Djokovic 2015 vs. Federer 2006 (tour by tour comparison)

abmk

Bionic Poster
So basically you just ignored what I said. Cool. I'll iust apply your logic to another scenario to perk your ears up.

Blake and Monoco are clearly -- and I repeat --clearly easier than Nadal on hard, yes even for Federer. So if Federer loses in a final to Nadal, it's safe to say that he loses to prime Blake and Monaco as well.....

Herp derp

then you woke up and realized that the analogy actually would be :

if federer loses in a final to blake and monaco, then he'd lose to nadal as well in that form ..

which is true ...........

here let me break it up for you

djokovic --- murray&stan -- nadal
federer -- blake&monaco -- nadal

get it or is that too tough to understand ?
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
and get this into your head, you FAKER, when federer did play close to his best this year, he beat novak - dubai, cincy, YEC ...

when he did play close to his best, wimby SF or cincy , he actually won ...

he didn't play close to that in the matches he lost to Novak and major part of it was federer himself , it wasn't just because of Novak as you pretend it to be

and don't give me the sh*t that I think that federer cannot lose when he plays well - safin AO 05, nadal rome 06 etc are examples of that .... ...

I mean just listen to yourself. Your logic is screwed up.

.....every,,time...time fed wins he ......was playing his be...st but when he l...ost he did not play clo...se to his best.,

THUMBS UP, FANTASTIC LOGIC!!
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
In 2006 you had a bunch of players who would peak at different tournaments but have average results elsewhere e.g. depth. In 2015 you have a few players who are more consistent at bringing their game to every event, but they don't necessarily peak higher for individual tournaments.
 

Tony48

Legend
then you woke up and realized that the analogy actually would be :

if federer loses in a final to blake and monaco, then he'd lose to nadal as well in that form ..

which is true ...........

here let me break it up for you

djokovic --- murray&stan -- nadal
federer -- blake&monaco -- nadal

get it or is that too tough to understand ?

You're right. I misspoke. So let me pose it differently: Nadal at the French Open was the most difficult opponent for everyone and Soderling beat him. And yet he lost to Federer in the final, someone much, much easier than Nadal.

Your logic (that the results against one player shows what will happen against another player) is not consistent and you should already know that.

Doesn't matter if Djokovic got double bageled by Wawrinka. Wawrinka and Nadal are not the same person, and you treating them as if results against one predicts results against the other is ridiculous. Djokovic lost to Karlovic in Doha, so does that mean that he loses to everyone worse than Karlovic? Of course not.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I mean just listen to yourself. Your logic is screwed up.

.....every,,time...time fed wins he ......was playing his be...st but when he l...ost he did not play clo...se to his best.,

THUMBS UP, FANTASTIC LOGIC!!

I already answered this :

"and don't give me the sh*t that I think that federer cannot lose when he plays well - safin AO 05, nadal rome 06 etc are examples of that .... ..."
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You're right. I misspoke. So let me pose it differently: Nadal at the French Open was the most difficult opponent for everyone and Soderling beat him. And yet he lost to Federer in the final, someone much, much easier than Nadal.

Your logic (that the results against one player shows what will happen against another player) is not consistent and you should already know that.

Doesn't matter if Djokovic got double bageled by Wawrinka. Wawrinka and Nadal are not the same person, and you treating them as if results against one predicts results against the other is ridiculous. Djokovic lost to Karlovic in Doha, so does that mean that he loses to everyone worse than Karlovic? Of course not.

I said considering the same form ........"in that form"

results could be different if forms are very different ....

if djoko gets double bagelled by stan on clay, safe to say prime nadal will beat him on clay in that form ...that's not ridiculous, that's common sense ...

Point is I don't see any form of djokovic beating RG 2006 nadal ....

RG 2011 nadal, sure , djokovic of 2011 could've beaten him, but that match didn't happen ...
 

Tony48

Legend
Point is I don't see any form of djokovic beating RG 2006 nadal ....

You only say this because Federer couldn't do it. Federer also couldn't beat Nadal in Dubai that year, either.

What Federer can't do isn't an indication of what everyone else can't do. Federer only won 11 matches against Nadal while Djokovic won 23. One is much more capable of handling Nadal than the other.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Federer loses no marks for his competition (at least in the eyes of anyone who matters).
The same is true of Djokovic.

Feel free to argue until you're blue in the face - Federer still has 17 slams.

Deal with it.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You only say this because Federer couldn't do it. Federer also couldn't beat Nadal in Dubai that year, either.

What Federer can't do isn't an indication of what everyone else can't do. Federer only won 11 matches against Nadal while Djokovic won 23. One is much more capable of handling Nadal than the other.

If that were the case, I wouldn't have said djoko would've beat nadal in RG 11 ....federer didn't ..

face it , you are blinded by djoko's success this year and his success vs a below par nadal on clay in the recent years , that's it ...he's not winning at RG vs nadal of RG 06 .......bringing in HC results and all into the mix over here is just a sign of desperation and denial ....

I don't see that much of a difference b/w both of them in handling a top form nadal on clay , if nadal is below his prime level, sure, djoko has a clearly better chance ...
 

Tony48

Legend
face it , you are blinded by djoko's success this year and his success vs a below par nadal on clay in the recent years , that's it ...he's not winning at RG vs nadal of RG 06 .......bringing in HC results and all into the mix over here is just a sign of desperation and denial ....

Djokovic has defeated Nadal 6 times on clay, more than any other person, and was the only person to defeat him on clay in 2011.

