Djokodal - Most slam meetings RG 7, Most masters meeting Rome 8

[Hitman]

Does RG having 7 meetings and Rome having 8 meetings equal out the fact that there is more hard court surfaces than clay surfaces, thus bringing overall balance to amount of matches played on each surface, or does it show a bit of a skew that the closest non-clay slam (W or USO) has 3 meetings and the closest non-clay masters (IW) has 4 meetings. Or both things?

 

[Fridge]

sure, why not

 

[TripleATeam]

So 24 on clay vs 31 off clay.

Clay is 4/14 of the season, so you should expect them to meet about 15 times on the surface. Instead they meet 24 times. This shows a definite clay skew. They met on clay 24 times, HC 27 times, and grass 4 times. That's almost even for clay and HC despite HC being twice as prevalent on tour as clay is.

In summary: definite clay skew, might make things a little more balanced for Rafa because he doesn't enjoy the benefit of most of the tour being his preferred surface.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

I think both are true. But the important conclusion is that Novak made it to the latter stages of RG and Rome, arguably Nadal's strongest tournaments more than Nadal making it to Novak's favourites.

 

[Hitman]

Poll added.

 

[RaulRamirez]

A case can be made for either.

To me, though, the net effect is negligible, as I don't value H2H or surface compartmentalization as much as most do.

 

[JaoSousa]

Does RG having 7 meetings and Rome having 8 meetings equal out the fact that there is more hard court surfaces than clay surfaces, thus bringing overall balance to amount of matches played on each surface, or does it show a bit of a skew that the closest non-clay slam (W or USO) has 3 meetings and the closest non-clay masters (IW) has 4 meetings. Or both things?

This is why the H2H record is often misleading. I think that as long as one is in striking distance of the other, it is about equal. For example, Nadal-Djokovic and Federer-Djokovic. However, the H2H is important between Federer and Nadal in my view because it is 24-16, which is a clear advantage to Rafa.

The problem for the Fedal rivalry is that Federer's prime in 2005-2008 saw him make almost every single final on all surfaces, whereas Nadal basically only made those finals on clay, where he was the better player than Roger. In Nadal's prime in 2008,2010, and even 2013, Federer was there a lot of the time, and got thumped by Nadal. Taking all those factors into account, I still think the H2H is advantage Rafa, but not as much as it may seem when someone just writes 24-16.

 

[The Blond Blur]

I'd argue it's pretty balanced. RAFA has made 5 finals each at the AO, Wimby, and the USO. He's 3/4 in IW finals with 6 other SF appearances. He’s made 5 Miami finals with 2 other SF appearances. He's won the Rogers Cup 5 times with 2 other SF appearances. He won Cincy half a decade before Joker did. The guy has made plenty of deep runs at non-clay events.

 

[daggerman]

I think both are true. But the important conclusion is that Novak made it to the latter stages of RG and Rome, arguably Nadal's strongest tournaments more than Nadal making it to Novak's favourites.

It cuts both ways. You can say Novak made it to latter stages at big clay tournaments, where he often met Nadal, but you can also say that there are more instances of non-clay tournaments where Nadal would've faced Djokovic in a later round if Novak didn't lose to somebody else earlier. Some examples:

• Canada 2008
• Australian Open 2009
• Indian Wells 2009
• Shanghai 2009
• Wimbledon 2010
• Indian Wells 2013
• Australian Open 2014
• Canada 2018
• Others...

Novak very well could've won some (even most) of these matches had they happened, but the point is that the imbalance in the surface distribution of their matchups is not simply a matter of Novak's clay court prowess. It's also a matter of Novak not being as good on non-clay as Nadal is on clay -- even if he's the best hard court player ever and a top 3-5 grass court player.

 

[TheAssassin]

Until the day when we have a similar number of clay and hard court tournaments, anything even close to 50% of meetings happening on clay is a clear skew. Half the Slam meetings held at Roland Garros alone between these two and anyone wants to talk about balance there? Lol

 

[King No1e]

It doesn't matter because clay isn't a real surface

 

[King No1e]

Overall I'd say it's balanced, except not enough grass matches. They've roughly played the same amount of matches on HC as clay. Nadal has the clear lead on clay, Djokovic has the clear lead on HC.

 

[RS]

Clay skew by percentage but even disruption in the H2H....

