An interesting parallel: Federer from 2004-2007 and Nadal on Clay

[Nathaniel_Near]

I wouldn't say that.. old Hewitt has taken a set off Djokovic on his best surface and Murray stretched him to 5 (even at one point going up 2 sets to 1) at the same tournament..

Djokovic's top level is obviously above theirs but it isn't by a massive margin. That's why he's on 7 slams and not higher, like Nadal and Federer.. his top level is nowhere near theirs but high enough to win the slams he has.. it's also why he's more like a consistent 1 slam a year guy.

It's why his conversion rate is at 50% in finals and in the low 20's from semi-finals? Somebody produced stats the other day that showed Nadal has been way more clinical in converting his chances to win Slams once he reaches the semi-finals, which speaks for a significantly higher peak standard of play imo - at least one that is regularly achievable.

Once can try to argue well where does that leave Roger because he has done badly in the period that was judged which I think was 2009-2014 or so. It depends on if people still think Roger is still in his prime or not.

As for Nadal vs Djokovic though, same age and in their primes but Nadal when he is in the form to reach a semi-finals has a way higher conversion rate. Djokovic is merely more consistent, but substantially less dominant when looking at a window of time longer than one year.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I wouldn't say that.. old Hewitt has taken a set off Djokovic on his best surface and Murray stretched him to 5 (even at one point going up 2 sets to 1) at the same tournament..

Djokovic's top level is obviously above theirs but it isn't by a massive margin. That's why he's on 7 slams and not higher, like Nadal and Federer.. his top level is nowhere near theirs but high enough to win the slams he has.. it's also why he's more like a consistent 1 slam a year guy.

I would disagree, I would say his top level is similar to both, but rather he comes up short often in slam finals and semis. He is a strange mix of being very consistent in the smaller tournaments and lacking that consistency when it really counts.

He is obviously and clearly a step above Hewitt and Murray and I think quite frankly it's ridiculous to compare, even if he is admittedly obviously below Nadal/Fed which I agree with.

It's much the same as Murray being obviously below the other big 3, but being obviously above a player such as Berdych.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I think he is mainly just consistent. He doesn't produce A grade tennis often enough to win much more than 50% of the Slam finals, where the best players are in their most sensational form. You need championship form to win Slams... Nadal is a different beast at RG compared to the clay masters for instance - being consistently very good isn't enough. You often need to be brilliant to actually bring home the W.

Djokovic has figured out how to maintain a very high level but can get stuck in 5th gear in the semis and finals of Slams. The greatest find that 6th gear -- their peak form -- way more often.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I think he is mainly just consistent. He doesn't produce A grade tennis often enough to win much more than 50% of the Slam finals, where the best players are in their most sensational form. You need championship form to win Slams... Nadal is a different beast at RG compared to the clay masters for instance.

Djokovic has figured out how to maintain a very high level but can get stuck in 5th gear in the semis and finals of Slams. The greatest find that 6th gear way more often.

Yeah, I do think the court there helps him though. You could argue that it's more about B05 than the court, but Nadal often looks far superior there even accounting for it.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I think he is mainly just consistent. He doesn't produce A grade tennis often enough to win much more than 50% of the Slam finals, where the best players are in their most sensational form. You need championship form to win Slams... Nadal is a different beast at RG compared to the clay masters for instance - being consistently very good isn't enough. You often need to be brilliant to actually bring home the W.

Djokovic has figured out how to maintain a very high level but can get stuck in 5th gear in the semis and finals of Slams. The greatest find that 6th gear -- their peak form -- way more often.

This thread should end right here but it won't.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

avatar suggestion for 125.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

realized I was wrong about the RG 13 meeting...anyways I do admit Nadal is simply better on clay, especially on B05. His B05 clay record is the most amazing stat in all of tennis imo.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Yeah, I do think the court there helps him though. You could argue that it's more about B05 than the court, but Nadal often looks far superior there even accounting for it. I found it interesting that the closest Djoko ever got (RG 13) was on Lenglen.

Well producing your peak level of play for longer durations does count for something. Why no avatar btw? It makes me sad. Nah just kiddin' it's your choice.