Their overall H2H is just illustrating that Djokovic is the only player capable of handling Nadal anywhere at any time. 2006 may have been impossible for some (just like 2011 was impossible for some) but it wasn't for Djokovic.

I don't see that much of a difference b/w both of them in handling a top form nadal on clay , if nadal is below his prime level, sure, djoko has a

6 vs 2. Additionally, Federer struggles against Nadal on hard and grass, so clay is obviously out of the question.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
6 vs 2. Additionally, Federer struggles against Nadal on hard and grass, so clay is obviously out of the question.

Djokovic couldn't beat Nadal on clay until 2011 when Nadal played his worst clay season in his prime years (2005-2013) and apart from 2011 scored 4 of his 6 wins in 2013-2015 when Nadal was already fading and started to have more and more off days. If Federer was in his prime in 2015 you think he wouldn't've beaten Nadal a couple of times on clay this year like Djokovic did? Of course he would, unfortunately Federer's best years on clay were 2005-2009 which unfortunately for him coincided with Nadal's best years on clay.

Some people are laughing how Federer couldn't handle a young Nadal on clay but watch some videos and see how much better Nadal in 2005-2008 was compared to this year or even last. It's night and day.

Nadal produced that level in 2010 (didn't face Djokovic), 2012 (beat Djokovic 3 out of 3 times with ease), in parts of 2013 (still beat Djokovic at the FO despite choking the 4th set away). In 2014 prime Nadal showed up only in the final of the FO, he was lucky to even win 1 MS on clay that year. This year he's been a shadow of himself throughout the entire clay season.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Djokovic has defeated Nadal 6 times on clay, more than any other person, and was the only person to defeat him on clay in 2011.

Their overall H2H is just illustrating that Djokovic is the only player capable of handling Nadal anywhere at any time. 2006 may have been impossible for some (just like 2011 was impossible for some) but it wasn't for Djokovic.



6 vs 2. Additionally, Federer struggles against Nadal on hard and grass, so clay is obviously out of the question.

no, it isn't , djoko didn't get a single win on clay vs nadal till 2011 ...this was with him playing some real good tennis on clay in 2008 and 2009 ...

and when nadal hit top form in 12, djoko found him pretty tough to handle him again ..

Like I said : "I don't see that much of a difference b/w both of them in handling a top form nadal on clay , if nadal is below his prime level, sure, djoko has a clearly better chance"

3 of those 6 wins were vs nadal in 14-15 with nadal being below par ( apart from the final 3 rounds of RG 14 ) when guys like fognini, murray & even nishikori ( though he couldn't complete it ) were winning vs nadal on clay ...

the grass talk is a bit hilarious : federer is 2-1 vs nadal on grass, djokovic is 1-2 vs nadal on grass ...his struggle vs nadal on grass is "relative" to his own high standards on grass ...
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Djokovic couldn't beat Nadal on clay until 2011 when Nadal played his worst clay season in his prime years (2005-2013) and apart from 2011 scored 4 of his 6 wins in 2013-2015 when Nadal was already fading and started to have more and more off days. If Federer was in his prime in 2015 you think he wouldn't've beaten Nadal a couple of times on clay this year like Djokovic did? Of course he would, unfortunately Federer's best years on clay were 2005-2009 which unfortunately for him coincided with Nadal's best years on clay.

Some people are laughing how Federer couldn't handle a young Nadal on clay but watch some videos and see how much better Nadal in 2005-2008 was compared to this year or even last. It's night and day.

Nadal produced that level in 2010 (didn't face Djokovic), 2012 (beat Djokovic 3 out of 3 times with ease), in parts of 2013 (still beat Djokovic at the FO despite choking the 4th set away). In 2014 prime Nadal showed up only in the final of the FO, he was lucky to even win 1 MS on clay that year. This year he's been a shadow of himself throughout the entire clay season.

not just djokovic , but fognini as well !
 

Tony48

Legend
no, it isn't , djoko didn't get a single win on clay vs nadal till 2011 ...this was with him playing some real good tennis on clay in 2008 and 2009 ...

If you're going to bring up random years when Djokovic was playing "really good tennis" then I will do the same with Federer (like his 2015...where both Djokovic and Federer finished at #3).

Don't go there.

3 of those 6 wins were vs nadal in 14-15 with nadal being below par ( apart from the final 3 rounds of RG 14 ) when guys like fognini, murray & even nishikori ( though he couldn't complete it ) were winning vs nadal on clay ...

Yeah, Nadal was so horrible last year that he only lost 1 set en route to the RG final. Stop trying to make it appear as if Nadal was playing badly. He wasn't.

At least Nadal was good enough to WIN the French Open in the years Djokovic beat him (2011, 2013 and 2014). Apart from 2007, Federer couldn't even beat a Nadal that was even good enough to win the French Open.

the grass talk is a bit hilarious : federer is 2-1 vs nadal on grass, djokovic is 1-2 vs nadal on grass ...his struggle vs nadal on grass is "relative" to his own high standards on grass ...

The point is that since Federer struggles against Nadal on surfaces that Federer prefers, winning on his LEAST favorite surface -- a surface Nadal prefers -- is next to impossible. Or do you not understand what a lopsided H2H indicates? Do you also think Roddick is going to beat Federer on clay?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
If you're going to bring up random years when Djokovic was playing "really good tennis" then I will do the same with Federer (like his 2015...where both Djokovic and Federer finished at #3).

