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

Tony48

Legend
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 ...

Federer beat Nadal in 2 clay tournaments: Hamburg 2007 and Madrid 2009. Before Nadal reached Federer, here are his stats (games won to games lost)

Hamburg 2007: 52-33 (1.57)
Madrid 2009: 42-31 (1.35)

Djokovic beat Nadal twice in 2011: Rome and Madrid. Before Nadal reached Djokovic, here are his stats (games won to games lost)

Madrid 2011: 41-19 (2.15)
Rome 2011: 55-27 (2.04)

It is abundantly clear that Nadal was NO WHERE near his peak in the tournaments where he lost to Federer. Meanwhile, Nadal was at the very top of his game when he lost to Djokovic.

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[/b] ; but we all know had nadal reached the final, his level would be clearly better

There you go making excuses again. You need to get a grip. All you do is make excuses.

and of course, 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 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 ...

LOL, how shocking. When Nadal won, he had more winners, and when he lost, he had less winners. Duh!

Did the winner also win more points, too? Did he also win more games and sets? lol!

FYI: the serve is the only thing that your opponent can't control, which is a better indicator of your level of play.

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 ........

And who the hell beat Nadal on clay in 2011? Was it Federer? Was it Soderling? Was it del Potro?

Now I will patiently wait for you to change or add something to your argument of "offensive style of play needed to beat an inform Nadal on clay"

I wonder what you will add to it....
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
And who the hell beat Nadal on clay in 2011? Was it Federer? Was it Soderling? Was it del Potro?

Now I will patiently wait for you to change or add something to your argument of "offensive style of play needed to beat an inform Nadal on clay"

I wonder what you will add to it....

and who the hell beat nadal in RG 09 ? in hamburg 07 and madrid 09 ? it wasn't djokovic , it was soderling and federer respectively .....

What I've said from the beginning was the offensive style of play was better suited to take out an in-form nadal on clay ...

FYI, madrid 11, nadal didn't play that well ...Rome he did he play some good tennis and djokovic got the better of him .......
 

Tony48

Legend
and who the hell beat nadal in RG 09 ? in hamburg 07 and madrid 09 ? it wasn't djokovic , it was soderling and federer respectively .....

What I've said from the beginning was the offensive style of play was better suited to take out an in-form nadal on clay ...

FYI, madrid 11, nadal didn't play that well ...Rome he did he play some good tennis and djokovic got the better of him .......

And what the hell is your criteria for "in form"? Because as I've already noted (that you completely ignored) that Nadal was playing better tennis up to the finals of 2011 Rome and Madrid than he was in the 2007 Hamburg and 2009 Madrid finals. So Nadal indeed was in-form in those finals where he faced Djokovic, more so than he was than when he faced Federer.

So I eagerly await your nonsensical reasoning for what it means to be "in form".
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I had posted this before, but I don't know what the hell happened to the update ......anyways here goes ...

Federer beat Nadal in 2 clay tournaments: Hamburg 2007 and Madrid 2009. Before Nadal reached Federer, here are his stats (games won to games lost)

Hamburg 2007: 52-33 (1.57)
Madrid 2009: 42-31 (1.35)

Djokovic beat Nadal twice in 2011: Rome and Madrid. Before Nadal reached Djokovic, here are his stats (games won to games lost)

Madrid 2011: 41-19 (2.15)
Rome 2011: 55-27 (2.04)

It is abundantly clear that Nadal was NO WHERE near his peak in the tournaments where he lost to Federer. Meanwhile, Nadal was at the very top of his game when he lost to Djokovic.

