

Shame. But it is what it is, Djokovic didn't take a sledgehammer to Nadal's knees. In sport, you don't get points for not being able to compete.

 

[RF-18]

Hey, Gary20 is back btw! @Fedalforever

 

[MichaelNadal]

Shame. But it is what it is, Djokovic didn't take a sledgehammer to Nadal's knees. In sport, you don't get points for not being able to compete.

Hence the reason I wouldn't argue the point. I just think Novak has been fortunate there more than I feel he's the better player.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Djokovic has two more finals there and no h2h can make up for that because in this sport the results are the first priority. And with Djokovic's results at the USO, he is better.

Tennis is not a 1v1 format where only two players clash in one tournament, you play against a field. It's time for you to start realize tennis is not what you think.

Before this year, I always put Rafa ahead of Novak at both W and USO. The reason being, he had overall more success. He had more titles at USO, but before this year, he had more finals that Djokovic at W. Many put Nadal ahead of Djokovic at W for that very reason, he made five straight finals, despite a losing H2H in slam finals, and Djokovic having a positive H2H in slam finals at W. After this year, Djokovic took over. Now, I have used that very same analogy at the US Open for Novak, just like I did for Rafa at W pre 2015, to me, I think that is balanced. If some don't agree, their choice, but clear to me that after this year Novak is more successful at USO.

Nadal is still the greater player overall, 14 is greater than 10, and that gap is very big. I don't see it as a small gap, like a few others do. Djokovic has a lot of work to do yet, but using the metric of who is better at USO, for me Novak has now taken it, just like Nadal had it at Wimbledon until this year.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Hence the reason I wouldn't argue the point. I just think Novak has been fortunate there more than I feel he's the better player.

You don't need to argue. For me, being fit is part of the sport, shame for Rafa he is injury prone. You can call him fortunate, I'll call him overall better and we'll leave it at that.

 

[cc0509]

Djokovic has two more finals there and no h2h can make up for that because in this sport the results are the first priority. And with Djokovic's results at the USO, he is better.

Tennis is not a 1v1 format where only two players clash in one tournament, you play against a field. It's time for you to start realize tennis is not what you think.

You are not going to convince me that Djokovic is vastly superior to Nadal at a slam where they both have the same number of titles and where one of his biggest rivals who is known as a clay court player first and foremost has a superior h2h albeit a slight one. Give it a rest. Come back to me when Novak has a couple more USOs than Nadal and I'll gladly agree with you.

 

[MichaelNadal]

You don't need to argue. For me, being fit is part of the sport, shame for Rafa he is injury prone. You can call him fortunate, I'll call him overall better and we'll leave it at that.

We will, no need to sound so serious lol, my life is unaffected by what either of them do.

 

[cc0509]

I agree with you that it is subjective, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion on it. No issues with what you feel. But on that same note, for me, failure to even make it to the showdown, which should have happened this year, because you lose to a lesser opponent in my eyes doesn't put Nadal ahead in my opinion. Had that match happened this year, had Nadal not choked in epic fashion against Fognini, I don't think you and I would be having this conversation.

That loss to Fabio Fognini is the perfect example of demonstrating that tennis isn't boxing, this isn't truly one on one, it is against a field of players. And at the US Open, Djokovic is better against the field than Nadal.

IMO Djokovic is more consistent than Nadal at the USO no question but when they both have the same number of titles, it's hard for me to say Djokovic is vastly superior despite the extra finals. Each to his own.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

We will, no need to sound so serious lol, my life is unaffected by what either of them do.

This is a tennis forum. I don't mind having a serious conversation here once in a while. My life is will go on also, like it always has.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

IMO Djokovic is more consistent than Nadal at the USO no question but when they both have the same number of titles, it's hard for me to say Djokovic is vastly superior despite the extra finals. Each to his own.

Like I said, had Nadal not choked against FF, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. Anyways, lets move on.