 

[RaulRamirez]

This is why the H2H record is often misleading. I think that as long as one is in striking distance of the other, it is about equal. For example, Nadal-Djokovic and Federer-Djokovic. However, the H2H is important between Federer and Nadal in my view because it is 24-16, which is a clear advantage to Rafa.

The problem for the Fedal rivalry is that Federer's prime in 2005-2008 saw him make almost every single final on all surfaces, whereas Nadal basically only made those finals on clay, where he was the better player than Roger. In Nadal's prime in 2008,2010, and even 2013, Federer was there a lot of the time, and got thumped by Nadal. Taking all those factors into account, I still think the H2H is advantage Rafa, but not as much as it may seem when someone just writes 24-16.

It depends on how one looks at it. There is a five year (minus a couple months) age difference, and of course, that cuts both ways. But let's look at the narrative of Roger always making the finals, when Nadal didn't (outside of clay),and apply it to slams:
Roger never made it to even a semi until Wimb 2003, just before he turned 22. Rafa turned 22 around the start of RG 2008.

Starting with RG 2008, Roger has won 8 slams, and Rafa 16. (I don't fault Roger for winning 12 slams prior to then, by the way, or even detract from it, as many do.)
Starting with RG 2008, Roger made 17 slam finals and 12 additional semis
Rafa made 22 slam finals, and and 3 additional semis. (not a lot of variance there, and generally, they are not going to meet before the semis and many times not before the final. Even if you take away RG (a weird concept, but okay), Roger made 14 finals to Rafa's 13. Pretty even.
Take away Wimbledon and RG (not sure why, but to leave only hard court), Roger has 4 HC slams, 7 HC finals, and 9 additional SFs
Rafa has 5 HC slams, 9 HC Finals, and 3 additional SFs.

The narrative is mostly BS as it applies to slams.

 

[Third Serve]

Needs moar grass matches. Otherwise, it’s not that bad.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

The answer to the poll would be very straightforward if we all knew what a balanced H2H actually meant.
Is it balanced surface distribution or is it balanced as in a close H2H?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Going by surface & form per year:

2006 - fair

2007 - skewed for Nadal

2008 - fair

2009 - slightly skewed for Nadal

2010 - skewed for Nadal

2011 - fair

2012 - skewed for Nadal

2013 - fair

2014 - fair

2015 - skewed for Djokovic

2016 - skewed for Djokovic

2017 - fair

2018 - fair

2019 & early '20 - fair.

Overall slightly skewed for Nadal, the differential should be more like +6 for Djokovic.

 

[FedeRadi]

Overall H2H weighted by Big Titles surfaces

Clay Big Titles: 4/14
HC Big Titles: 9/14
Grass Big Titles: 1/14

They had 55 matches, so we can expect:
Clay Matches: 55*4/14 = 15,71
HC Matches: 55*9/14 = 35,36
Grass Matches: 55/14 = 3,93

Clay H2H: 7-17 (I always refer at Djokovic First)
Adjusted Clay H2H: 4,58-11,12
HC H2H: 20-7
Adjusted HC H2H: 26,19-9,17
Grass H2H: 2-2
Adjusted Hard H2H: 1,96-1,96

Total Adjusted Overall H2H: 32,73-22,25



Slam H2H weighted by Slam surfaces

They had 15 matches, so we can expect:
Clay Matches: 15*1/4 = 3,75
HC Matches: 15*2/4 = 7,5
Grass Matches: 15*1/4 = 3,75

Clay H2H: 1-6
Adjusted Clay H2H: 0,54-3,21
HC H2H: 3-2
Adjusted HC H2H: 4,50-3,00
Grass H2H: 2-1
Adjusted Grass H2H: 2,50-1,25

Total Adjusted Slam H2H: 7,54-7,46

This was all for fun. But if you think current Big Titles/Slams distribution is fair, H2H are heavy skewed in favor of Rafa.
I'm not sure about this. I think Master 1000 distribution is fair(Without considering grass), but ATP Finals on HC and only 1/4 Slam on Clay make the distribution biased in favor of HC/Clay comparing it with importance on every surface in the tour nowadays.
Clay has a season of more than 2 months and a lot of tournament, both early in the year and after Wimbledon. I haven't number of tournament in the year by surface, my personal opinion of surface "importance" today is 60% HC-30% Clay-10% Grass, but I can't justify this.
Slam can be also skewed by other circumstances, when players meet(Both age and form), the exact tournament(Play Nole at USO is not as play him at AO, play Rafa at Madrid is not as play Rafa at RG).
So, this is not a great case for Nole IMO, but they are a bit skewed by surface.