That's again, not knowing the context and how to use the stats :

hamburg 07 - hernadez, andreev , gonzalez, hewitt ...2/4 who can play well on clay - gonzalez & hewitt
madrid 09 - melzer, verdasco, djokovic ...2/3 who can play well on clay - verdasco, djokovic
madrid 11 - baghdatis, llodra , federer ..1/3 who can play well on clay -federer
rome 11 - lorenzi, lopez, cilic, gasquet ...1/4 who can play well on clay and nadal lost a set to lorenzi ranked 148 ..

given 2 out of 4 and 2 out of 3 players who could and did play decent/good tennis clay in hamburg 07 & madrid 09, its no wonder his stats are worse in those ...than when he faced 1 out of 3 in madrid 11 and 1 out of 4 in rome 11 .......

keep the same level of opponents, his game/loss ratio would be higher in hamburg 07 and madrid 09 ......

both hewitt in hamburg 07 and djokovic in madrid 09 played better than federer did in madrid 11 and of course way better than gasquet in rome 11 , that's bound to skew the stats when the sample size is so small ...3 or 4 matches

I will still say having observed the rome and madrid finals in 11, though nadal's ratio was better in madrid, he played clearly better in the rome final ...

Highly delusional to say nadal was at the very top of his game when he lost to djokovic, he wasn't ...2011 was his worst year on clay from 2006-13 by far form-wise , but then you are clearly blinded by your djoko fanboyism, so you wouldn't know ...



There you go making excuses again. You need to get a grip. All you do is make excuses.

How much more clueless can you get ? Its called observation, a player's form being clearly lesser in one match compared to another is not an excuse..Get a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word excuse ...


LOL, how shocking. When Nadal won, he had more winners, and when he lost, he had less winners. Duh!

Did the winner also win more points, too? Did he also win more games and sets? lol!

FYI: the serve is the only thing that your opponent can't control, which is a better indicator of your level of play.

that's so clueless that I don't know where to begin , but anyways......

nadal in RG 08 semi vs djokovic : 72% FS, 0 aces, 0 DFs
nadal in RG 14 final vs djokovic : 70%, 3 aces, 4 DFs.

so both equivalent performances by your so called metrics ? :D

Karlovic gets in like 65% of first serves in and tons of aces every match, so does Isner, are they the best players going by this criteria of yours ? :D

there are lot of factors that come into play, including winners, unforced errors, forced errors , BP conversion etc ........but then what's the point in going into detail with a guy who measures a players's form in matches by FS% and aces mainly
 

Tony48

Legend
I had posted this before, but I don't know what the hell happened to the update ......anyways here goes ...



That's again, not knowing the context and how to use the stats :

hamburg 07 - hernadez, andreev , gonzalez, hewitt ...2/4 who can play well on clay - gonzalez & hewitt
madrid 09 - melzer, verdasco, djokovic ...2/3 who can play well on clay - verdasco, djokovic
madrid 11 - baghdatis, llodra , federer ..1/3 who can play well on clay -federer
rome 11 - lorenzi, lopez, cilic, gasquet ...1/4 who can play well on clay and nadal lost a set to lorenzi ranked 148 ..

given 2 out of 4 and 2 out of 3 players who could and did play decent/good tennis clay in hamburg 07 & madrid 09, its no wonder his stats are worse in those ...than when he faced 1 out of 3 in madrid 11 and 1 out of 4 in rome 11 .......

keep the same level of opponents, his game/loss ratio would be higher in hamburg 07 and madrid 09 ......

both hewitt in hamburg 07 and djokovic in madrid 09 played better than federer did in madrid 11 and of course way better than gasquet in rome 11 , that's bound to skew the stats when the sample size is so small ...3 or 4 matches

I will still say having observed the rome and madrid finals in 11, though nadal's ratio was better in madrid, he played clearly better in the rome final ...

Highly delusional to say nadal was at the very top of his game when he lost to djokovic, he wasn't ...2011 was his worst year on clay from 2006-13 by far form-wise , but then you are clearly blinded by your djoko fanboyism, so you wouldn't know ...

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.

How much more clueless can you get ? Its called observation, a player's form being clearly lesser in one match compared to another is not an excuse..Get a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word excuse ...