Don't go there.

djokovic was in his physical prime in 08-09 ...federer isn't a Bo5 slog vs djokovic or on slow HC or on clay ...

try harder, I'm you can and will fail more spectacularly ......

those aren't random years , but years where djoko was actually playing well on clay, his level on clay hasn't gone up that much later on , unlike on grass or indoor HC ...

federer's level on grass and fast HC has been clearly higher in many of his other years ......


Yeah, Nadal was so horrible last year that he only lost 1 set en route to the RG final. Stop trying to make it appear as if Nadal was playing badly. He wasn't.

I said apart from the last 3 rounds of RG or is that too tough to read ?

he was well below par leading up to RG ......

At least Nadal was good enough to WIN the French Open in the years Djokovic beat him (2011, 2013 and 2014). Apart from 2007, Federer couldn't even beat a Nadal that was even good enough to win the French Open.

nadal of 09 was in general better on clay than he was in 11, 13 and 14 .....just that soderling took him out on a day when he was a bit below par ....

The point is that since Federer struggles against Nadal on surfaces that Federer prefers, winning on his LEAST favorite surface -- a surface Nadal prefers -- is next to impossible. Or do you not understand what a lopsided H2H indicates? Do you also think Roddick is going to beat Federer on clay?

anyone would've struggled vs nadal playing as well as he did in wimby 07 and wimby 08 -- it wasn't that federer struggled more than others would have .....but try again ....
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
Comparison of Fed's '06 and Djok's '15 comes down to:

1) simple numbers: Fed won more matches and tournaments, and lost less.

2) opponents who defeated him: Four of Fed's five losses were to the ultimate claymaster. Djok's opposition this year was extremely weak; they were playing at a reduced level, injured, or old. In fact, "Ol' Man Fed" took out Djok three times!

Can't be a "greatest" type player and have a nemesis in his mid-30's. Nearly a decade after his greatest season, Fed comes back to defend its legacy! It is poetic :)
 

Tony48

Legend
djokovic was in his physical prime in 08-09 ...federer isn't a Bo5 slog vs djokovic or on slow HC or on clay ...

try harder, I'm you can and will fail more spectacularly ......

those aren't random years , but years where djoko was actually playing well on clay, his level on clay hasn't gone up that much later on , unlike on grass or indoor HC ...

federer's level on grass and fast HC has been clearly higher in many of his other years ......

Um, sorry. You said "really good tennis", not "physical prime" or whatever you're changing the story to now. Don't move the goal posts when your own argument is being used against you.

nadal of 09 was in general better on clay than he was in 11, 13 and 14 .....just that soderling took him out on a day when he was a bit below par ....

Yes, not winning the French Open shows how much better you are on clay vs. when you do when it. lol. You've gone from basing clay form on results and then basing it on your own subjective criteria. Your logic is wildly inconsistent.

anyone would've struggled vs nadal playing as well as he did in wimby 07 and wimby 08 -- it wasn't that federer struggled more than others would have .....but try again ....

Um, did you somehow forget all of the OTHER matches they've played? I said grass AND hard, but I guess that since Federer loses more often than not on hard, you'd rather not talk about that.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Um, sorry. You said "really good tennis", not "physical prime" or whatever you're changing the story to now. Don't move the goal posts when your own argument is being used against you.

that's because fed's losses in 2015 were mainly because of that and you know it. I take the whole thing into perspective ...If I start posting every inch of of my thinking, you'll never hear the end of it.So I put down a shorter, convenient way of expressing it .......



Yes, not winning the French Open shows how much better you are on clay vs. when you do when it. lol. You've gone from basing clay form on results and then basing it on your own subjective criteria. Your logic is wildly inconsistent.

its called actually watching tennis and knowing what was going on at that time, not BSing about a non RG winner definitely beating a peaking 9-time RG winner ...



Um, did you somehow forget all of the OTHER matches they've played? I said grass AND hard, but I guess that since Federer loses more often than not on hard, you'd rather not talk about that.

yes, because I didn't disagree with that part ...nadal on hard is clearly easier for djokovic than he is for federer ...
 

Tony48

Legend
that's because fed's losses in 2015 were mainly because of that and you know it. I take the whole thing into perspective ...If I start posting every inch of of my thinking, you'll never hear the end of it.So I put down a shorter, convenient way of expressing it .......

You originally said "playing really good tennis" and now you're trying to make your words not apply to Federer. That is not going to work.

its called actually watching tennis and knowing what was going on at that time, not BSing about a non RG winner definitely beating a peaking 9-time RG winner ...

So you're admitting to basing form on results and then other times basing it on your own subjectice criteria? If so, then there is no point continuing this part of the discussion since you get to pick and choose how to rate form.

yes, because I didn't disagree with that part ...nadal on hard is clearly easier for djokovic than he is for federer ...

And you don't think that translates to other surfaces.....like clay? Do you think it's a coincidence that Djokovic has beaten Nadal more times on clay than any other player?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You originally said "playing really good tennis" and now you're trying to make your words not apply to Federer. That is not going to work.

is this too difficult to understand ? "If I start posting every inch of of my thinking, you'll never hear the end of it.So I put down a shorter, convenient way of expressing it ".......



So you're admitting to basing form on results and then other times basing it on your own subjectice criteria? If so, then there is no point continuing this part of the discussion since you get to pick and choose how to rate form.

I already answered this : I take the whole thing into perspective

both results and subjective criteria ( actually watching )...only one thing doesn't work ...



And you don't think that translates to other surfaces.....like clay? Do you think it's a coincidence that Djokovic has beaten Nadal more times on clay than any other player?

