2017 Madrid Open SF - [2] Djokovic vs [4] Nadal

[Gary Duane]

If you believe tennis analysts you'll believe anything. Not one of them correctly forecast the AO 2017 Champion nor the runner-up.
upload piccertificity.com

I agree with you on this issue, but why do you keep linking to incredibly blurry pictures that are unreadable???

 

[Gary Duane]

when has Nadal ever had peak years back to back?

i'll wait...

On what surface?

I'll wait for you to say that he never had great back-to-back years on clay.

 

[fundrazer]

If you believe tennis analysts you'll believe anything. Not one of them correctly forecast the AO 2017 Champion nor the runner-up.
upload piccertificity.com

So you criticize people who listen to tennis analysts, but you post a bunch of stupid articles from random journalists praising Rafa and treat it as Gospel. Makes sense.

 

[Gary Duane]

Most people are expecting Thiem to lose, how would it make him look smart?

On the other hand, if Thiem wins then he looks like 90's clay with all the Thiem bashing in the past few days.

It won't make B-Fan look smart, but he won't have to back-pedal.

I'm just having a bit of fun.

 

[DRII]

As expected.

Well met

Nadal haters becoming more and more insecure right now is whats expected.

hence your irrational musings.

 

[DRII]

On what surface?

I'll wait for you to say that he never had great back-to-back years on clay.

I'm talking overall years, not a particular surface.

 

[clayqueen]

I agree with you on this issue, but why do you keep linking to incredibly blurry pictures that are unreadable???

Here is the link
http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/story/...k-djokovic-serena-williams-again-players-beat

 

[cc0509]

when has Nadal ever had peak years back to back?

i'll wait...

I'm not going to argue over something so stupid. Nadal was at peak in 2011. If it wasn't for Djokovic he would have won three out of four slams. Just have the grace to accept that Djokovic had prime Nadal's number that year and was the superior player (except at the FO.)

 

[TheMusicLover]

Let's try to be objective on this board and try to comment leaving our biases aside. Just because someone is a Nadal/fed/Djokovic fan doesn't mean that they have to worship the ground that these guys walk on. There is no harm in criticism when it is due.

Well, you're pointing out the exact problem here: there are "fans" who think you're a 'hater' as soon as you voice some justified critique on a player.
For instance, Nadal is one of my favourites, but I don't see the problem in pointing out his regular terrible time-wasting, as it's a mere fact that he does.
Just like Fed is a bad loser, and Djok has some awful celebration-routines when victorious. All just mere facts.

Unfortunately, by certain "fans" (should I not rather call them 'worshippers'?), you'll immediately receive the 'hater'-stamp.
Note, too, that those bestowing the 'hater'-verdicts quite often tend to be the nastiest 'haters' of other players themselves.

 

[clayqueen]

So you criticize people who listen to tennis analysts, but you post a bunch of stupid articles from random journalists praising Rafa and treat it as Gospel. Makes sense.

I only post comments based on verifiable facts.

 

[Bartelby]

You should get into comedy on a professional basis!

I only post comments based on verifiable facts.

 

[Meles]

That deserves a signature. I just gave you one.

If Nadal destroys Thiem today, you may look smart.

Personally I hate making predictions like that. They come back to haunt me about 50% of the time.

Good idea.

 

[DRII]

I'm not going to argue over something so stupid. Nadal was at peak in 2011. If it wasn't for Djokovic he would have won three out of four slams. Just have the grace to accept that Djokovic had prime Nadal's number that year and was the superior player (except at the FO.)

yea, if i had such a silly premise, i wouldn't argue either.

it demonstrably/statistically provable that Nadal did not play as well in 2011 as he did in 2010.

of course, statistics do not tell the whole story, but going by the eye test shows Nadal was not peak in 2011!

yet, the eye test requires good qualitative judgment, which you seem not to always have.


i agree Nadal was prime in 2011 (just not peak). hopefully you agree that Djokovic was prime in 2012 and 2013 where Nadal turn the tables and had the major advantage over Djokovic in the slams!

but of course you'll make up some excuse...