LOL, an "observation". Please substantiate your "observations" because you are obviously too biased to be trusted. Until then, it is an excuse.

nadal in RG 08 semi vs djokovic : 72% FS, 0 aces, 0 DFs
nadal in RG 14 final vs djokovic : 70%, 3 aces, 4 DFs.

so both equivalent performances by your so called metrics ? :D

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

Karlovic gets in like 65% of first serves in and tons of aces every match, so does Isner, are they the best players going by this criteria of yours ? :D

there are lot of factors that come into play, including winners, unforced errors, forced errors , BP conversion etc ........but then what's the point in going into detail with a guy who measures a players's form in matches by FS% and aces mainly

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).
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
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
 

Tony48

Legend
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 ......

And in 2005, he lost to Andreev and in 2008, he lost to Stepenek. Now please tell me what's so great about them where those losses get excused but his losses in 2015 don't.

But I'm pretty sure they're just going to be excuses (like always).

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)

Oh, so when Gonzalez is below par in 2007, he's still a tough competitor because of X, Y, and Z. But when NADAL is allegedly below par, he's not a tough competitor at ALL and a win over him doesn't count? LOL. Nice double standards.

Either apply your "tough competitor" logic to everyone equally, or don't apply it at all.

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

Just like before, you're using career stats to bolster everyone else in 2007, and year-to-date stats to discredit Nadal's 2015. Again, either apply your tough competitor logic to everyone equally, or don't apply it at all.


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 )

Um, I couldn't care less about his games won to games lost ratio in Monte Carlo 2013 and 2015. I only set out to prove that he was better in 2011 (Madrid & Rome) than he was in 2009 Madrid and 2007 Hamburg.

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 .......

And when Nadal lost at the French Open in 2009, was Soderling a threat on clay? Using your own logic: Soderling was ranked #23 at the time and had ZERO TITLES AND ZERO FINALS on clay, and was not a threat to Nadal on clay. Do you know how many games Soderling won the last time he played Nadal? Exactly one single game.

But of course, this logic doesn't apply to Soderling, right? So what Soderling was ranked 23rd. So what he didn't have a clay title. So what he never had a clay final. So what he was never a threat to Nadal on clay. So what he couldn't even win more than one game the last time they played (which was just two weeks before their meeting at the French). None of that matters! It only matters when you say it matters, right?

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 !?

Djokovic won 43-straight matches and only lost two matches between the Australian Open and the U.S. Open. It was obvious that he was playing the best tennis of his career.

THAT'S how you substantiate something.

Until you can do the same (or something similar), it is an unsubstantiated, unsupported opinion.

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

A match 2 days apart vs a match 5 years apart.

Stop.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
And in 2005, he lost to Andreev and in 2008, he lost to Stepenek. Now please tell me what's so great about them where those losses get excused but his losses in 2015 don't.

But I'm pretty sure they're just going to be excuses (like always).

he didn't lose to stepanek in 08, he lost to ferrero. I've already covered that ...it was because of blisters ...

05 andreev --that was just the starting of prime nadal on clay ...IIRC his clay streak started after that ...


Oh, so when Gonzalez is below par in 2007, he's still a tough competitor because of X, Y, and Z. But when NADAL is allegedly below par, he's not a tough competitor at ALL and a win over him doesn't count? LOL. Nice double standards.

Either apply your "tough competitor" logic to everyone equally, or don't apply it at all.

I already mentioned he reached a final at Rome in 2007, a Masters final you know the same year in which rafa reached hamburg final ......something worth much more than anything lopez, cilic, lorenzi have ever done on clay ...but you delude yourself ignoring that ...



Just like before, you're using career stats to bolster everyone else in 2007, and year-to-date stats to discredit Nadal's 2015. Again, either apply your tough competitor logic to everyone equally, or don't apply it at all.

again, clueless sh*t ignoring that you need to take the whole context into the picture. no one in their right minds thinks of lorenzi, lopez and cilic as threats on clay ...