 

[MichaelNadal]

IMO Djokovic is more consistent than Nadal at the USO no question but when they both have the same number of titles, it's hard for me to say Djokovic is vastly superior despite the extra finals. Each to his own.

It's ok CC, we know the truth

This is a tennis forum. I don't mind having a serious conversation here once in a while. My life is will go on also, like it always has.

Watch a Rocky movie or something

 

[RF-18]

Before this year, I always put Rafa ahead of Novak at both W and USO. The reason being, he had overall more success. He had more titles at USO, but before this year, he had more finals that Djokovic at W. Many put Nadal ahead of Djokovic at W for that very reason, he made five straight finals, despite a losing H2H in slam finals, and Djokovic having a positive H2H in slam finals at W. After this year, Djokovic took over. Now, I have used that very same analogy at the US Open for Novak, just like I did for Rafa at W pre 2015, to me, I think that is balanced. If some don't agree, their choice, but clear to me that after this year Novak is more successful at USO.

Nadal is still the greater player overall, 14 is greater than 10, and that gap is very big. I don't see it as a small gap, like a few others do. Djokovic has a lot of work to do yet, but using the metric of who is better at USO, for me Novak has now taken it, just like Nadal had it at Wimbledon until this year.

I felt the same as you. I never argued that Djokovic was better at Wimbledon or USO before he won them this year, because he didn't have the results. Now when he won both this year, it's pretty clear who surpasses who. If we understand that in sports results is what matters. And in that matter Djokovic is better at USO, aswell as in wimbledon and AO.

Nadals slam tally over Djokovic's may seem big but Djokovic has so many things over Nadal wich is not normal when you are 4 slams short that the gap decreases immensily.

 

[RF-18]

We will, no need to sound so serious lol, my life is unaffected by what either of them do.

LMAO

 

[RF-18]

You were the one who brought it up and then you tell him not to be so serious lol

 

[Deleted member 77403]

It's ok CC, we know the truth



Watch a Rocky movie or something

You know...I might just do that! Who need Nadalovic?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

You were the one who brought it up and then you tell him not to be so serious lol

MN is cool.

 

[cc0509]

Like I said, had Nadal not choked against FF, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. Anyways, lets move on.

All Djokovic has to do is win another title or two at the USO (assuming Nadal doesn't win another) and then I'll be happy to agree that Djokovic > Nadal at the USO. It's kind of perplexing to me that Djokovic doesn't have a couple more USOs than Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I felt the same as you. I never argued that Djokovic was better at Wimbledon or USO before he won them this year, because he didn't have the results. Now when he won both this year, it's pretty clear who surpasses who. If we understand that in sports results is what matters. And in that matter Djokovic is better at USO, aswell as in wimbledon and AO.

Nadals slam tally over Djokovic's may seem big but Djokovic has so many things over Nadal wich is not normal when you are 4 slams short that the gap decreases immensily.

I do agree Djokovic has many things. However 14-10 in my eyes is still a very gap, Djokovic needs another year like 2011 or 2015 for me to pull even. I have no issues stating that overall Nadal is still the greater player and rightfully so.

 

[MichaelNadal]

MN is cool.

Thanks, are you going to see Creed?

LMAO

I know you can't fathom the fact that I have other interests. May it forever sting that ass no matter what happens in tennis, I'm here with the same attitude, you'll have to wrap your head around it one day.

 

[cc0509]

I do agree Djokovic has many things. However 14-10 in my eyes is still a very gap, Djokovic needs another year like 2011 or 2015 for me to pull even. I have no issues stating that overall Nadal is still the greater player and rightfully so.

 

[RF-18]

You are not going to convince me that Djokovic is vastly superior to Nadal at a slam where they both have the same number of titles and where one of his biggest rivals who is known as a clay court player first and foremost has a superior h2h albeit a slight one. Give it a rest. Come back to me when Novak has a couple more USOs than Nadal and I'll gladly agree with you.

I didn't say he was vastly superior, did I? I just said he is better thanks to him having better results.

Come back to me when Nadal doesn't lose against Fognini. Also Nadal has missed two USOs since 2010.