 

[DRII]

Well, you're pointing out the exact problem here: there are "fans" who think you're a 'hater' as soon as you voice some justified critique on a player.
For instance, Nadal is one of my favourites, but I don't see the problem in pointing out his regular terrible time-wasting, as it's a mere fact that he does.
Just like Fed is a bad loser, and Djok has some awful celebration-routines when victorious. All just mere facts.

Unfortunately, by certain "fans" (should I not rather call them 'worshippers'?), you'll immediately receive the 'hater'-stamp.
Note, too, that those bestowing the 'hater'-verdicts quite often tend to be the nastiest 'haters' of other players themselves.

you're a passive aggressive one aren't you.

reasonable critique is fine, a hater is exposed by their emphasis eg constantly bringing up 'time' with Nadal when nearly all the players go over the 'technical' (if interpreted literally) time limits in matches.

recognize...

 

[Gary Duane]

I'm not going to argue over something so stupid. Nadal was at peak in 2011. If it wasn't for Djokovic he would have won three out of four slams. Just have the grace to accept that Djokovic had prime Nadal's number that year and was the superior player (except at the FO.)

That "peak" Nadal's serving fell off a cliff even on clay that year. He was a monster serving on clay in 2010, and his serving dropped to about where it was in 2014 and 2015. It jumped back up in 2012.

Djokovic didn't do that. Rafa only played him twice that year on clay. When Nadal drops below his career average on any stat on clay, it's not a good year. Yes, Djokovic was great in 2011, but Nadal's lower level on clay helped him out that year. Unfortunately Novak didn't capitalize at RG and had to wait until last year, when Nadal was not there.

 

[Gary Duane]

you're a passive aggressive one aren't you.

reasonable critique is fine, a hater is exposed by their emphasis eg constantly bringing up 'time' with Nadal when nearly all the players go over the 'technical' (if interpreted literally) time limits in matches.

recognize...

Nadal is one of my two favorite players, but his butt-picking and face touching absolutely drive me crazy.

Yesterday, however, bounce-ovic out-did him with time wasting, average at one point 32 seconds between points. Nadal was "only" at 30 seconds!

And yes, there are other people who go over the limit, but Nadal is right at the top, with Novak about in the same place, and Murray ain't great either.

They have to leave them all alone and try to enforce the rules for the younger players who are not (yet) powerful enough to intimidate the chair umpires.

The stars right now are bigger than the game. If Fed wanted to take 35 seconds between points, they'd change the rules for him!

 

[cc0509]

yea, if i had such a silly premise, i wouldn't argue either.

it demonstrably/statistically provable that Nadal did not play as well in 2011 as he did in 2010.

of course, statistics do not tell the whole story, but going by the eye test shows Nadal was not peak in 2011!

yet, the eye test requires good qualitative judgment, which you seem not to always have.


i agree Nadal was prime in 2011 (just not peak). hopefully you agree that Djokovic was prime in 2012 and 2013 where Nadal turn the tables and had the major advantage over Djokovic in the slams!

but of course you'll make up some excuse...

Nadal was both peak and prime in 2011 and yes Djokovic was peak and prime in 2012 and 2013. Can the extreme Nadal fans not give Djokovic credit where credit is due and can the extreme Djokovic fans not give credit to Nadal where credit is due?

Some fans are seriously crazy and I include some Federer fans in that scenario. Holy moly. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are all ATG players. They all have their pluses and minuses. Djokovic had Nadal's number in 2011. If it wasn't for Djokovic, Nadal would have won three slams that year. Have the sanity and objectivity to admit it. Don't go into clayqueen, noelan, ND-12 territory!

 

[cc0509]

That "peak" Nadal's serving fell off a cliff even on clay that year. He was a monster serving on clay in 2010, and his serving dropped to about where it was in 2014 and 2015. It jumped back up in 2012.

Djokovic didn't do that. Rafa only played him twice that year on clay. When Nadal drops below his career average on any stat on clay, it's not a good year. Yes, Djokovic was great in 2011, but Nadal's lower level on clay helped him out that year. Unfortunately Novak didn't capitalize at RG and had to wait until last year, when Nadal was not there.

