Can Nadal beat Djokovic and Federer in non-clay slams again?

[Towser83]

Extremelly unobjective and innacurate analysis. If Djokovic "solve" Nadal in 2012... Why did Nadal dominate Djokovic in Grand Slams in 2012-2014? Nadal beat Djokovic in 4 Grand Slam matches in a row between 2012 and 2014, including a match at the US Open. And at Wimbledon 2018, Djokovic almost lost to Nadal on indoor grass. So it is far from objective to say that Djokovic has "solved" Nadal in 2012.

Second, since 2008 Nadal is 6-1 against Federer in Grand Slams. Federer has only beaten Nadal in one Grand Slam match in the last decade (AO 2017). Only 1 victory of the last 7 matches in Grand Slams is not enough to confidently state that Federer now has "solved" Nadal. Also, your assertion that Federer has "solved" Nadal since 2015 is completely misleading. They only played 1 match in 2015, 0 matches in 2016, 4 matches in 2017, and 0 matches in 2018. So in reality, Federer has confortable beaten Nadal just one year (2017) in his entire career. The sample size is too little. Just because Federer has confortable beaten Nadal one year in his entire career, it is not enough to say that he has "solved" him.

The solving thing makes me laugh.

Djokovic didn't solve Nadal, he always had the edge on HC anyway, on clay he gave him a few close matches but was clearly second best. In 2011 what happened was he became a better player with more confidence all round - vs everybody. He beat Nadal in IW and Miami, but he'd done that before and the 2011 matches were actually tougher than most of his wins over Nadal on HC, Nadal was playing some top tennis at the time (I think at this time Djokovic led 7-5 on HC, 7-4 in best of 3, so these wins were nothing new) on clay he beat him for the first time but I believe this was because he got in Nadal's head and not because he altered something about his game to solve Nadal. What then followed were periods in which Nadal was mentally better and periods where Djokovic was. It wasn't like Djokovic couldn't beat Nadal before 2011 and Nadal didn't win after this. Their rivalry has been extremely close.

With Federer I do feel he solved Nadal, in that he altered his game (more specifically his backhand) and had a different mental approach to turn things around. However, this doesn't mean Nadal can't now solve Federer's new game and turn it back around. That's what people don't get, the game constantly evolves - even for the oldies lol.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Since Fed switched rackets in 2014, the trio of Donskoy, 37-39 yesr old Tommy Haas, and Millman have combined for as many wins against Fed as Murray, Nadal, and Wawrinka have. The difference is that the Hall of Fame trio needed 21 matches to register their 3 wins against Fed whereas the nobodies needed only 5 matches for their 3 wins against Fed.

It's easier to create an upset when you have nothing to lose, and when your GOAT opponent isn't used to playing you. Plus, those are the exceptions. For every Millman there are 50 other Millmans who always lose.

It's easy to get lost in the complex thickets of various H2Hs, most people don't understand how to interpret them, H2H being a tricky field.

 

[miko]

You didn't get my point..
The officials didn't postpone the match, nor Djokovic cribbed about rain or wet conditions at all...
Only one guy had the problem, and it all depended on Djokovic's decision..
If djokovic decided to continue the march, Rafa had to continue the match.
Bcoz it was Nadals request.

If Nadal fans want to bring up Roof incident of Wimbledon, den Hello RG 2012

I am not so sure. I went back to the match and rewatched the part. The supervisor went out and suspended the match. Nadal did complain. He complained that the court was exactly the same as it had been an hour ago so why they stopped it only now.

As for the "roof incident," Novak took advantage of the preposterous rule (see Brad Gilbert's reaction) to maximize his chances. Plain and simple. Was it fair? Arguable (and I am being magnanimous here).

 

[Standaa]

I know Rafa can’t beat Federer in a clay Slam again.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I know Rafa can’t beat Federer in a clay Slam again.

 

[Bartelby]

You can tell Nadal has problems with the post-clay back-end just by looking at his service motion.

 

[AndyM]

Down goes..... Fed..... To del potro Indian Wells on the tennis channel right now

 

[Enceladus]

As for the "roof incident," Novak took advantage of the preposterous rule (see Brad Gilbert's reaction) to maximize his chances. Plain and simple. Was it fair? Arguable (and I am being magnanimous here).

Guy, in tennis, it's a tradition to finish a match on the same court and in the same environment (if possible and in the indoor environment it goes anytime).

 

[Towser83]

You have your time spans a little muddled. Nadal does lead the head to head "in the last decade" by almost double.

What towser referred to is a different timespan - 7 years (2011-present) and he is correct about the 7-7 head to head during these years.

If you are just starting to delve deeper into tennis and the recent history of the pro game, dont let anyone mislead you in regard to Djokovic's abilities on clay Djokovic is a hell of a clay player and Nadal's best rival on that surface.

yeah one of the things he said was h2h in the last 10 years but then refered to clay h2h THIS decade, so I took that to mean the decade starting in 2011. Not actually sure if he meant just the last 10 years in which case we add 4 clay wins in 2009 for Nadal to leave it 11-7

Which to be fair is pretty decent

Said poster likes to change arguments to make his point sound better. So he cuts off 3 years of the 'decade' h2h .

Not sure if you mean me or the other poster, but I refer to the above. I was just quoting the stats the way they had presented the questions. Last 10 years to me is obvious, "this decade" can be interpreted differently but to me sounded like he was asking for stats for the start of this decade. In both cases I put him right as he seemed to think Nadal had only won a couple of matches in the last 10 years and had a losing record since the beginning of this decade. To me made sense he was picking the start of this decade as that was the year Djokovic went on his run as the best player in the world

 

[Towser83]

Specious argument. Did you actually watch the match? It kept raining for over a set. Once they were back on Monday, Djokovic lost the 4th set, and ultimately the entire match, despite being up a break.