How anyone can put significance in a h2h is beyond me. How can Djokovic play/have a chance to beat Nadal if the guy does not participate? You realize how flawed it is?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Thanks, are you going to see Creed?

Of course, do you even need to ask?

 

[cc0509]

I felt the same as you. I never argued that Djokovic was better at Wimbledon or USO before he won them this year, because he didn't have the results. Now when he won both this year, it's pretty clear who surpasses who. If we understand that in sports results is what matters. And in that matter Djokovic is better at USO, aswell as in wimbledon and AO.

Nadals slam tally over Djokovic's may seem big but Djokovic has so many things over Nadal wich is not normal when you are 4 slams short that the gap decreases immensily.

No, Djokovic is better than Nadal at W and the AO. At the USO they are tied and obviously at the FO Nadal is better. The bottom line is however that when you have a gap of four slams, it's impossible to argue that Djokovic is greater overall despite his better weeks @ #1, That is fanatic talk but doesn't represent the real world interpretation as @Hitman admits.

 

[cc0509]

I didn't say he was vastly superior, did I? I just said he is better thanks to him having better results.

Come back to me when Nadal doesn't lose against Fognini. Also Nadal has missed two USOs since 2010.

How anyone can put significance in a h2h is beyond me. How can Djokovic play/have a chance to beat Nadal if the guy does not participate? You realize how flawed it is?

Djokovic is more consistent than Nadal at the USO without a doubt but when they have met at the USO what was Djokovic's excuse to lose to Nadal? That shouldn't have happened if Djokovic is vastly superior there. At least with the Federer-Nadal AO situation where Federer is 0-3 vs Nadal you can look at Federer's three extra AO titles to say Federer is the superior AO player. You can't do that currently with Djokovic and Nadal at the USO when they are tied with two titles, I'm sorry. Those extra finals are not enough IMO.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Djokovic is more consistent than Nadal at the USO without a doubt but when they have met at the USO what was Djokovic's excuse to lose to Nadal? That shouldn't have happened if Djokovic is vastly superior there. At least with the Federer-Nadal AO situation where Federer is 0-3 vs Nadal you can look at Federer's three extra AO titles to say Federer is the superior AO player. You can't do that currently with Djokovic and Nadal at the USO when they are tied with two titles, I'm sorry. Those extra finals are not enough IMO.

He couldn't even get it done in the 2 years Rafa missed

 

[RF-18]

Of course, do you even need to ask?

I'm waiting for Star Wars

#soon

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I'm waiting for Star Wars

#soon

Yep. So am I. So...am...I

 

[Deleted member 77403]

It is what it is. Four slams is too big a hole to cover with a carpet...it will swallow you whole.

 

[RF-18]

Djokovic is more consistent than Nadal at the USO without a doubt but when they have met at the USO what was Djokovic's excuse to lose to Nadal? That shouldn't have happened if Djokovic is vastly superior there. At least with the Federer-Nadal AO situation where Federer is 0-3 vs Nadal you can look at Federer's three extra AO titles to say Federer is the superior AO player. You can't do that currently with Djokovic and Nadal at the USO when they are tied with two titles, I'm sorry. Those extra finals are not enough IMO.

I'm asking again, Who SAID Djokovic is vastly superior at USO?

Yeah he lost to Nadal but that is ONE player, we should judge against the FIELD, obviously there Djokovic has beaten more players and done better than Nadal hence why he has more finals. To try and downgrade winning 6/7 matches is pretty disrespectful. Finals matter alot and it is a great achievement.


Nadal has many times mentioned his own finals at tournaments during pressconferences when trying to boost up his results. You need to understand that finals is a great achievement.

Those two finals Djokovic has over nadal he won 12/14 matches. How Nadal can make up for that due to a h2h and the fact that he has missed two USOs since 2012 and failed to meet up with djokovic is beyond me. How can you point to the h2h when you have this scenario mentioned above?

Now I gotta go. I'll answer later if I get replies.