You are too stat-obsessed worrying about meaningless stats. If it wasn't for Djokovic, Nadal would have won everything that year. He was making the finals almost everywhere. Djokovic owned peak and prime Nadal that year except for at the FO where Federer intervened to beat a beast Djokovic, something Nadal couldn't do. Then Nadal started to turn their rivalry around again in 2012-13 and had the upper hand vs Djokovic. Then Nadal fell off a cliff in 2014 and Djokovic owned him again. Now we're back to Nadal having the upper hand. It's all good. It's a good rivalry.

 

[DRII]

Nadal was both peak and prime in 2011 and yes Djokovic was peak and prime in 2012 and 2013. Can the extreme Nadal fans not give Djokovic credit where credit is due and can the extreme Djokovic fans not give credit to Nadal where credit is due?

Some fans are seriously crazy and I include some Federer fans in that scenario. Holy moly. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are all ATG players. They all have their pluses and minuses. Djokovic had Nadal's number in 2011. If it wasn't for Djokovic, Nadal would have won three slams that year. Have the sanity and objectivity to admit it. Don't go into clayqueen, noelan, ND-12 territory!

perhaps our differences lie in semantics.

i do not consider prime and peak to be the same thing. it is also necessary to summarize my accountings of a player's level in one year vs another. No player plays at their demonstrated peak throughout an entire year. there is also a difference between demonstrated peak and hypothetical peak (for example Nadal is the lowest on the hypothetical peaks among ATGs imo, but the highest among demonstrated/real life peaks when external factors are counted).

so perhaps we are not disagreeing as much as i originally thought.

 

[Gary Duane]

You are too stat-obsessed worrying about meaningless stats. If it wasn't for Djokovic, Nadal would have won everything that year. He was making the finals almost everywhere.

You are totally stat ignorant and use that as an attack point.

Ignoring facts and claiming to use the "eye test" is just clueless.

 

[abmk]

I only post comments based on verifiable facts.

oh yeah, Nadal being the what - Leonardo da Vinci of tennis is a verifiable fact ? Ok

 

[GabeT]

That "peak" Nadal's serving fell off a cliff even on clay that year. He was a monster serving on clay in 2010, and his serving dropped to about where it was in 2014 and 2015. It jumped back up in 2012.

Djokovic didn't do that. Rafa only played him twice that year on clay. When Nadal drops below his career average on any stat on clay, it's not a good year. Yes, Djokovic was great in 2011, but Nadal's lower level on clay helped him out that year. Unfortunately Novak didn't capitalize at RG and had to wait until last year, when Nadal was not there.

Only Nole stopped him that year and without Nole around Nadal's 2011 would have been the best year of his career. I don't know if that's peak or prime but can't deny that Nadal's play in 2011 was great against everyone not named Djokovic.

 

[clayqueen]

Nadal is one of my two favorite players, but his butt-picking and face touching absolutely drive me crazy.

Yesterday, however, bounce-ovic out-did him with time wasting, average at one point 32 seconds between points. Nadal was "only" at 30 seconds!

And yes, there are other people who go over the limit, but Nadal is right at the top, with Novak about in the same place, and Murray ain't great either.

They have to leave them all alone and try to enforce the rules for the younger players who are not (yet) powerful enough to intimidate the chair umpires.

The stars right now are bigger than the game. If Fed wanted to take 35 seconds between points, they'd change the rules for him!

They are going to try the shot clock out in the NextGen WTF and see how it works. I just think it's too much fuss about nothing. How did they work out that they only need 20 seconds between points in slams where it's best of 5 sets but only 25 seconds on the ATP tour? They are just figures plucked from the air.

 

[TheMusicLover]

you're a passive aggressive one aren't you.

reasonable critique is fine, a hater is exposed by their emphasis eg constantly bringing up 'time' with Nadal when nearly all the players go over the 'technical' (if interpreted literally) time limits in matches.

recognize...

And you obviously have some kind of weird reading problem.
Anyways. Welcome to my ignore list!