I already said that, vs a below par nadal, djokovic is clearly better than federer is ..

but I don't see that much of a difference vs an in-form nadal ......while he has his defense, djoko doesn't have the top level offense to hit through him like soderling, delpo , fed do ......
 

Algo

Hall of Fame
Apples to oranges comparison if you don't count both players points as if the season you wanna compare happened on the others point structure.
It makes no sense to count Federer's 250s-that-now-are-500s as 250s.
 

Tony48

Legend
is this too difficult to understand ? "If I start posting every inch of of my thinking, you'll never hear the end of it.So I put down a shorter, convenient way of expressing it ".......

That's what people say when they get caught moving the goal posts. It's not going to work.

I already answered this : I take the whole thing into perspective

both results and subjective criteria ( actually watching )...only one thing doesn't work ...

Give me a break. For this year, all you did was point out who Nadal lost to and pointed to nothing other than that.

Was Murray playing well? Was he playing badly? That was obviously no concern of yours since the only thing that matters was that he won.

More double standards from you.

I already said that, vs a below par nadal, djokovic is clearly better than federer is ..

Yeah those 23 wins were all because Nadal was below par. Djokovic is so lucky, lol

but I don't see that much of a difference vs an in-form nadal ......while he has his defense, djoko doesn't have the top level offense to hit through him like soderling, delpo , fed do ......

Are you serious? Federer, Soderling and del Potro COMBINED don't have as many wins as Djokovic does over Nadal. Maybe THEY have to ball bash and hit through Nadal to score wins but Djokovic is more tactical than that
 

Fiero425

Legend
That's what people say when they get caught moving the goal posts. It's not going to work.



Give me a break. For this year, all you did was point out who Nadal lost to and pointed to nothing other than that.

Was Murray playing well? Was he playing badly? That was obviously no concern of yours since the only thing that matters was that he won.

More double standards from you.



Yeah those 23 wins were all because Nadal was below par. Djokovic is so lucky, lol



Are you serious? Federer, Soderling and del Potro COMBINED don't have as many wins as Djokovic does over Nadal. Maybe THEY have to ball bash and hit through Nadal to score wins but Djokovic is more tactical than that

Nole makes them all look bad by the end of the match! Commentators are actually amazed by the stats, the actual beating, and makes it seem like futility in anyone to even challenge him at this moment! ;-)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
That's what people say when they get caught moving the goal posts. It's not going to work.

no, that's what people say when they're trying to dumb down reply to someone who is hell bent on mis-interpreting others posts deliberately because he has no answers to reality and lives in his own la la land where a zero RG winner beats a peak 9 time time RG winner at RG ...


Give me a break. For this year, all you did was point out who Nadal lost to and pointed to nothing other than that.

Was Murray playing well? Was he playing badly? That was obviously no concern of yours since the only thing that matters was that he won.

More double standards from you.

huh, murray was playing well, but murray playing well is no match for nadal playing well on clay ...he beat him badly because :

a) nadal was sucky b) murray was playing well ......in that order ...

you can't even interpret small paragraphs properly, what's the point on explaining the whole thing to you in larger paras ?

I am just showcasing how delusional you are over here ...

Yeah those 23 wins were all because Nadal was below par. Djokovic is so lucky, lol

I was talking about clay there, but hey, try to get dumber ...



Are you serious? Federer, Soderling and del Potro COMBINED don't have as many wins as Djokovic does over Nadal. Maybe THEY have to ball bash and hit through Nadal to score wins but Djokovic is more tactical than that

I'm very serious ........
 

Tony48

Legend
no, that's what people say when they're trying to dumb down reply to someone who is hell bent on mis-interpreting others posts deliberately because he has no answers to reality and lives in his own la la land where a zero RG winner beats a peak 9 time time RG winner at RG ...

You SAID one thing and now are saying another. End of discussion.

huh, murray was playing well, but murray playing well is no match for nadal playing well on clay ...he beat him badly because :

a) nadal was sucky b) murray was playing well ......in that order ...

you can't even interpret small paragraphs properly, what's the point on explaining the whole thing to you in larger paras ?

I am just showcasing how delusional you are over here ...

It's too late to talk about form NOW. You had your chance. As I've illustrated, you oniy bring form into the picture when it suits your agenda and results other times when it suits your agenda.

I was talking about clay there, but hey, try to get dumber ...

And you made the same excuses for whenever Djokovic beats Nadal on clay, too! lol

Djokovic is soooooo lucky to have beaten Nadal 6 times on clay! Anybody can do it! It's just a mere coincidence that it's the same guy who beat him 23 times. lol

I'm very serious ........

Djokovic has beaten Nadal 23 times. Whatever Federer, Soderling, and del Potro are doing is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
You SAID one thing and now are saying another. End of discussion.

I didn't, I only added to what I said,...but that's something beyond your understanding ..

you can't even get what 4+4 is and yet expect me to explain to you what (43*21)-(12/4+3) is ......

That's what the end of discussion is.

It's too late to talk about form NOW. You had your chance. As I've illustrated, you oniy bring form into the picture when it suits your agenda and results other times when it suits your agenda.

oh my god, I'm such a failure, I lost my chance to present my case before the great Tony48 when I didn't mention murray's form in 2015 in the first time !

boo hoo, get outta here, clueless fella ......murray's form is irrelevant vs a prime nadal on clay ..he's not going to win vs prime nadal on clay, ...its as simple as that, it isn't necessary to mention that specifically, its plain common sense .......same goes for fognini as well


And you made the same excuses for whenever Djokovic beats Nadal on clay, too! lol

Djokovic is soooooo lucky to have beaten Nadal 6 times on clay! Anybody can do it! It's just a mere coincidence that it's the same guy who beat him 23 times. lol

yeah, I should be saying its such fantastic work done when djokovic beats a pale shadow himself nadal in masters in 2014 ( with nishi nearly schooling him, almagro, ferrer beating him ), in 2015 - when frikkin' fognini beats him twice, murray lays a beatdown on him , LOL .......