It's always a little unfair to hold players to the Nadal standard on clay as it's arguably the highest level of play ever produced on any surface in the history tennis, but most of Nole's finals have been on the other surfaces and he still has an average conversion rate.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Well producing your peak level of play for longer durations does count for something. Why no avatar btw? It makes me sad. Nah just kiddin' it's your choice.

It's always a little unfair to hold players to the Nadal standard on clay as it's arguably the highest level of play ever produced on any surface in the history tennis, but most of Nole's finals have been on the other surfaces and he still has an average conversion rate.

Yeah Nadal is simply a better player overall. I think at his best though Djokovic matches him equally across all 4 surfaces. Nadal is more reliable in crunch moments, and less prone to buckle under pressure in tight situations. The only time I have ever seen him do this is AO 5th set

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Nadal didn't exactly crown himself in glory during the 2011 Wimbledon final either where he was going strong but got blitzes at the end of both of the first two sets if memory serves, so he does have his moments of fallibility but that's not to underestimate the severe pressure that Djokovic puts him under that can make what are seemingly unforced errors or unforced lapses of concentration be much more forced than most people realise.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Nadal didn't exactly crown himself in glory during the 2011 Wimbledon final either where he was going strong but got blitzes at the end of both of the first two sets if memory serves, so he does have his moments of fallibility but that's not to underestimate the severe pressure that Djokovic puts him under that can make what are seemingly unforced errors or unforced lapses of concentration be much more forced than most people realise.

He didn't but I just felt like he was soundly beaten. The 2nd set was a 6-1 beatdown.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

He didn't but I just felt like he was soundly beaten. The 2nd set was a 6-1 beatdown.

Then I'm remembering incorrectly anyway, so it's probably just the first set.

What did you make of Djokovic's performance against Nadal in the 2014 RG final? I'm not saying he should have won, because I simply expect Nadal to beat Djokovic at RG virtually every time, but mentally he seemed fried and hapless. Or is he really just so vulnerable under the sun...

 

[MichaelNadal]

He didn't but I just felt like he was soundly beaten. The 2nd set was a 6-1 beatdown.

Eh, what? Djokovic lost a 6-1 set in the same final. The match was really lost at Nadal dropping serve at 4-5 in the opening set, which I saw coming from a mile away. Djokovic was well and truly in his head at that time.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Eh, what? Djokovic lost a 6-1 set in the same final. The match was really lost at Nadal dropping serve at 4-5 in the opening set, which I saw coming from a mile away. Djokovic was well and truly in his head at that time.

Yeah. You see my problem MN is that I have a truly terrible memory. As in, it's very very very bad.

I can barely remember what happened in tennis in 2011, but rather I remember general things and bigger picture narratives rather than the specifics and even many of the critical moments. I've never been able to remedy this problem!

 

[Revenant]

Not sure if serious or trolling When he said direct consequence, it means exactly that i.e faced in a match and lost. You are insinuating an unintended, convoluted meaning to what he said and then trying to refute it. In other words, you are doing this :

LOL! That's exactly he did. Thanks!

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Eh, what? Djokovic lost a 6-1 set in the same final. The match was really lost at Nadal dropping serve at 4-5 in the opening set, which I saw coming from a mile away. Djokovic was well and truly in his head at that time.

Yeah, but he was up 2-0 at that part. I felt like it was a sound beating compared to the blown shot at AO 2012, anyways this is no knock on Nadal who leads Djokovic 9-3 in slams.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Then I'm remembering incorrectly anyway, so it's probably just the first set.

What did you make of Djokovic's performance against Nadal in the 2014 RG final? I'm not saying he should have won, because I simply expect Nadal to beat Djokovic at RG virtually every time, but mentally he seemed fried and hapless. Or is he really just so vulnerable under the sun...

It was a weak and listless performance and he didn't seemed thrilled or anything after winning the 1st. He also double faulted and it wasn't called 30-40 5-3 in the 1st. It was frustrating to watch it slip away from the predictable end of the 2nd and onwards, much like the USO 2013.

 

[adil1972]

OP forgot to mention the fact that federer dominance is on all 3 surfaces, ie hard/grass/clay

am i right OP

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

It was a weak and listless performance and he didn't seemed thrilled or anything after winning the 1st. He also double faulted and it wasn't called 30-40 5-3 in the 1st. It was frustrating to watch it slip away from the predictable end of the 2nd and onwards, much like the USO 2013.