I only set out to prove that he was better in 2011 (Madrid & Rome) than he was in 2009 Madrid and 2007 Hamburg.

and I already proved that was only because nadal faced tougher opponents in hamburg 07 and madrid 09 than he did in 11 Madrid and Rome



And when Nadal lost at the French Open in 2009, was Soderling a threat on clay? Using your own logic: Soderling was ranked #23 at the time and had ZERO TITLES AND ZERO FINALS on clay, and was not a threat to Nadal on clay. Do you know how many games Soderling won the last time he played Nadal? Exactly one single game.

But of course, this logic doesn't apply to Soderling, right? So what Soderling was ranked 23rd. So what he didn't have a clay title. So what he never had a clay final. So what he was never a threat to Nadal on clay. So what he couldn't even win more than one game the last time they played (which was just two weeks before their meeting at the French). None of that matters! It only matters when you say it matters, right?

he wasn't seen as a threat before that and I will say the same. That RG was his breakout tourney and he showed his mettle afterwards ...Again , its called watching the matches and getting context. I didn't say just about nadal's win loss on clay this year, it was also about how he was playing on clay , actually watching it ....getting the whole picture ...



Djokovic won 43-straight matches and only lost two matches between the Australian Open and the U.S. Open. It was obvious that he was playing the best tennis of his career.

THAT'S how you substantiate something.

Until you can do the same (or something similar), it is an unsubstantiated, unsupported opinion.

point is I didn't need to substantiate in that case --not about how to substantiate something ........

anyone who saw both those matches will tell you the same -- soderling played clearly worse in the final ...


A match 2 days apart vs a match 5 years apart.

Stop.

good to know, I'm sure djokovic played just as well in the loss to nishikori in USO 14 as he did in the win vs murray about 2 days .....since by your logic , form remains 'similar' in tournament ..

so what if it was 5 years apart ...it doesn't stop you from watching those matches and clearly observing nadal was clearly better in wim 08 .......or is that too difficult to comprehend ?

again , point is nadal worse on his own in those matches vs djokovic( wim 11, USO 11, AO 12 ) than he did vs federer (wim 08, AO 09, AO 12 ) ...watching those matches and the stats both point towards the same ...
 
Last edited:

Tony48

Legend
he didn't lose to stepanek in 08, he lost to ferrero. I've already covered that ...it was because of blisters ...

05 andreev --that was just the starting of prime nadal on clay ...IIRC his clay streak started after that ...

Just as I thought. More excuses from you. You can dress it up any way you want, but at the end of the day, it's an excuse. If I tried hard enough, I could come up with similar excuses for his losses in 2015 (injuries, racquet change, psychological issues, tummy ache, etc.) but I won't, because it's shameless.

You don't get to unilaterally decide what constitutes as a valid loss and what doesn't. Start, middle, and end of ones prime are all equally valid periods....because you are in your prime at each point. The losses at the start count, the losses in the middle count, and the losses in the end count.

I already mentioned he reached a final at Rome in 2007, a Masters final you know the same year in which rafa reached hamburg final ......something worth much more than anything lopez, cilic, lorenzi have ever done on clay ...but you delude yourself ignoring that ...

Is it better than what Murray has done? Did Gonzalez also reach the SF of the French Open? Because if he had, I can guarantee that you would be using that as evidence of how tough of an opponent on clay Gonzalez was in 2007.

But you were dismissive of Murray's win over Nadal, even though Murray posted better clay stats in 2015 than Gonzalez did in 2007. Gonzalez lost in the first round of the French Open, but he was supposedly this mega force on clay that year.

again, clueless sh*t ignoring that you need to take the whole context into the picture. no one in their right minds thinks of lorenzi, lopez and cilic as threats on clay ...