The only thing you are short of saying is 2015 nadal is prime nadal on clay ...go ahead, I dare you ! ...go ahead and say that as well !

3 of those 6 wins are clearly in years where nadal is well well past his prime on clay ...still 3 wins from 2005-13 on clay is the highest anyone managed vs nadal on clay ..so credit to djokovic for that, but nothing more than that .....

don't exaggerate and make it look like he'd be beating nadal regularly on clay at his prime .....

Djokovic has beaten Federer 23 times. Whatever Federer, Soderling, and del Potro are doing is irrelevant.

which has nothing to do with djokovic beating in-form nadal on clay ...vs federer, soderling and delpo doing the same ..
 

Tony48

Legend
yeah, I should be saying its such fantastic work done when djokovic beats a pale shadow himself nadal in masters in 2014 ( with nishi nearly schooling him, almagro, ferrer beating him ), in 2015 - when frikkin' fognini beats him twice, murray lays a beatdown on him , LOL .......

The only thing you are short of saying is 2015 nadal is prime nadal on clay ...go ahead, I dare you ! ...go ahead and say that as well !

3 of those 6 wins are clearly in years where nadal is well well past his prime on clay ...still 3 wins from 2005-13 on clay is the highest anyone managed vs nadal on clay ..so credit to djokovic for that, but nothing more than that .....

don't exaggerate and make it look like he'd be beating nadal regularly on clay at his prime

Who else has beaten Nadal 6 times on clay, regardless of form?

I'll wait while you tally the numbers....

which has nothing to do with djokovic beating in-form nadal on clay ...vs federer, soderling and delpo doing the same ..

del Potro has NEVER beaten Nadal on clay, so what the hell are you talking about?
 

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
Apples to oranges comparison if you don't count both players points as if the season you wanna compare happened on the others point structure.
It makes no sense to count Federer's 250s-that-now-are-500s as 250s.
And how would it change if Halle and Basel were counted as 500s?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Who else has beaten Nadal 6 times on clay, regardless of form?

I'll wait while you tally the numbers....

Not relevant ....point was about djokovic vs an in-form nadal ..

I've already said djokovic is the toughest opponent for a non-prime nadal on clay ( out of those who've played him )

why the hell should I consider djokovic as someone "special" for beating nadal in smaller CC events in 14 ( when ferrer, almagro did the same and nishi almost did the same) and in 15 ( when fognini beat him twice, murray thrashed him, stan beat him and when he was even worse than he was in 14 and was a pale shadow of himself at RG as well ) ?

I repeat : The only thing you are short of saying is 2015 nadal is prime nadal on clay ...go ahead, I dare you ! ...go ahead and say that as well !

del Potro has NEVER beaten Nadal on clay, so what the hell are you talking about?

no, but they've played only once on clay since delpo became a top player ......he nearly took nadal to 5 sets in DC on clay and that match was closer than any match djokovic had vs prime nadal in Bo5 on clay save RG 2013 .....

Again, you have no idea, because you are in your in your own djokovic land where no version of nadal can beat 2011 djokovic on clay :D
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Your last (5-year-old-like) statement has absolutely nothing to do with this thread
Oh, but it does.
This thread is obviously just to denigrate Federer by saying his competition was weak.
I'm just cutting to the heart of the issue. ;)
 

Tony48

Legend
Not relevant ....point was about djokovic vs an in-form nadal ..

I've already said djokovic is the toughest opponent for a non-prime nadal on clay ( out of those who've played him )

why the hell should I consider djokovic as someone "special" for beating nadal in smaller CC events in 14 ( when ferrer, almagro did the same and nishi almost did the same) and in 15 ( when fognini beat him twice, murray thrashed him, stan beat him and when he was even worse than he was in 14 and was a pale shadow of himself at RG as well ) ?

I repeat : The only thing you are short of saying is 2015 nadal is prime nadal on clay ...go ahead, I dare you ! ...go ahead and say that as well !

Did Ferrer, Almagro, Nishikori, Fognini, Murray, or Wawrinka or anyone else beat Nadal at RG?

I'll wait.

Also, what does it matter whether or not Nadal was in his prime? Was Nadal in his prime in 2005? Federer still couldn't beat him. Djokovic DID. That's the difference.

You need to face it: Federer isn't beating ANY version of Nadal outside of Wimbledon. Can't even beat him at the Australian Open and he's supposed to beat him at RG? LMAO

Nadal doesn't even have to be at his peak to wallop Federer.

no, but they've played only once on clay since delpo became a top player ......he nearly took nadal to 5 sets in DC on clay and that match was closer than any match djokovic had vs prime nadal in Bo5 on clay save RG 2013 .....

So what was the point of this post? Djokovic's 2013 effort doesn't count just because you brought it up first?
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Did Ferrer, Almagro, Nishikori, Fognini, Murray, or Wawrinka or anyone else beat Nadal at RG?

I'll wait.