That's what I remember the most. He wasn't buoyed at all by winning the first set and it was strange to see.

 

[Day Tripper]

They will remember also feddy getting dominated by his main rival on the biggest occasions for his entire career....goatiest of goats...

Wishful thinking on your part I am afraid. There is very little evidence across the history of the major sporting codes to support your view.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

That's what I remember the most. He wasn't buoyed at all by winning the first set and it was strange to see.

He had a similarly "dead" performance at Wimby 13. I felt like he just choked at RG 13 and USO 13 by comparison.

Next year is his last shot to score an iconic win over Nadal at RG (hopefully they meet). After that Nadal will be 30, and while Nole is only a year younger that arbitrary distinction, plus the fact that Nadal will likely already have 10 (assuming he wins if Nole doesn't) will take a lot of the shine off any future potential RG victory.

 

[jhhachamp]

You did not come up with anything meaningful except for a thinly veiled insult about my having no life. Very classy. I'm sure you felt good about that.

You are too sensitive...I suggested nothing about your life. I was only talking about myself.

 

[drm025]

Not sure if serious or trolling When he said direct consequence, it means exactly that i.e faced in a match and lost. You are insinuating an unintended, convoluted meaning to what he said and then trying to refute it. In other words, you are doing this :

No, I'm not wrong, actually. He listed the players that both Federer and Nadal beat in finals and said that they were the players that lost slams as a direct consequence of them. I said they actually stopped every person that they beat, not just finals opponents.

So, actually, you are more guilty of doing what is in that picture, lol.

And the fact that Revenant agreed with you..... oh boy. Does Revenant not even know what he posted?

 

[Lips]

Wishful thinking on your part I am afraid. There is very little evidence across the history of the major sporting codes to support your view.

Maybe that's because there has never been a so called GOAT of any particular sport that has been beaten by his main rival through every stage of his or her career.

Stats and accomplishments are one thing...how you do against the competition you face week in week out..year in year out is also very telling.

 

[Steve0904]

Maybe that's because there has never been a so called GOAT of any particular sport that has been beaten by his main rival through every stage of his or her career.

Stats and accomplishments are one thing...how you do against the competition you face week in week out..year in year out is also very telling.

So basically you're arguing in favour of Federer and you don't even realize it.

 

[Lips]

So basically you're arguing in favour of Federer and you don't even realize it.

Read the entire conversation please...

 

[Lips]

So basically you're arguing in favour of Federer and you don't even realize it.

but if that's the case i do believe Rafa has the higher winning %% vs the field

 

[Steve0904]

but if that's the case i do believe Rafa has the higher winning %% vs the field

Of course he does. Being injured and not playing actually helps that %.

 

[The_Order]

Of course he does. Being injured and not playing actually helps that %.

So does becoming a top player faster than Roger and not declining as much at the same age...

 

[Steve0904]

So does becoming a top player faster than Roger and not declining as much at the same age...

That has yet to be seen. Right now it's pretty much equal.

 

[Lips]

Of course he does. Being injured and not playing actually helps that %.

That's not what we are talking about, Steve, rather how can a player be the GOAT of a sport when they get owned by their main rival for their entire career no matter what surface, day, time, or place.

 

[Lips]

And please don't tell me match ups..and moon balls to the backhand because that's just so short sighted

 

[Steve0904]

That's not what we are talking about, Steve, rather how can a player be the GOAT of a sport when they get owned by their main rival for their entire career no matter what surface, day, time, or place.

That's easy. When Federer leads all the important metrics (most important of which is slam count) which he does as of today he will be the #1 candidate (at least for the open era) until the time comes when Nadal or somebody else passes him in most of them.

 

[Steve0904]

And please don't tell me match ups..and moon balls to the backhand because that's just so short sighted

Perhaps, but match ups do exist in tennis.

Complaining about Federer's match up problems with Nadal being short sighted is like when Nadal fans complain about the importance that Federer fans give the H2H, even though we both know those arguments hold a lot of water on both sides.

 

[MichaelNadal]

He had a similarly "dead" performance at Wimby 13. I felt like he just choked at RG 13 and USO 13 by comparison.