One good showing in a tournament doesn't suddenly make you a surface threat. SOMEONE is going to make the final of the tournament, and that someone happened to be Gonzalez that year. And unless you can show some sort of surface consistency, you are not a threat on that surface. And in 2007, Gonzalez's win% showed that he was less of a threat on clay than Lorenzi, Lopez, and Cilic.

and I already proved that was only because nadal faced tougher opponents in hamburg 07 and madrid 09 than he did in 11 Madrid and Rome

A final appearance in a Masters doesn't suddenly make you "tougher". Like I said, someone is going to make the final (unless everyone in the draw retires) and unless you can demonstrate those results on a consistent basis, you are not a "tough" opponent. More opponents in 2011 displayed that consistency, while the opponents Nadal faced in 2007 Hamburg and 2009 Madrid did not.

point is I didn't need to substantiate in that case --not about how to substantiate something ........

Then it's a baseless opinion which does not warrant any attention. You don't get to claim things without backing them up and expect people to take it as true.

good to know, I'm sure djokovic played just as well in the loss to nishikori in USO 14 as he did in the win vs murray about 2 days .....since by your logic , form remains 'similar' in tournament ..

so what if it was 5 years apart ...it doesn't stop you from watching those matches and clearly observing nadal was clearly better in wim 08 .......or is that too difficult to comprehend ?

again , point is nadal worse on his own in those matches vs djokovic( wim 11, USO 11, AO 12 ) than he did vs federer (wim 08, AO 09, AO 12 ) ...watching those matches and the stats both point towards the same ...

Djokovic has beaten Nadal 23 times. What Nadal does against Federer does not work against Djokovic. Those winners that fly by Federer....do not fly by Djokovic. The pounding of the backhand that works against Federer....does not work against Djokovic. The lefty forehand to one-handed backhand that works against Federer....does not work against Djokovic. Djokovic has Nadal figured out, and figured him out on hard a LONG time ago.

But in your mind, you see that as playing badly. Yes, Djokovic makes Nadal play badly. Have you seen what Federer does to Roddick? That's what it typically looks like when you have a player figured out. The winner makes you look and play badly.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Is it better than what Murray has done? Did Gonzalez also reach the SF of the French Open? Because if he had, I can guarantee that you would be using that as evidence of how tough of an opponent on clay Gonzalez was in 2007.

But you were dismissive of Murray's win over Nadal, even though Murray posted better clay stats in 2015 than Gonzalez did in 2007. Gonzalez lost in the first round of the French Open, but he was supposedly this mega force on clay that year.

Of course Murray in 15 posted better stats than Gonzalez in 2007. But he thrashed nadal 6-3,6-2 ...which is something you wouldn't expect in your dreams to happen vs prime nadal .........Even djokovic hasn't beaten nadal that badly on clay.

I would of course include murray in 15 form as a good clay court opponent if he were up against prime nadal and if I were calculating for the purpose of win-loss.


Just as I thought. More excuses from you. You can dress it up any way you want, but at the end of the day, it's an excuse. If I tried hard enough, I could come up with similar excuses for his losses in 2015 (injuries, racquet change, psychological issues, tummy ache, etc.) but I won't, because it's shameless.

You don't get to unilaterally decide what constitutes as a valid loss and what doesn't. Start, middle, and end of ones prime are all equally valid periods....because you are in your prime at each point. The losses at the start count, the losses in the middle count, and the losses in the end count.

It was a valid injury and well-documented. Only someone who didn't follow tennis or is in denial wouldn't know that.
nadal was rising up the clay ranks when that loss to andreev happened.


One good showing in a tournament doesn't suddenly make you a surface threat. SOMEONE is going to make the final of the tournament, and that someone happened to be Gonzalez that year. And unless you can show some sort of surface consistency, you are not a threat on that surface. And in 2007, Gonzalez's win% showed that he was less of a threat on clay than Lorenzi, Lopez, and Cilic.