 

[DSH]

I think both are true. But the important conclusion is that Novak made it to the latter stages of RG and Rome, arguably Nadal's strongest tournaments more than Nadal making it to Novak's favourites.

Montecarlo is the strongest Masters 1000 for Nadal, as Miami is the same for Djokovic.

 

[Hitman]

Montecarlo is the strongest Masters 1000 for Nadal, as Miami is the same for Djokovic.

Montecarlo is Nadal's strongest Masters 1000, but not his strongest for facing Djokovic at. They are 2-2 H2H there with Djokovic leading 5-4 in sets won. Rome, there is a clear lead of 5-3 for Nadal in H2H.

 

[DSH]

Montecarlo is Nadal's strongest Masters 1000, but not his strongest for facing Djokovic at. They are 2-2 H2H there with Djokovic leading 5-4 in sets won. Rome, there is a clear lead of 5-3 for Nadal in H2H.

Well, Djokovic did not played well there the last 3 editions.

 

[metsman]

This is why the H2H record is often misleading. I think that as long as one is in striking distance of the other, it is about equal. For example, Nadal-Djokovic and Federer-Djokovic. However, the H2H is important between Federer and Nadal in my view because it is 24-16, which is a clear advantage to Rafa.

The problem for the Fedal rivalry is that Federer's prime in 2005-2008 saw him make almost every single final on all surfaces, whereas Nadal basically only made those finals on clay, where he was the better player than Roger. In Nadal's prime in 2008,2010, and even 2013, Federer was there a lot of the time, and got thumped by Nadal. Taking all those factors into account, I still think the H2H is advantage Rafa, but not as much as it may seem when someone just writes 24-16.

Federer and Nadal met 16 times on clay and 12 times in the 2nd half combined (with two of those coming in 2013). Nadal has won 87.5% on clay, and Fed has won 75% in the 2nd half of the year (90%, subtracting 2013).

 

[MichaelNadal]

Yall better slay in here

 

[mike danny]

This is why the H2H record is often misleading. I think that as long as one is in striking distance of the other, it is about equal. For example, Nadal-Djokovic and Federer-Djokovic. However, the H2H is important between Federer and Nadal in my view because it is 24-16, which is a clear advantage to Rafa.

The problem for the Fedal rivalry is that Federer's prime in 2005-2008 saw him make almost every single final on all surfaces, whereas Nadal basically only made those finals on clay, where he was the better player than Roger. In Nadal's prime in 2008,2010, and even 2013, Federer was there a lot of the time, and got thumped by Nadal. Taking all those factors into account, I still think the H2H is advantage Rafa, but not as much as it may seem when someone just writes 24-16.

Fedal H2H is skewed by the meetings in 2013-early 2014 against the worst Fed ever.

 

[Hitman]

Well, Djokovic did not played well there the last 3 editions.

It wasn't like Nadal was lighting it up against Fognini last year.

 

[RS]

Fedal H2H is skewed by the meetings in 2013-early 2014 against the worst Fed ever.

He was in good enough to play Rafa so it shows it was not all that bad in those events save for IW.

 

[mike danny]

He was in good enough to play Rafa so it shows it was not all that bad in those events save for IW.

But Rafa could not return the favor in 2015.

 

[tennis_pro]

If they played 65% of their matches on HC, 30% on clay and 5% on grass this wouldve been ugly for Nadal the clay courter.

 

[roysid]

I argue its balanced. Reasons below
- Since the start of 2011, they are evenly balanced on all surfaces. Its just the current form that determined the winner. Prior to tat till 2010, Nadal was the dominant player on all surfaces.

Now the facts:
- Since 2011, Djokovic is comfortable against Nadal on clay. He beat Nadal in Madrid(2011), Monte Carlo(2013), multiple times in Rome (2011, 2014, 2016) and finally at RG when Nadal was at his weakest(2015).
- At Rome, since 2011 he won 3 times and lost when he was out of form or tired and Nadal was in top form (2012, 2018, 2019) . So 3-3 isn't bad
- At RG, beating Nadal is the toughest job in tennis. Still he managed once.

Now on the other surfaces,
AO 2012 and W 2018 showed that if both Nadal Djokovic are in form, the matches are extremely close regardless on surface. And in USO 2013, Nadal won.