Yep and when it was raining conditions suited Djokovic and he was winning easily. Nadal demanded the match be postponed. They came back and Nadal won.

Point is, players want conditions that suit them. it's within the rules. Nadal had a right to complain and was up to the umpire to make a decision. Djokovic had a right to go with the conditions with which he had managed to get a 2-1 lead.

In fact when they came back, Nadal won the next set, so the break possible disrupted Djokovic's rhythm. Also gave Nadal a breather and judging by the amount of drop shots he played in the quarters and semis, I feel he was feeling the pace of these matches - he looked tired in his final service game.

In any case, Djokovic would be an absolute moron to say let's change the conditions of the court when he's 2 sets to 1 up. No player would do that.

 

[miko]

Guy, in tennis, it's a tradition to finish a match on the same court and in the same environment (if possible and in the indoor environment it goes anytime).

I am sorry but what tradition you are talking about if the rule clearly leaves it "up to the players."

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

Guy, in tennis, it's a tradition to finish a match on the same court and in the same environment (if possible and in the indoor environment it goes anytime).

dude are you arguing nadal would have won with the roof open? hahahahah you forgot about the 7-0 7-0 humiliation. Or are you trying to say the win doesn't count as it was close? Well many nadal wins are ridicolously close. E.g. he literally won wimbeldon 08 by a whisker. He couldnt even do it in 5 normal sets he needed and extended set. Does that mean it doesnt count?

Mugdal needs to stop cutting it so fine and win matches more decisively and stop with these 7 hour marathons

 

[Otacon]

As someone else said, Rafa is always dangerous, you can never let your guard down against him.

 

[Enceladus]

dude are you arguing nadal would have won with the roof open? hahahahah you forgot about the 7-0 7-0 humiliation. Or are you trying to say the win doesn't count as it was close? Well many nadal wins are ridicolously close. E.g. he literally won wimbeldon 08 by a whisker. He couldnt even do it in 5 normal sets he needed and extended set. Does that mean it doesnt count?

Mugdal needs to stop cutting it so fine and win matches more decisively and stop with these 7 hour marathons

You're wrong. On the contrary, I advocated procedure organizers of Wimbledon, that leaving the roof closed for the finishing part of the Djoker-Rafa match.

 

[Towser83]

That would be fine if nadal was king of RG yet @Pantera isnt saying that he is saying he is king of clay which he clearly isnt if he cant even have a leading h2h versus his only half decent and same age rival on clay this decade. King of clay... lol

Lol of course Nadal is king of RG which is the biggest clay event. In the last 10 years he's 11-7 vs Djokovic, in this decade starting at 2010 or 2011 whichever way you look at it which he still isn't trailing overall, it's even. So tiebreaker has to be the Slam matches on clay which he leads.

This is the same h2h argument which also ignore title wins. Nadal has won 6 RG titles in the last 8 years which is 5 more than any other man in that time. He's also won more clay masters. But he isn't the king of clay because Djokovic's h2h is EVEN? does that mean most of Feds career he wasn't king of HC despite having vastly more titles than Nadal?

Madness

 

[jonnyhomeboy9851]

Lol of course Nadal is king of RG which is the biggest clay event. In the last 10 years he's 11-7 vs Djokovic, in this decade starting at 2010 or 2011 whichever way you look at it which he still isn't trailing overall, it's even. So tiebreaker has to be the Slam matches on clay which he leads.

This is the same h2h argument which also ignore title wins. Nadal has won 6 RG titles in the last 8 years which is 5 more than any other man in that time. He's also won more clay masters. But he isn't the king of clay because Djokovic's h2h is EVEN? does that mean most of Feds career he wasn't king of HC despite having vastly more titles than Nadal?

Madness

Titles are irrelvant nadal is AO goat for having a 3-1 ao h2h despite 1 title to feds 6 titles

Also nadal can be called king of RG but not clay as he does not have a winnig h2h vs his main rival thisndecade on clay despite that rival only being a 1 RG non clay ATG champ

 

[Federev]

He was really close the last two times.We'll see.

Yeah. Close to Novak at WB.

And Fed is just getting too old and unreliable to really count on for anything.

2017 was a beautiful last word on the last days of viablility for that
rivalry for us Fed fans.

 

[Enceladus]

I am sorry but what tradition you are talking about if the rule clearly leaves it "up to the players."

At the time, Executive Director AAC Ian Ritchie clearly says that when a match starts in an indoor environment, it is completed in an indoor environment.

“But we need to provide consistent playing conditions for the players which is why if a match starts with it shut it will finish with it shut.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nder-new-wimbledon-roof-idUSTRE53K3CJ20090421

When the Wimbledon indoor match is completed the following day, tennis players are asked the question, if they want to play outdoor or indoor environment. That's all well known.

 

[Towser83]

Titles are irrelvant nadal is AO goat for having a 3-1 ao h2h despite 1 title to feds 6 titles

Also nadal can be called king of RG but not clay as he does not have a winnig h2h vs his main rival thisndecade on clay despite that rival only being a 1 RG non clay ATG champ

Either you are a really really bad troll or you are a moron.

Titles don't matter? Right so Nadal is AO goat because he has a 3-1 h2h with Fed. But he's 0-1 vs Tsonga. So Tsonga is AO Goat! But Fed is 3-0 vs him... So what one is it?

Lol why is only this decade relevant? Being goat is greatest of ALL Time. That's a clue there that it's about all time not just this decade. And he leads all time. Even just this decade nole is only even and trails in the Slam h2h

Some people shouldn't be allowed technology, surprised you can manage to open your laptop

 

[Rafa.the.Magnificent]

He can and he will.