 

[Chanwan]

I'm not saying that Nadal's failure to make it to Djokovic or Federer in the past has been a positive thing because obviously the further you make it at a slam the better but FOR ME I see Nadal and Djokovic tied at two USO titles and slam titles are the main goal for these ATGs not making a final. If Djokovic had two more USO titles, I would have no hesitation in saying he was the superior USO player but with two titles apiece, I'm not feeling the Djokovic superiority. He lost too many USO finals IMO. On top of it all, Nadal leads their h2h at the USO 2-1. You can try and dismiss that but what it tells me is that when those two players faced each other at the USO, Nadal was a tad better. Obviously it's marginal but it is what it is. For example when you look at the Federer-Nadal h2h at the AO which is 0-3 for Federer, you can still look at the fact that Federer has three more AOs than Nadal and thus is the superior AO player but with Djokovic and Nadal at the USO you can't do that at this stage when both have the same number of titles IMO. It's a subjective opinion but that's how I feel about it.

Rafa was a tad better those years, because he only got to the final in his good years.
I'm agreeing 100 % with @veroniquem and @Hitman and @RF-18 here. 4 finals vs. 1 is more than enough to decide who's better. Especially as I don't presume you would hold the extra finals against Nole had Rafa made his appointment in the QF this year and allowed Novak to even the h2h there.

Also, as far as I can tell, no one is claiming Djoko is "vastly superior" as you keep repeating.
Just that the 3 extra finals is more than enough to say he's better at the US Open. That it's not a 'maybe Rafa, maybe Novak, they are pretty much equal situation'.

Vastly superior -> no. Better -> hell yes.

 

[user]

Before 2015, there was a general consensus that Nadal is better than Djokovic at Wimbledon, which rested on the fact that Nadal had 2 more finals there. Now, that Djokovic has surpassed Nadal's number of titles, I can still hear some fanboys claiming that nothing has changed, because even though Djokovic has more titles now, they put Nadal above him, because he beat Federer for the title in 2008. So, rather than the number of titles, we should focus on h2h with "prime" Federer.

Also, since Djokovic won his 2nd USO, those extra finals are now worth nothing, what really matters is that Nadal leads USO H2H 2-1, and didn't participate in 2012 and 2014 (If he did he would surely have 2 more titles, no?). 4 finals are counted against Djokovic, while 3rd round exit + 2 withdrawal are a bonus for Nadal. Talk about biased fans, and their urge to exclude from the equation every indicator that doesn't suit their needs, and include it again when there is a different discussion in progress.

 

[ABCD]

It is what it is. Four slams is too big a hole to cover with a carpet...it will swallow you whole.

For me, No1 is the most important metrics. I see winning majors as winning cups, which always have some elements of luck/misfortune, while I see No1 as a winning a league where you need consistent performance day in day out, where every match counts and where element of luck/misfortune is largely diminished.

 

[Steve0904]

I agree with you that it is subjective, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion on it. No issues with what you feel. But on that same note, for me, failure to even make it to the showdown, which should have happened this year, because you lose to a lesser opponent in my eyes doesn't put Nadal ahead in my opinion. Had that match happened this year, had Nadal not choked in epic fashion against Fognini, I don't think you and I would be having this conversation.

That loss to Fabio Fognini is the perfect example of demonstrating that tennis isn't boxing, this isn't truly one on one, it is against a field of players. And at the US Open, Djokovic is better against the field than Nadal.

I agree that the H2H is a bit of a red herring as far as Nadal is concerned when you consider that it should be tied had Nadal made the QF's. But I don't think anybody is saying Nadal is better. It is an argument against Djokovic being better. If Djokovic is "better" at this point it is very superficial. For all intents and purposes he needs a 3rd title. To me, finals do not matter much, if at all, in a heads up comparison between two greats like Djokovic and Nadal. For example, if one guy has 3 titles and 0 extra finals and the other guy has 2 titles and a 1000 finals (obviously an exaggeration, but you get the point), I'm going with the guy that has 3 titles, easily.