Also, what does it matter whether or not Nadal was in his prime? Was Nadal in his prime in 2005? Federer still couldn't beat him. Djokovic DID. That's the difference.

firstly : you ran away from the smaller CC events thing...good, typical ......

secondly , the way things were going, Murray might've beaten nadal at this year's RG ( which would be hilarious ) ! stan would've and prime fed would've as well ...

still djoko deserves some credit, though not a lot , for being the one to actually do it ..

also nadal of RG 05 >>> nadal of RG 15 ..and much better on clay in general as well ..

I'd consider nadal ( starting from European clay swing ) to be pretty much in his CC prime (05 to 13)

So what was the point of this post? Djokovic's 2013 effort doesn't count just because you brought it up first?

because that was one occasion out of 4 - RG 08, RG 12, RG 13, RG 14 ...and I don't twist facts to suit my agenda like you .....

and delpo in the one chance he got did better than djoko did on 3 of the 4 occasions ..
 

uscwang

Hall of Fame
Comparison of Fed's '06 and Djok's '15 comes down to:

1) simple numbers: Fed won more matches and tournaments, and lost less.

2) opponents who defeated him: Four of Fed's five losses were to the ultimate claymaster. Djok's opposition this year was extremely weak; they were playing at a reduced level, injured, or old. In fact, "Ol' Man Fed" took out Djok three times!

Can't be a "greatest" type player and have a nemesis in his mid-30's. Nearly a decade after his greatest season, Fed comes back to defend its legacy! It is poetic :)
:eek:
No wonder WB, USO, and WTF finals audience left the stadiums singing ...
 

Tony48

Legend
firstly : you ran away from the smaller CC events thing...good, typical ......

Djokovic went UNDEFEATED on clay against Nadal in 2015, didn't lose a single set and wasn't even forced to a breaker
Did Fognini go undefeated against Nadal on clay? No. Did Murray? No. Wawrinka only played Nadal once but was forced to a tiebreak.

So yes, what Djokovic did was "special". His triumphs against Nadal went unmatched.

secondly , the way things were going, Murray might've beaten nadal at this year's RG ( which would be hilarious ) ! stan would've and prime fed would've as well ...

No. No, and no.

also nadal of RG 05 >>> nadal of RG 15 ..and much better on clay in general as well ..

Regardless, Federer lost and Djokovic won.

because that was one occasion out of 4 - RG 08, RG 12, RG 13, RG 14 ...and I don't twist facts to suit my agenda like you .....

and delpo in the one chance he got did better than djoko did on 3 of the 4 occasions ..

Now you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. It took Murray 2 tries to beat Federer while it took Djokovic 4. And it means absolutely NOTHING.
 

dr325i

G.O.A.T.
Oh, but it does.
This thread is obviously just to denigrate Federer by saying his competition was weak.
I'm just cutting to the heart of the issue. ;)
The OP put up the facts, not opinion, about 2015 vs 2006.
Absolutely nothing about who has the better career so far.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Djokovic went UNDEFEATED on clay against Nadal in 2015, didn't lose a single set and wasn't even forced to a breaker
Did Fognini go undefeated against Nadal on clay? No. Did Murray? No. Wawrinka only played Nadal once but was forced to a tiebreak.

So yes, what Djokovic did was "special". His triumphs against Nadal went unmatched.

actually murray did go undefeated vs nadal on clay in 15, so did stan ...(both one match each )

so now fognini , being a much worse player than djokovic has to go undefeated vs nadal now ?

the fact that you have to go to this -- that beating a pale shadow of nadal is being hyped up so much ...just shows desperation .


No. No, and no.

Maybe, yes and yes ...

Regardless, Federer lost and Djokovic won.

reverse the situations, djokovic would've lost and federer would've won ..

Now you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. It took Murray 2 tries to beat Federer while it took Djokovic 4. And it means absolutely NOTHING.

Actually based on their styles of play and how their matches played out, it does mean something ..
 

djokerer

Banned
2015v2006.jpg


Opponent rankings at quarterfinals and above are listed.

Arguing for Novak 2015:
Unprecedented 6 ATP masters 1000 titles in a season.
Unprecedented, perfect 13 finals at GS, WTF and ATP 1000 level.
Unprecedented 15 consecutive finals in a season.
Unprecedented 31 wins against Top 10 players.
2 ATP 1000 titles beat 3 ATP 250 titles.
More YE ATP points (converted to today's point system).
Won titles on all surfaces (clay, grass, indoor and outdoor hard court. Fed missed a clay title. Madrid was indoor hard court.)

Arguing for Federer 2006:
More total number of titles (12 to 11). BTW, Laver 1969 had 18, Vilas 1977 had 16.
Better W-L ratio (92-5 to 82-6). BTW, McEnroe 1984 had 82-3, Connors 1974 had 93-4.
Djoker 2015 eats any version of Federer for Breakfast
 

Tony48

Legend
actually murray did go undefeated vs nadal on clay in 15, so did stan ...(both one match each )

so now fognini , being a much worse player than djokovic has to go undefeated vs nadal now ?

the fact that you have to go to this -- that beating a pale shadow of nadal is being hyped up so much ...just shows desperation .

You said that those players did the same thing that Djokovic did. They did not.

reverse the situations, djokovic would've lost and federer would've won ..

Federer has won a grand total of ZERO times against Nadal outside of Wimbledon. He can't beat Nadal on hard court and you think it's gonna happen on clay? That's quite a fantasy.

Actually based on their styles of play and how their matches played out, it does mean something ..

Um, you could say the same for Murray-Federer.....and it meant absolutely nothing.
 