A final appearance in a Masters doesn't suddenly make you "tougher". Like I said, someone is going to make the final (unless everyone in the draw retires) and unless you can demonstrate those results on a consistent basis, you are not a "tough" opponent. More opponents in 2011 displayed that consistency, while the opponents Nadal faced in 2007 Hamburg and 2009 Madrid did not.

no one thinks of lorenzi, lopez and cilic as threats on clay. you are delusional ..

players like gonzo , while inconsistent, can turn it on occasions and be a legit threat, take more games off prime nadal ; much more so than players like lorenzi, lopez, cilic ...its not like lorenzi, lopez, cilic were reaching clay finals after finals. neither of them reached more finals than gonzo did in those respective years.

Stan hadn't reached the QF of FO before this year, he went on win this year.

its not just about consistency, its about taking the whole context ....

Then it's a baseless opinion which does not warrant any attention. You don't get to claim things without backing them up and expect people to take it as true.

no, its bloody obvious as hell to anyone who watched those matches.

I can say djokovic is a better HCer than nadal. Its bloody obvious to those who've watched them. I don't need to everytime that djokovic has 7 HC slams, 5 YECs, many more masters and titles overall on hardcourt , higher winning % on HC , blah blah blah ........

Djokovic has beaten Nadal 23 times. What Nadal does against Federer does not work against Djokovic. Those winners that fly by Federer....do not fly by Djokovic. The pounding of the backhand that works against Federer....does not work against Djokovic. The lefty forehand to one-handed backhand that works against Federer....does not work against Djokovic. Djokovic has Nadal figured out, and figured him out on hard a LONG time ago.

But in your mind, you see that as playing badly. Yes, Djokovic makes Nadal play badly. Have you seen what Federer does to Roddick? That's what it typically looks like when you have a player figured out. The winner makes you look and play badly.

so what happened to this figuring out in USO 10 and USO 13 ? those were on hard court, yes hard court.

federer-roddick is not remotely the same as djokovic-nadal. federer-roddick is 21-3, djokovic-nadal is tied at 22 all ( IIRC) .......you "equating" the two is just the result of your delusions of djokovic handling a sh*t nadal in the last 2 years or so with ease.

yes, what works vs federer does not work vs djokovic. but there are things like FH DTL and the slice that work vs djokovic, but not vs federer. On the whole, djokovic is more comfortable in the matchup on HC, no question, but that doesn't mean djokovic is in complete control vs nadal and federer has no chance. That's just your delusions, not backed up by reality.

and inspite of federer making roddick play badly on quite a few occasions, there are occasions when roddick has played at his brilliant best vs federer, even in losses - wimbledon 2004, wimbledon 2009, USO 07, YEC 06 ....
 
Last edited:

Tony48

Legend
Of course Murray in 15 posted better stats than Gonzalez in 2007. But he thrashed nadal 6-3,6-2 ...which is something you wouldn't expect in your dreams to happen vs prime nadal .........Even djokovic hasn't beaten nadal that badly on clay.

I would of course include murray in 15 form as a good clay court opponent if he were up against prime nadal and if I were calculating for the purpose of win-loss.

And what did Gaudio do to Nadal in 2005? And that was Nadal "in his prime", was it not? Wasn't Nadal playing better tennis in 2005 than he was in 2015?

I'll wait for the next excuse....

It was a valid injury and well-documented. Only someone who didn't follow tennis or is in denial wouldn't know that.
nadal was rising up the clay ranks when that loss to andreev happened.

A "valid" injury. lol. Do you know how many players play with injuries that they don't announce to the world? That is an excuse.

As for the loss to Andreev: he was in his prime. Period.

players like gonzo , while inconsistent, can turn it on occasions and be a legit threat, take more games off prime nadal ; much more so than players like lorenzi, lopez, cilic ...its not like lorenzi, lopez, cilic were reaching clay finals after finals. neither of them reached more finals than gonzo did in those respective years.