It's like the Sampras-Federer comparison at Wimbledon. To me, Federer is not "better" in any concrete way unless he gets an 8th title. Is it an accomplishment for Federer to make back to back Wimbledon finals at 32-33? Absolutely, as it is for anybody to make any GS final at any time, but that's in Federer's own career terms. It doesn't necessarily make him better than Sampras in any concrete way at Wimbledon in a heads up comparison.

 

[cc0509]

Rafa was a tad better those years, because he only got to the final in his good years.
I'm agreeing 100 % with @veroniquem and @Hitman and @RF-18 here. 4 finals vs. 1 is more than enough to decide who's better. Especially as I don't presume you would hold the extra finals against Nole had Rafa made his appointment in the QF this year and allowed Novak to even the h2h there.

Also, as far as I can tell, no one is claiming Djoko is "vastly superior" as you keep repeating.
Just that the 3 extra finals is more than enough to say he's better at the US Open. That it's not a 'maybe Rafa, maybe Novak, they are pretty much equal situation'.

Vastly superior -> no. Better -> hell yes.

Nope. I can't agree with you on this one Chanwan. To me extra finals mean Djokovic was more consistent at the USO but it doesn't mean he was better than Nadal. If he were better than Nadal he would have more USO titles, period end of story. We probably won't agree on this issue and that's ok. When you are comparing ATGs, titles matter more IMO. A hc player like Djokovic should have a couple of more USO titles than Nadal but he doesn't and not only that he doesn't lead the h2h vs Nadal on his supposed best surface. There is nothing good about that IMO. When Djokovic has more USO titles than Nadal I will agree with you that he is better.

 

[cc0509]

I'm asking again, Who SAID Djokovic is vastly superior at USO?

Yeah he lost to Nadal but that is ONE player, we should judge against the FIELD, obviously there Djokovic has beaten more players and done better than Nadal hence why he has more finals. To try and downgrade winning 6/7 matches is pretty disrespectful. Finals matter alot and it is a great achievement.


Nadal has many times mentioned his own finals at tournaments during pressconferences when trying to boost up his results. You need to understand that finals is a great achievement.

Those two finals Djokovic has over nadal he won 12/14 matches. How Nadal can make up for that due to a h2h and the fact that he has missed two USOs since 2012 and failed to meet up with djokovic is beyond me. How can you point to the h2h when you have this scenario mentioned above?

Now I gotta go. I'll answer later if I get replies.

When you are dealing with h2h all you can do is deal with the h2h which has actually occurred, not some imaginary what if situation. What we do know is that the h2h at the USO is 2-1 for Nadal. If Djokovic had an extra USO title or two that would counteract that negative h2h he has vs Nadal but they are tied at two titles. There is no way I can see how Djokovic is the better player at the USO. The more consistent player? Yes. But better? Not IMO. He needs more titles than Nadal to be better.

 

[Chanwan]

Nope. I can't agree with you on this one Chanwan. To me extra finals mean Djokovic was more consistent at the USO but it doesn't mean he was better than Nadal. If he were better than Nadal he would have more USO titles, period end of story. We probably won't agree on this issue and that's ok. When you are comparing ATGs, titles matter more IMO. A hc player like Djokovic should have a couple of more USO titles than Nadal but he doesn't and not only that he doesn't lead the h2h vs Nadal on his supposed best surface. There is nothing good about that IMO. When Djokovic has more USO titles than Nadal I will agree with you that he is better.

I can help but feel you're arguing this because you don't like Djoko and you do like Rafa, but fair enough - we won't come any closer.

One more thing: Rafa's never had to deal with a US Open great like Fed there, Novak's met him 6 times and beat him 3 times. That's a factor too.
(and yes, I know about the match-up, but US is pretty fast and Fed would certainly have his fair chances vs. Rafa most years at the US).