Next year is his last shot to score an iconic win over Nadal at RG (hopefully they meet). After that Nadal will be 30, and while Nole is only a year younger that arbitrary distinction, plus the fact that Nadal will likely already have 10 (assuming he wins if Nole doesn't) will take a lot of the shine off any future potential RG victory.

Dafuq did the time go?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Dafuq did the time go?

Yeah, I had to disagree with Madonna when she said how "time goes by so slowly". :wink:

 

[Lips]

Maybe that's because there has never been a so called GOAT of any particular sport that has been beaten by his main rival through every stage of his or her career.

Stats and accomplishments are one thing...how you do against the competition you face week in week out..year in year out is also very telling.

Steve...read the second paragraph again...

 

[MichaelNadal]

Yeah, I had to disagree with Madonna when she said how "time goes by so slowly". :wink:

it sure doesn't.

 

[Steve0904]

Steve...read the second paragraph again...

Why? You've argued in favour of Federer twice. Clearly Federer has the stats and accomplishments, and he has the durability to last year in and year out. The fact that Nadal doesn't play some tournaments or doesn't make it to Fed in tournaments he does play is not Federer's problem.

Or put another way: Nadal has beaten Federer 23 times yet Federer has the greater accomplishments as of now. What does that tell you?

 

[Lips]

Why? You've argued in favour of Federer twice. Clearly Federer has the stats and accomplishments, and he has the durability to last year in and year out. The fact that Nadal doesn't play some tournaments or doesn't make it to Fed in tournaments he does play is not Federer's problem.

Or put another way: Nadal has beaten Federer 23 times yet Federer has the greater accomplishments as of now. What does that tell you?

No...you've twisted words

But, okay...Fed is the only GOAT of any sport who couldn't beat his main rival when it mattered most that's really telling

 

[Steve0904]

No...you've twisted words

But, okay...Fed is the only GOAT of any sport who couldn't beat his main rival when it mattered most

No, you are just not understanding the concept of year in, year out.

 

[helloworld]

Why? You've argued in favour of Federer twice. Clearly Federer has the stats and accomplishments, and he has the durability to last year in and year out. The fact that Nadal doesn't play some tournaments or doesn't make it to Fed in tournaments he does play is not Federer's problem.

Or put another way: Nadal has beaten Federer 23 times yet Federer has the greater accomplishments as of now. What does that tell you?

If Nadal made it far enough to face Federer, and vice versa, in every tournament the H2H would be something like 50-10 by now. :lol:

 

[Lips]

No, you are just not understanding the concept of year in, year out.

No..I do..and year in, year out Nadal has OWNED Fed..during his peak on his best surface..but Feddy is still the Goatiest of all GOATS

 

[Djokovic2011]

No...you've twisted words

But, okay...Fed is the only GOAT of any sport who couldn't beat his main rival when it mattered most that's really telling

Federer did beat his main rival Lips. Twenty one times in fact.

 

[Steve0904]

If Nadal made it far enough to face Federer, and vice versa, in every tournament the H2H would be something like 50-10 by now. :lol:

But he didn't, so there goes your argument.

 

[Lips]

Federer did beat his main rival Lips. Twenty one times in fact.

Cmon..Roddick was a pigeon for Fed...Nadal will go down as Fed's main rival and probably one of the greatest rivalries of all sports...

 

[Steve0904]

No..I do..and year in, year out Nadal has OWNED Fed..during his peak on his best surface..but Feddy is still the Goatiest of all GOATS

Lay off the hyperbole and then get back to me.

 

[helloworld]

Cmon..Roddick was a pigeon for Fed...Nadal will go down as Fed's main rival and probably one of the greatest rivalries of all sports...

If you can call it a rivalry. :lol:

 

[Lips]

Lay off the hyperbole and then get back to me.

Nothing being exaggerated Steve...

But good comeback

 

[Steve0904]

Nothing being exaggerated Steve...

But good comeback

I have no interest in arguing with you really. At the end of the day, stats and accomplishments are not "one" thing, they are the only thing. How you do against your competition week in week out is tied into stats and accomplishments. If Nadal's H2H with Federer is any indication he SHOULD have better accomplishments than Federer, but he doesn't. That is my final post on this topic.