Games won vs. Nadal (2005-2011)
Gonzalez: 25 (over 4 matches)....average of 6.3 games per match
F. Lopez
: 25 (over 4 matches)....average of 6.3 games per match

You were saying?

no, its bloody obvious as hell to anyone who watched those matches.

I can say djokovic is a better HCer than nadal. Its bloody obvious to those who've watched them. I don't need to everytime that djokovic has 7 HC slams, 5 YECs, many more masters and titles overall on hardcourt , higher winning % on HC , blah blah blah ........

Nadal had an off day, Soderling took advantage, and then lost to Federer...just like he did in Madrid a few weeks prior. Stop trying to complicate things.

so what happened to this figuring out in USO 10 and USO 13 ? those were on hard court, yes hard court.

So basically you're just arguing for the sake of arguing now. Nadal has Federer well-figured out but still lost to him 11 times. Do those 11 losses invalidate the fact that he has figured Federer out? Federer figured Roddick out but still lost to him 3 times. Do those 3 losses invalidate the fact that he has figured him out.

You are being extremely intellectually dishonest.

yes, what works vs federer does not work vs djokovic. but there are things like FH DTL and the slice that work vs djokovic, but not vs federer. On the whole, djokovic is more comfortable in the matchup on HC, no question, but that doesn't mean djokovic is in complete control vs nadal and federer has no chance. That's just your delusions, not backed up by reality.

In control enough to make him play worse more often than not. That's the point.

and inspite of federer making roddick play badly on quite a few occasions, there are occasions when roddick has played at his brilliant best vs federer, even in losses - wimbledon 2004, wimbledon 2009, USO 07, YEC 06 ....

So the exceptions are going to disprove the rule? That's 4 matches out of 21. Great job at being pedantic.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
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.



LOL, an "observation". Please substantiate your "observations" because you are obviously too biased to be trusted. Until then, it is an excuse.



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



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).

And in 2005, he lost to Andreev and in 2008, he lost to Stepenek. Now please tell me what's so great about them where those losses get excused but his losses in 2015 don't.

But I'm pretty sure they're just going to be excuses (like always).



Oh, so when Gonzalez is below par in 2007, he's still a tough competitor because of X, Y, and Z. But when NADAL is allegedly below par, he's not a tough competitor at ALL and a win over him doesn't count? LOL. Nice double standards.

Either apply your "tough competitor" logic to everyone equally, or don't apply it at all.



Just like before, you're using career stats to bolster everyone else in 2007, and year-to-date stats to discredit Nadal's 2015. Again, either apply your tough competitor logic to everyone equally, or don't apply it at all.




Um, I couldn't care less about his games won to games lost ratio in Monte Carlo 2013 and 2015. I only set out to prove that he was better in 2011 (Madrid & Rome) than he was in 2009 Madrid and 2007 Hamburg.



And when Nadal lost at the French Open in 2009, was Soderling a threat on clay? Using your own logic: Soderling was ranked #23 at the time and had ZERO TITLES AND ZERO FINALS on clay, and was not a threat to Nadal on clay. Do you know how many games Soderling won the last time he played Nadal? Exactly one single game.

But of course, this logic doesn't apply to Soderling, right? So what Soderling was ranked 23rd. So what he didn't have a clay title. So what he never had a clay final. So what he was never a threat to Nadal on clay. So what he couldn't even win more than one game the last time they played (which was just two weeks before their meeting at the French). None of that matters! It only matters when you say it matters, right?



Djokovic won 43-straight matches and only lost two matches between the Australian Open and the U.S. Open. It was obvious that he was playing the best tennis of his career.

THAT'S how you substantiate something.

Until you can do the same (or something similar), it is an unsubstantiated, unsupported opinion.



A match 2 days apart vs a match 5 years apart.

Stop.