 

[Gary Duane]

Only Nole stopped him that year and without Nole around Nadal's 2011 would have been the best year of his career. I don't know if that's peak or prime but can't deny that Nadal's play in 2011 was great against everyone not named Djokovic.

A good year, certainly, but absolutely not the best year. Even filtering out all the Djokovic matches he is still a bit below 2013 in winning games on HCs. He would have been 33/8 on HCs that year, filtering out Novak.

That's pretty different from 36/4 in 2013 WITH Novak filtered in.

 

[Gary Duane]

They are going to try the shot clock out in the NextGen WTF and see how it works. I just think it's too much fuss about nothing. How did they work out that they only need 20 seconds between points in slams where it's best of 5 sets but only 25 seconds on the ATP tour? They are just figures plucked from the air.

20 seconds it too fast and won't work. There they set a limit that is absolutely guaranteed not to work.

I made some suggestions at least a couple years back about how a shot-clock can be adjusted for long points. But I want to see how the clock works. I'm all for it.

 

[Gary Duane]

They are going to try the shot clock out in the NextGen WTF and see how it works. I just think it's too much fuss about nothing. How did they work out that they only need 20 seconds between points in slams where it's best of 5 sets but only 25 seconds on the ATP tour? They are just figures plucked from the air.

Also: I'd be fine with 30 seconds, to be honest. Just don't let them go over that. Nadal can play under 30 seconds. He just doesn't like to.

But they aren't going to mess with him this year. If they had called time on him in Madrid there might have been a riot!!!

 

[clayqueen]

Also: I'd be fine with 30 seconds, to be honest. Just don't let them go over that. Nadal can play under 30 seconds. He just doesn't like to.

But they aren't going to mess with him this year. If they had called time on him in Madrid there might have been a riot!!!

It's only fair to have a visible clock that the players can work to and the spectators can see justice being done.

 

[Backspin1183]

I'm not going to argue over something so stupid. Nadal was at peak in 2011. If it wasn't for Djokovic he would have won three out of four slams. Just have the grace to accept that Djokovic had prime Nadal's number that year and was the superior player (except at the FO.)

As a matter of fact, Nadal was very good from 2010 to end of 2013. He could have been the number 1 player in 2012 too if it wasn't for the injury and subsequent 7 months absence from the tour.

 

[Gary Duane]

It's only fair to have a visible clock that the players can work to and the spectators can see justice being done.

Fully agree. Totally.

The way violations are handed out now is totally arbitrary and also disruptive. The best commentators around have been quite irritated at the way time has been called, often at really key moments of matches. That's a great way to tick off the fans AND the players and ruin an otherwise good match.

I would also support delaying the clock until the end of applause or other measures such as that. But it needs to be tried, tested. Get the kinks worked out before it happens at a slam!

 

[GabeT]

A good year, certainly, but absolutely not the best year. Even filtering out all the Djokovic matches he is still a bit below 2013 in winning games on HCs. He would have been 33/8 on HCs that year, filtering out Novak.

That's pretty different from 36/4 in 2013 WITH Novak filtered in.

Without Nole Nadal would have won 3 slams and 5 masters in 2011. What season is better than that for Nadal?

 

[LaDecima]

Perhaps this thread can end if we all agree that nadal and Federer and djokovic the three greatest of all time and as such will beat each other down at times. That's why they are goats.

 

[mike danny]

Interestingly enough, Nadal has snapped an 11 match losing streak to Federer/Djokovic.

 

[DRII]

And you obviously have some kind of weird reading problem.
Anyways. Welcome to my ignore list!

oh, the honor.

ignore = admitting defeat.

recognize!

 

[DRII]

Without Nole Nadal would have won 3 slams and 5 masters in 2011. What season is better than that for Nadal?

you have no idea if thats true or not!

 

[GabeT]

R

you have no idea if thats true or not!

That's never stopped anyone at TTW!

 

[maratha_warrior]

Lying? I don't think so. I said outside of 2011 Madrid and Rome which was a year Djokovic dominated a Nadal in peakity peak form everywhere, Nadal had the upper hand over Djokovic on clay. The last time I checked the FO was played on clay and is the biggest clay event in the sport and you want to discount it? If you look at the FO record which is 6-1 for Nadal and then we are left with the Masters 1000 record outside of 2011, it was 7-4 in favor of Nadal. Thus my comment that Nadal had the upper hand on clay over Djokovic outside of 2011 was correct as the FO + Masters 1000 record during that time was 13-5 for Nadal.