When you are dealing with h2h all you can do is deal with the h2h which has actually occurred, not some imaginary what if situation. What we do know is that the h2h at the USO is 2-1 for Nadal. If Djokovic had an extra USO title or two that would counteract that negative h2h he has vs Nadal but they are tied at two titles. There is no way I can see how Djokovic is the better player at the USO. The more consistent player? Yes. But better? Not IMO. He needs more titles than Nadal to be better.

why on earth would he need two??

 

[cc0509]

It is what it is. Four slams is too big a hole to cover with a carpet...it will swallow you whole.

You are a very objective poster. I like that. More fans should be like you.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Rafa was a tad better those years, because he only got to the final in his good years.
I'm agreeing 100 % with @veroniquem and @Hitman and @RF-18 here. 4 finals vs. 1 is more than enough to decide who's better. Especially as I don't presume you would hold the extra finals against Nole had Rafa made his appointment in the QF this year and allowed Novak to even the h2h there.

Also, as far as I can tell, no one is claiming Djoko is "vastly superior" as you keep repeating.
Just that the 3 extra finals is more than enough to say he's better at the US Open. That it's not a 'maybe Rafa, maybe Novak, they are pretty much equal situation'.

Vastly superior -> no. Better -> hell yes.

Djokovic isn't vastly superior than Nadal at USO or W, but he is just overall a little better at those events after this season. Again, I smile at the fact that the H2H is being used...Nadal's greatest choke (never lost a match after winning the first two sets) against Fognini prevented Djokovic, who beat the man who beat Nadal's conquerer, for having the chance to even up the H2H.
Rafa had the better career at both slams in my eyes up to this season, because he was simply the better player at the event. Things changed.

 

[cc0509]

Chanwan, post: 9824057, member: 391136"]I can help but feel you're arguing this because you don't like Djoko and you do like Rafa, but fair enough - we won't come any closer.

Absolutely not. I say the exact same thing about Federer-Sampras at Wimbledon for example. To me they are equal there with 7 titles. Extra finals mean little in the equation for me at the end of the day.

One more thing: Rafa's never had to deal with a US Open great like Fed there, Novak's met him 6 times and beat him 3 times. That's a factor too.
(and yes, I know about the match-up, but US is pretty fast and Fed would certainly have his fair chances vs. Rafa most years at the US).

True. But all we can do is go by what actually does transpire when two ATGs meet. In the Djokovic-Nadal case at the USO, they have met three times and Nadal won two of them. If Djokovic was truly superior he should have won more. Djokovic has time to win more USO titles and prove to the world he is better than Nadal at that slam. I don't believe he has done so yet.

why on earth would he need two??

One more USO title for Djokovic would do it provided that Nadal doesn't win any more.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

You are a very objective poster. I like that. More fans should be like you.

Thanks. But honestly, I try to see the forest from the trees. I prefer to see things for what they are, so I can clearly see what needs to be done, instead of making up excuses. And it helps I am not blinded by hate for Rafa, I like the guy, just not my fav.

 

[Chanwan]

When you are dealing with h2h all you can do is deal with the h2h which has actually occurred, not some imaginary what if situation. What we do know is that the h2h at the USO is 2-1 for Nadal. If Djokovic had an extra USO title or two that would counteract that negative h2h he has vs Nadal but they are tied at two titles. There is no way I can see how Djokovic is the better player at the USO. The more consistent player? Yes. But better? Not IMO. He needs more titles than Nadal to be better.

Absolutely not. I say the exact same thing about Federer-Sampras at Wimbledon for example. To me they are equal there with 7 titles. Extra finals mean little in the equation for me at the end of the day.

btw, how about Rafole at Wimbledon prior to this year? (easy to say now, but did you say the same half a year and more ago?)



True. But all we can do is go by what actually does transpire when two ATGs meet. In the Djokovic-Nadal case at the USO, they have met three times and Nadal won two of them. If Djokovic was truly superior he should have won more. Djokovic has time to win more USO titles and prove to the world he is better than Nadal at that slam. I don't believe he has done so yet.



One more USO title for Djokovic would do it provided that Nadal doesn't win any more.