Tony48

Legend
Novak won more quality titles overall than Fed. idk how much the extra 10 wins does to help Feds case. Novaks record vs top 10 is mind blowing compare to Fed.

The competition this year was also a lot better, too. All of the slam finalists in 2015 made the YEC. In 2006, Baghdatis was MIA.

Djokovic did not face the same Nadal in 2015 that Fed faced in 2006. If he had to, there was no way he was winning anything on clay.

Federer couldn't even beat Nadal in Dubai. Just because Federer couldn't do it doesn't mean Djokovic can't. The H2H speaks for itself
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
You said that those players did the same thing that Djokovic did. They did not.

similar things in non slam clay events ...of course stan and murray didn't get actually face nadal at RG 15 ...stan would've beaten him and murray might have ..

what they did clearly showed nadal is a pale shadow of himself. Djokovic at his peak would of course be doing better vs that pale shadow of nadal ...If you want to equate the clay skill levels of djokovic with fognini and murray, be my guest !



Federer has won a grand total of ZERO times against Nadal outside of Wimbledon. He can't beat Nadal on hard court and you think it's gonna happen on clay? That's quite a fantasy.

that's because he hasn't faced a sh*t version of nadal in any of those slam encounters like RG 15



Um, you could say the same for Murray-Federer.....and it meant absolutely nothing.

actually it did, murray did frustrate federer more at the smaller events, but not so at the slams and it showed in the results at that time ...
 

Tony48

Legend
similar things in non slam clay events ...of course stan and murray didn't get actually face nadal at RG 15 ...stan would've beaten him and murray might have ..

what they did clearly showed nadal is a pale shadow of himself. Djokovic at his peak would of course be doing better vs that pale shadow of nadal ...If you want to equate the clay skill levels of djokovic with fognini and murray, be my guest !

1 Masters win and you think that's good enough to beat Nadal at RG? That's pretty delusional.

Djokovic was holding TWO clay Masters at the time. Fognini: 0. Wawrinka: 0: Murray: 1. Djokovic was the only one who had shown enough clay consistency good enough to beat Nadal. Winning against Nadal on clay and doing nothing more is not good enough to beat him at RG. RG is best of 5, not best of 3.

Or like I asked before: do you think it's a coincidence that the guy with the most clay wins over Nadal and the most clay Masters of the season also happened to beat Nadal at RG?

that's because he hasn't faced a sh*t version of nadal in any of those slam encounters like RG 15

So when Djokovic plays Nadal at slams, he's always crap, but when Federer plays Nadal, he's always at his peak? Wow.

actually it did, murray did frustrate federer more at the smaller events, but not so at the slams and it showed in the results at that time ...

The point is that Murray frustrated Federer quicker than Djokovic did (just like in your example about del Potro), but guess who ended up winning the majority of the slam encounters? Not Murray. Guess who ended up winning more non-slam encounters? Not Murray.

Your point about "frustrating" someone quicker than someone else (del Potro before Djokovic) is irrelevant.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
1 Masters win and you think that's good enough to beat Nadal at RG? That's pretty delusional.

that's why I said maybe murray, not definitely ..., get it ? but then your reading is 1/10, so ...

but federer with 1 RG, 4 more RG finals, multiple masters in prime form is definitely good enough to take out a pale shadow of nadal at RG ..

so is stan in this form, having taken out djokovic himself ...the same djokovic whom you are pumping up so much ...

again, because you seem to forget this, djokovic has ZERO RGs

Djokovic was holding TWO clay Masters at the time. Fognini: 0. Wawrinka: 0: Murray: 1. Djokovic was the only one who had shown enough clay consistency good enough to beat Nadal. Winning against Nadal on clay and doing nothing more is not good enough to beat him at RG. RG is best of 5, not best of 3.

Or like I asked before: do you think it's a coincidence that the guy with the most clay wins over Nadal and the most clay Masters of the season also happened to beat Nadal at RG?

jeez, no, fact is djokovic was expected to beat nadal at RG this time around given how far nadal had fallen from his prime ....


So when Djokovic plays Nadal at slams, he's always crap, but when Federer plays Nadal, he's always at his peak? Wow.

always ? did I say nadal played cr*p in wim 11, USO 11 or AO 12 ? no, I said he played cr*p in RG 15 ..but then again >> you can't read and comprehend ...
oh and nadal played better at wim 08, AO 09 and AO 12 semi than he did in any of the above encounters vs djokovic ..

The point is that Murray frustrated Federer quicker than Djokovic did (just like in your example about del Potro), but guess who ended up winning the majority of the slam encounters? Not Murray. Guess who ended up winning more non-slam encounters? Not Murray.

Your point about "frustrating" someone quicker than someone else (del Potro before Djokovic) is irrelevant.

no, its not about frustrating, its about style of matchup , that depends on form level as well .even when murray was beating federer in the smaller events, it was seen clearly federer bossed him around when it mattered the most , at the slams ...

coming back to djokovic, regarding the non-slam encounters, it happened because djokovic improved quite a bit ..

djoko of course was always more of a competitor in slams vs federer than murray was
 

Tennisanity

Legend
The competition this year was also a lot better, too. All of the slam finalists in 2015 made the YEC. In 2006, Baghdatis was MIA.



Federer couldn't even beat Nadal in Dubai. Just because Federer couldn't do it doesn't mean Djokovic can't. The H2H speaks for itself

On clay best of 5 no version of Djokovic can beat even a close to prime Nadal. See FO2012, 2013, 2014 for proof :)
 

Tony48

Legend
but federer with 1 RG, 4 more RG finals, multiple masters in prime form is definitely good enough to take out a pale shadow of nadal at RG ..