Got it? Nadal is the superior clay court player and their h2h on clay proves that vividly. Nadal at his best on clay trumps Djokovic on clay. 2011 outside of the FO was the outlier where Nadal was his very peak and lost to Djokovic a couple of times at Masters 1000s. Unless Djokovic is at his best or close to it, he won't beat a good form Nadal on clay as I tried to tell people before this Madrid semi-final because we see what happened.

Hey btw my apologies.. if my replies were bit aggressive.. But i kinda thought you are a certain poster , who try to ridicule Nole nomatter what the topic, but you are not that person. He is someone else , and i forgot his name/id .

And about our discussion, well u hve ur opinion and i can understand ur perspective too.. but my opinion is different than yours !

 

[maratha_warrior]

Only Nole stopped him that year and without Nole around Nadal's 2011 would have been the best year of his career. I don't know if that's peak or prime but can't deny that Nadal's play in 2011 was great against everyone not named Djokovic.

People tend to forget..
At the end of 2010 , Fed at 16 slams and Rafa at 9 , most tennis fans were of the opinion that Nadal will win 3 in 2011 and will equal or surpass Federer in 3-4 years. At that point of time there was virtually noone who cud challenge Rafa , forget about defeating.
Djokovic displayed one of the highest levels of tennis ever seen in 2011, he came outta nowhere and defeated Rafa in 7 finals in a row. He was 10-1 against Fedal in 2011.
He mentally damaged Rafa in 11-12 and also again in 2015-16 ( although 15-16 Rafa" s form ws average to poor ) . Rafa has won just 2 matches against nole after USO 2013 final , sumthing like 10-2 for Nole.
Nole has stopped Rafa more than anyone else.. Still he is not being credited .. its hilarious !

 

[cc0509]

You are totally stat ignorant and use that as an attack point.

Ignoring facts and claiming to use the "eye test" is just clueless.

I'm not stat ignorant at all and I recognize their importance but some posters spout off stat after stat which frankly are simply often not as meaningful as the eye test or more importantly than actual player results.

So many people are going nuts over this Thiem guy and for me, sure he did "better" vs Nadal today but he still lost in straights and won a total of 10 games(I predicted he would win a total of 8.) Also, to me Thiem looks like mostly a ballbasher with little variety and he often makes errors missing the court completely. His game doesn't excite me or interest me much at all. In no way do I feel he will be much of a threat for Nadal at RG. When players like Djokovic, Murray and Nadal were Thiem's age they were winning Masters 1000s and slams! That's what I want to see.

One thing I must say I do like about Thiem is his attitude. He seems like a decent enough guy and he doesn't act like a brat on court like some of these other younger players.

 

[maratha_warrior]

One thing We all can agree is that , There is virtually noone on tour for past 15 years who could take the place of Fed Rafa Novak..
No matter how much we argue that , before 2010 Novak was pre-prime and dat after 2012- fed was in decline n Nadal in his post peak etc etc.. But it requires one of the three to stop the other two ..
Rafa had to stop Fed in 2008
Novak had to stop rafa in 2011
den Rafa stopped Novak in 2013
all thought Fed & Rafa are done when Novak was winning , Now Novak slips a bit and Fed Rafa are back dominating the tour..
Now agree or not , but Only Novak can stop Fed Rafa this year or the next , if he gains some form , noone else .
The tour never learns a thing. Its all about these three ..
3 Legends of this era widout doubt !

 

[cc0509]

perhaps our differences lie in semantics.

i do not consider prime and peak to be the same thing. it is also necessary to summarize my accountings of a player's level in one year vs another. No player plays at their demonstrated peak throughout an entire year. there is also a difference between demonstrated peak and hypothetical peak (for example Nadal is the lowest on the hypothetical peaks among ATGs imo, but the highest among demonstrated/real life peaks when external factors are counted).

so perhaps we are not disagreeing as much as i originally thought.