Fed-Sampras is a much closer case for me, given it's 7-3 vs. 7-0 rather than 2-4 vs. 2-1 (does that make sense to you? extra finals matters less when we're talking that scale than for 'two slam wonders' at a specific slam.
2) way too much emphasis on the h2h given that
a) Rafa's only ever made the appointment in his very best seasons, you're punishing Novak for that here
b) related, had the Fognini-choke not occured, we wouldn't be having this debate.

anyone, I, @Hitman or anyone else are obviously not going to sway your opinion on this, so no point in continuing stating the same things back and forth

 

[cc0509]

anyone, I, @Hitman or anyone else are obviously not going to sway your opinion on this, so no point in continuing stating the same things back and forth

Yes. That's the bottom line. We differ in opinion on this one. I need Djokovic to win another USO for me to consider him the outright better USO player than Nadal. I DO think Djokovic is the better overall hardcourt player, no question.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Fed-Sampras is a much closer case for me, given it's 7-3 vs. 7-0 rather than 2-4 vs. 2-1 (does that make sense to you? extra finals matters less when we're talking that scale than for 'two slam wonders' at a specific slam.
2) way too much emphasis on the h2h given that
a) Rafa's only ever made the appointment in his very best seasons, you're punishing Novak for that here
b) related, had the Fognini-choke not occured, we wouldn't be having this debate.

anyone, I, @Hitman or anyone else are obviously not going to sway your opinion on this, so no point in continuing stating the same things back and forth

Djokovic snatches victory from the jaws of defeat in 2010 semi by saving two match points in epic fashion, only to lose to Nadal in the final.
Nadal snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in 2015 by choking away a two set lead to Fognini, preventing a quarter final redemption for Djokovic.
Djokovic penalized for his heroics in 2010 semi, Nadal rewarded for his choke in 2015 3rd round.
H2H are such a fun thing, aren't they?

Anyways, I think we have dicussed it enough and we are all clear where we all stand on it.

 

[Fedalforever]

lol@veronique quoting me after being a lying coward in the Nishikori-Fed match thread.

The simple fact of the matter is Nadal vs Djokovic at the USO is not clear cut. For established slam winners like Djokovic and Nadal, reaching the final and not winning doesn't mean too much. I mean sure, you'd rather lose in the final than in R1 but there's something to be said about a so-called clay specialist winning as many slams as the so-called HC GOAT at a certain event by actually beating him twice in the event as opposed to lucking out on match point vs 30 year old Fed in 2011 and facing gradpa chokerer in 2015 F. Also a massive LOL at those citing Nadal's USO 2010 and USO 2013 draws but conveniently glossing over Novak's 2015 draw at the USO.

FWIW I'd take Djokovic's record at USO (although a 2-4 final record does stink for the so-called HC GOAT) over Nadal's but acting like it's all cut and dry is extremely asinine. To use the USO record to say Nadal's better at only 1 slam is downright disingenuous and deceitful. 14>10. Deal with it.

 

[cc0509]

lol@veronique quoting me after being a lying coward in the Nishikori-Fed match thread.

The simple fact of the matter is Nadal vs Djokovic at the USO is not clear cut. For established slam winners like Djokovic and Nadal, reaching the final and not winning doesn't mean too much. I mean sure, you'd rather lose in the final than in R1 but there's something to be said about a so-called clay specialist winning as many slams as the so-called HC GOAT at a certain event by actually beating him twice in the event as opposed to lucking out on match point vs 30 year old Fed in 2011 and facing gradpa chokerer in 2015 F. Also a massive LOL at those citing Nadal's USO 2010 and USO 2013 draws but conveniently glossing over Novak's 2015 draw at the USO.

FWIW I'd take Djokovic's record at USO (although a 2-4 final record does stink for the so-called HC GOAT) over Nadal's but acting like it's all cut and dry is extremely asinine. To use the USO record to say Nadal's better at only 1 slam is downright disingenuous and deceitful. 14>10. Deal with it.

Exactly!