Absolutely not and there is nothing in their H2H that would even suggest this.

so is stan in this form, having taken out djokovic himself ...the same djokovic whom you are pumping up so much ...

You need to stop perpetuating this flawed transitive property logic. Federer took out Soderling in 2009, the same Soderling that took out Nadal. Was Federer magically going to beat Nadal just because he beat the guy who beat Nadal? I don't think so.

jeez, no, fact is djokovic was expected to beat nadal at RG this time around given how far nadal had fallen from his prime ....

Was Murray expected to beat Nadal? No
Was Wawrinka expected to beat Nadal? No
Was Fognini expected to beat Nadal (even though he had already beat him earlier in the year)? No.

Nadal has fallen so far from his prime, yet Djokovic was the ONLY person favored against him on clay. Djokovic was expected to beat Nadal because he was having a tremendous clay season and because he had beaten Nadal more than anyone else in the past.

always ? did I say nadal played cr*p in wim 11, USO 11 or AO 12 ? no, I said he played cr*p in RG 15 ..but then again >> you can't read and comprehend ...
oh and nadal played better at wim 08, AO 09 and AO 12 semi than he did in any of the above encounters vs djokovic ..

Yeah, sure. Because the stats say otherwise:

1st Serve (average)
Wimbledon 2011, U.S. Open 2011 & Australian Open 2012 (F): 71%
Wimbledon 2008, Australian Open 2009 & 2012 (SF)[/b]: 71.3

Aces (average)
Wimbledon 2011, U.S. Open 2011 & Australian Open 2012 (F): 5.7
Wimbledon 2008, Australian Open 2009 & 2012 (SF): 4.7

Nadal was pretty much the same across most stats, yet Djokovic won all 3 matches while Federer lost all 3.

no, its not about frustrating, its about style of matchup

What does this even mean? You're going from one crap argument to the next. And then when I destroy this one, you're going to change it to something else.

"It's not about style of match-up, it's about Argument #3"
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Absolutely not and there is nothing in their H2H that would even suggest this.

absolutely yes, federer has beaten much better versions of nadal on clay ( hamburg 07 and madrid 09 ) in Bo3, nearly beat the very best of nadal at that time ( rome 06 ) ......

prime federer would've taken him out ...



You need to stop perpetuating this flawed transitive property logic. Federer took out Soderling in 2009, the same Soderling that took out Nadal. Was Federer magically going to beat Nadal just because he beat the guy who beat Nadal? I don't think so.

its not transitive property. Its called taking the whole context into the picture ..a) soderling wasn't in the same form in the 09 final that he was in the 4R match vs federer b) 'if' nadal had played similarly as he did vs soderling and federer as he did vs soderling, federer would've won vs nadal ; but we all know had nadal reached the final, his level would be clearly better ...that was a one-match for nadal vs soderling ...

whereas in 15, he was in utterly cr*p form prior to the RG QF vs djokovic, not so likely that he'd have been able to raise his form enough to beat a peaking stan .

Like I said, I take the whole context into the picture ....

Was Murray expected to beat Nadal? No
Was Wawrinka expected to beat Nadal? No
Was Fognini expected to beat Nadal (even though he had already beat him earlier in the year)? No.

Nadal has fallen so far from his prime, yet Djokovic was the ONLY person favored against him on clay. Djokovic was expected to beat Nadal because he was having a tremendous clay season and because he had beaten Nadal more than anyone else in the past.

djokovic was the only one favored, but there was plenty of talk about others possibly beating nadal as well



Yeah, sure. Because the stats say otherwise:

1st Serve (average)
Wimbledon 2011, U.S. Open 2011 & Australian Open 2012 (F): 71%
Wimbledon 2008, Australian Open 2009 & 2012 (SF)[/b]: 71.3

Aces (average)
Wimbledon 2011, U.S. Open 2011 & Australian Open 2012 (F): 5.7
Wimbledon 2008, Australian Open 2009 & 2012 (SF): 4.7

Nadal was pretty much the same across most stats, yet Djokovic won all 3 matches while Federer lost all 3.

and now you demonstrate your pitiful knowledge of stats ..

Are you aware of something known as winner-UE stats ?

nadal was +9 IIRC in AO 09 final vs federer, +4 in AO 12 semi vs federer and -27 in the AO 12 final vs djokovic ...djokovic's superior defense is not enough to explain that ...

nadal was +26 in wimby 2007 final, +33 in wimby 2008 final, and only +6 in wimby 11 final ...djokovic's superior defense is not enough to explain that

there are other things in stats as well, but its useless going into detail regarding that with you , as you measure performance by 1st serve% and ace%, LMAO !

only a delusional djoko guy like you can believe that nadal was in the same form in wimby 11 as he was in wimby 07 and wimby 08 finals .....same goes for nadal of USO 11 w.r.t to AO 09 F and AO 12 SF form ..

AO 12 final was somewhere near, but still quite clearly lesser than AO 09 F and AO 12 SF final forms ...


What does this even mean? You're going from one crap argument to the next. And then when I destroy this one, you're going to change it to something else.

"It's not about style of match-up, it's about Argument #3"

it was about style of play always - an offensive style of play needed to beat an in-form nadal on clay >> but then you are clueless as usual ........

hence the choice of soderling, federer, delpo over djokovic vs an in-form nadal on clay ..
 
Last edited:
Top