I don't consider them to be the same either but IMO Nadal was both in 2011 and Djokovic was superior that year.

 

[DRII]

I don't consider them to be the same either but IMO Nadal was both in 2011 and Djokovic was superior that year.

Ok, so Nadal was both in 2011 and Djokovic dominated, yet Djokovic was both in 2012 and 2013 yet Nadal dominated (in the slams)???

makes no sense, you are essentially rendering your conclusions moot.

 

[cc0509]

Ok, so Nadal was both in 2011 and Djokovic dominated, yet Djokovic was both in 2012 and 2013 yet Nadal dominated (in the slams)???

makes no sense, you are essentially rendering your conclusions moot.

Yes, Nadal was both in 2011 and Djokovic dominated him and then in 2012/13, Nadal turned their rivalry around and started to control the h2h. As I've said, their rivalry has been a close one with each having winning streaks and control of their h2h for a certain period of time over the years. It's not really that difficult to analyze but it's clear that Djokovic was superior to prime/peak Nadal in 2011. The denials crack me up and I'm no Djokovic fan.

 

[BeatlesFan]

People tend to forget..
At the end of 2010 , Fed at 16 slams and Rafa at 9 , most tennis fans were of the opinion that Nadal will win 3 in 2011 and will equal or surpass Federer in 3-4 years

I'm not sure how anyone is in a position to judge what "most" tennis fans thought about this issue. I certainly never thought Nadal would ever surpass Fed in majors and still think it's basically impossible. In fact, I would argue most tennis fans in 2010-11 thought Fed would remain GOAT and Nadal wouldn't get near his slam count.

 

[DRII]

Yes, Nadal was both in 2011 and Djokovic dominated him and then in 2012/13, Nadal turned their rivalry around and started to control the h2h. As I've said, their rivalry has been a close one with each having winning streaks and control of their h2h for a certain period of time over the years. It's not really that difficult to analyze but it's clear that Djokovic was superior to prime/peak Nadal in 2011. The denials crack me up and I'm no Djokovic fan.

why do you keep emphasizing the Djokovic dominating 'peak' Nadal side of the equation, yet hardly ever mention the Nadal dominating peak Djokovic part
me thinks you're confused, conflicted, or intentionally misleading.

 

[cc0509]

why do you keep emphasizing the Djokovic dominating 'peak' Nadal side of the equation, yet hardly ever mention the Nadal dominating peak Djokovic part
me thinks you're confused, conflicted, or intentionally misleading.

I've said 50 times on this forum that in 2011 Djokovic dominated peak Nadal and then in 2012/13, Nadal reversed things and dominated peak Djokovic. This rivalry has always gone back in forth and continues to do so. But one thing that can't be argued is that in 2011 Djokovic dominated Nadal. Look at the results and stats. It's so silly that you can't admit it.

 

[cc0509]

People tend to forget..
At the end of 2010 , Fed at 16 slams and Rafa at 9 , most tennis fans were of the opinion that Nadal will win 3 in 2011 and will equal or surpass Federer in 3-4 years. At that point of time there was virtually noone who cud challenge Rafa , forget about defeating.

I'm not sure how anyone is in a position to judge what "most" tennis fans thought about this issue. I certainly never thought Nadal would ever surpass Fed in majors and still think it's basically impossible. In fact, I would argue most tennis fans in 2010-11 thought Fed would remain GOAT and Nadal wouldn't get near his slam count.

I have to admit it wasn't in 2010 that I thought Nadal would surpass Federer's slam count but in 2013 I was convinced Nadal was going to do it(sadly) before he took his cliff dive in 2014. Now I think the chances of Nadal surpassing Federer's slam count are very very doubtful at his age especially since Federer won #18 but is it absolutely impossible? Probably not. I do think however that Novak's chances of wining seven more slams at this stage is close to impossible even though I also think that Novak will probably rebound at some point.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

If Djoko sneaks in a few weeks in the egg behind Pepe's back he could start matching it with Rafa.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Nadal is way past prime, he's half the player he was in 2008-2009.