 

[Lew II]

Djokovic leads the h2h adjusted by surface 31.5 to 23.5:

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Rafael Nadal vs Novak Djokovic

Rafael Nadal vs Novak Djokovic at Ultimate Tennis Statistics

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

 

[Lew II]

Meetings in Djokovic's three favourite big tournaments (AO, WI, Miami) --> 8

Meetings in Nadal's three favourite big tournaments (RG, MC, Rome) --> 19

LOL

 

[kevaninho]

I think both are true. But the important conclusion is that Novak made it to the latter stages of RG and Rome, arguably Nadal's strongest tournaments more than Nadal making it to Novak's favourites.

So what happened in 2006/07/08/09 and 2010 when Nadal was going deep in plenty of tournaments that Djokovic never did?

Is that still Nadals fault that they never met more?

Recency bias at its best.

 

[kevaninho]

But Rafa could not return the favor in 2015.

Are you forgetting Basel 2015?
The point, where basically Federer changed the tide of the rivalry?

Nadal had been on another 5 match win streak v Fed up until they didn't play from AO 14 till Basel 15.

Everyone knows that helped Federer, as even on an indoor court, against a poor Nadal, he still lost a set.

That match was HUGE for what became of their H2H after that.

From 23-10 to 24-16 is what that 2015 meeting started.

If Nadal had somehow beaten Fed indoors in 2015, Fed was never beating Nadal in 2017 AO.

Mentally he would've been a mess.

 

[mike danny]

Are you forgetting Basel 2015?
The point, where basically Federer changed the tide of the rivalry?

Nadal had been on another 5 match win streak v Fed up until they didn't play from AO 14 till Basel 15.

Everyone knows that helped Federer, as even on an indoor court, against a poor Nadal, he still lost a set.

That match was HUGE for what became of their H2H after that.

From 23-10 to 24-16 is what that 2015 meeting started.

If Nadal had somehow beaten Fed indoors in 2015, Fed was never beating Nadal in 2017 AO.

Mentally he would've been a mess.

Basel 2015 vs 5 matches in 2013-early 2014? Not an even playing field, sorry.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Are you forgetting Basel 2015?
The point, where basically Federer changed the tide of the rivalry?

Nadal had been on another 5 match win streak v Fed up until they didn't play from AO 14 till Basel 15.

Everyone knows that helped Federer, as even on an indoor court, against a poor Nadal, he still lost a set.

That match was HUGE for what became of their H2H after that.

From 23-10 to 24-16 is what that 2015 meeting started.

If Nadal had somehow beaten Fed indoors in 2015, Fed was never beating Nadal in 2017 AO.

Mentally he would've been a mess.

A third consecutive escape wouldn't do, after all.

 

[Leandro2045]

This has more to do with Rafa being the Clay Court King and his unparalleled consistency on the surface. He's ALWAYS THERE.

So logically everytime Djokovic goes deep on Clay he faces Rafa.

Novak is probably the best ever in Hard Courts but he's nowhere near as consistent as Rafa so much less amount of possible matches.

Nadal has made 5 Wimbledon Finals, 5 Australian Open Finals, 5 US Open Finals, 5 Miami Open Finals, 5 Canadian Open Finals, 4 Indian Wells Finals etc.

Novak has made 9 Rome Finals, 4 Roland Garros Finals, 4 Monte Carlo Finals, 3 Madrid Finals etc.

 

[Leandro2045]

Meetings in Djokovic's three favourite big tournaments (AO, WI, Miami) --> 8

Meetings in Nadal's three favourite big tournaments (RG, MC, Rome) --> 19

LOL

The difference is so big simply because Novak is not consistent enough as Rafa is on Clay.

Throughout their careers they have been pretty much equals regarding reaching the finals in those tournaments.

Yet the difference in the amount of H2H matches is more than double, Why ?

The answer is simple, Rafa is always there on the final day in RG, MC, Rome while Novak is not always there on AO, WB and Miami.

Amount of Finals :

Djokovic : RG (4) + MC (4) + Rome (9) = 17 Finals in 42 Tournaments
Nadal : AO (5) + WI (5) + Miami (5) = 15 Finals in 42 Tournaments

 

[SecondToNone]

The amount of delusion in this thread. Why even bother arguing with VB.

 

[NoleFam]

There is a definite clay skew. Hitman pretty much hit the nail on the head in the 1st sentence. They met the most in two clay tournaments. Clay is probably at most 30% of the tour so the answer seems pretty straightforward.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Djokovic is GOATY on clay, Nadal is just the best ever