LOL, nice try. You said it wasn't a big deal that Djokovic beat Nadal in 2015 because of how badly Nadal played in 2015. So let's take a look at the players that Nadal beat and how well they played in those years.
Hamburg 2007. Number of opponents with at least a 60% win% on clay for that year: 2
-Andreev: 26-15 (63%)
-Hewitt: 12-5 (71%)
Madrid 2009. Number of opponents with at least a 60% win% on clay for that year: 2
-Verdasco: 13-7 (65%)
-Djokovic: 17-5 (72%)
Madrid 2011. Number of opponents with at least a 60% win% on clay for that year: 1
Federer: 12-4 (75%)
Rome 2011. Number of opponents with at least a 60% win% on clay for that year: 4
-Lorenzi: 4-2 (66%)
-F. Lopez: 13-8 (62%)
-Cilic: 13-7 (65%)
-Gasquet: 12-7 (63%)
And other tournaments where Djokovic beat Nadal:
Monte Carlo 2013. Number of opponents with at least a 60% win% on clay for that year: 3
-Kohlschreiber: 17-8 (68%)
-Dimitrov: 11-6 (65%)
-Tsonga: 12-4 (75%)
Monte Carlo 2015. Number of opponents with at least a 60% win% on clay for that year: 3
-Ferrer: 19-5 (79%)
-Isner: 10-6 (63%)
-Pouille: 7-4 (64%)
So as you can see, there were THREE tournaments where Djokovic beat Nadal when Nadal had beaten at least 3 players with a 60% clay win%. Federer has beaten Nadal in ZERO tournaments where Nadal had beaten at least 3 players with a 60% clay win%.
And when evaluating Nadal's 2015 year on clay, you looked at the number of times Nadal lost, and nothing more. Now that I have done the same thing in evaluating Nadal's competition, let's see how you try to change the method for evaluating one's clay season for the year.
I didn't look just at the number of times Nadal lost, I've very clearly stated losses to players like fognini, getting thrashed by murray ...the manner of those losses , to whom he lost to ......
Nadal lost once in clay in 08, but didn't lose in 06 or 10, I'll still say his level in 08 was clearly higher than it was in 06 or in 10 ...because that's what it was ....
lets cover the first 4 shall we ?
lorenzi,lopez, cilic are not players who are a threat on clay ....neither of them ....
granted gonzo was inconsistent on clay in 07, but he did make the final at Rome in 07 ( he also has clay titles and has had impressive runs at RG - 2003 - when he took ferrero to 5, and in 2009 - when he reached the semi and lost to soderling in 5 -- before you yap about this not being in 07, I am providing a context. I already mentioned about him being a finalist at Rome 07)
lorenzi - 1 final on clay, not in 07
lopez - 3 finals on clay, one final in 11, in belgrade ...again, not the same as reaching a masters final
cilic - 1 title on clay, 3 finals otherwise, with with one final in 11, umag, again, not the same as reaching as masters final
gonzalez - 8 titles on clay and other finals, including a masters final in 07
andreev - has 2 titles on clay and 5 finals .....but I didn't mention him , as he hasn't done that much in masters or bigger tournaments on clay
hence coming back to what I said
opponents who could play well on clay :
2/4 in hamburg 07 - hewitt, gonzalez
2/3 in madrid 09 - verdasco, djokovic
1/4 in Rome 11 - gasquet
1/3 in Madrid 11 - federer
quite clear what's happening over here ....with respect to games won lost ........
MC 13 :
dimitrov and tsonga can play on clay ...(with dimitrov being a weak case as of now, only including him on potential here ) ........here games won to lost ratio was 1.7 ....neither of them as good as djokovic (in madrid 09 ) and hewitt (in hamburg 07) which is more than enough to account for the disparity in the games won to lost ratio ....
could include kohlscreiber as well, but since I excluded andreev, I'm going to exclude him as well ......
MC 15 :
He faced 3 opponents, ferrer, isner, pouille ......ferrer/isner can play on clay, 2/3 opponents who can play well on clay ...but wait ..his games won to lost was 46 games won to 31 games lost , which is 1.48 ......lesser than hamburg 07 ( as expected ) and more than madrid 09 ( faced djokovic who's a greater threat than either of ferrer or isner on clay )
pouille was ranked #108 at that time, has zero titles and finals on clay (obviously including 15 ) ......he's not a threat ..........it just shows your desperation to bring up such players ........you want to know how he achieved 60+% wins on clay ? by beating players outside of top 100 mostly ........duh !
Like I said , context, context, context .......
LOL, an "observation". Please substantiate your "observations" because you are obviously too biased to be trusted. Until then, it is an excuse.
That Soderling got off to a nervous start, that being his first slam final ...then though he played well in the next 2 sets, he wasn't hitting as cleanly as he was vs nadal (partly because of federer's greater depth of shot ) ?
what else do you want me to substantiate ?
it is observation to say djokovic played much better in the wimbledon 2011 final when he won vs nadal than when he lost vs berdych in wim 10 ? Do I really need to go into details ? Unless of course the other person has little clue regarding the matches, I shouldn't have to ....get it !?
Um, yes? A difference of 2% in first serve and a -1 differential in aces/DFs. It's not an identical performance but you're just splitting hairs
Whatever this is : a) ignorance or b) being obstinate ...I pity you on this ...that you are saying that nadal in the RG 14 F was at a similar level that he was in the RG 08 semi-final
Sure, winners, unforced errors, forced errors, etc. are great stats to look at.....when you are evaluating the winner of a match OR the loser of a match. Not both. You can't look at the number of winners from the player who won match #1 and compare that with the number of winners from the player who lost match #2. The player who won is OBVIOUSLY going to control the player who lost....which is why they lost in the first place.
Only serve stats and unforced errors (to a lesser extent) are always in the control of the player (regardless of whether they won or lost).
or maybe that player lost because he was clearly worse than he was when he won the match vs another opponent ?
are you saying nadal seemed worse in Wimbledon 13 vs darcis than he did vs federer in wimbledon 08 final only because darcis controlled him ? duh ! it was because he was much much worse vs darcis than he was vs federer