Just as I thought. More excuses from you. You can dress it up any way you want, but at the end of the day, it's an excuse. If I tried hard enough, I could come up with similar excuses for his losses in 2015 (injuries, racquet change, psychological issues, tummy ache, etc.) but I won't, because it's shameless.

You don't get to unilaterally decide what constitutes as a valid loss and what doesn't. Start, middle, and end of ones prime are all equally valid periods....because you are in your prime at each point. The losses at the start count, the losses in the middle count, and the losses in the end count.



Is it better than what Murray has done? Did Gonzalez also reach the SF of the French Open? Because if he had, I can guarantee that you would be using that as evidence of how tough of an opponent on clay Gonzalez was in 2007.

But you were dismissive of Murray's win over Nadal, even though Murray posted better clay stats in 2015 than Gonzalez did in 2007. Gonzalez lost in the first round of the French Open, but he was supposedly this mega force on clay that year.



One good showing in a tournament doesn't suddenly make you a surface threat. SOMEONE is going to make the final of the tournament, and that someone happened to be Gonzalez that year. And unless you can show some sort of surface consistency, you are not a threat on that surface. And in 2007, Gonzalez's win% showed that he was less of a threat on clay than Lorenzi, Lopez, and Cilic.



A final appearance in a Masters doesn't suddenly make you "tougher". Like I said, someone is going to make the final (unless everyone in the draw retires) and unless you can demonstrate those results on a consistent basis, you are not a "tough" opponent. More opponents in 2011 displayed that consistency, while the opponents Nadal faced in 2007 Hamburg and 2009 Madrid did not.



Then it's a baseless opinion which does not warrant any attention. You don't get to claim things without backing them up and expect people to take it as true.



Djokovic has beaten Nadal 23 times. What Nadal does against Federer does not work against Djokovic. Those winners that fly by Federer....do not fly by Djokovic. The pounding of the backhand that works against Federer....does not work against Djokovic. The lefty forehand to one-handed backhand that works against Federer....does not work against Djokovic. Djokovic has Nadal figured out, and figured him out on hard a LONG time ago.

But in your mind, you see that as playing badly. Yes, Djokovic makes Nadal play badly. Have you seen what Federer does to Roddick? That's what it typically looks like when you have a player figured out. The winner makes you look and play badly.

And what did Gaudio do to Nadal in 2005? And that was Nadal "in his prime", was it not? Wasn't Nadal playing better tennis in 2005 than he was in 2015?

I'll wait for the next excuse....



A "valid" injury. lol. Do you know how many players play with injuries that they don't announce to the world? That is an excuse.

As for the loss to Andreev: he was in his prime. Period.



Games won vs. Nadal (2005-2011)
Gonzalez: 25 (over 4 matches)....average of 6.3 games per match
F. Lopez
: 25 (over 4 matches)....average of 6.3 games per match

You were saying?



Nadal had an off day, Soderling took advantage, and then lost to Federer...just like he did in Madrid a few weeks prior. Stop trying to complicate things.



So basically you're just arguing for the sake of arguing now. Nadal has Federer well-figured out but still lost to him 11 times. Do those 11 losses invalidate the fact that he has figured Federer out? Federer figured Roddick out but still lost to him 3 times. Do those 3 losses invalidate the fact that he has figured him out.

You are being extremely intellectually dishonest.



In control enough to make him play worse more often than not. That's the point.



So the exceptions are going to disprove the rule? That's 4 matches out of 21. Great job at being pedantic.

Federer > Djokovic.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
And what did Gaudio do to Nadal in 2005? And that was Nadal "in his prime", was it not? Wasn't Nadal playing better tennis in 2005 than he was in 2015?

I'll wait for the next excuse....

As for the loss to Andreev: he was in his prime. Period.

if nadal was in his clay prime back during his losses to gaudio and andreev, then djokovic was in his prime from AO 07 onwards .... use some common sense, whatever little you have ...

Just so to make it clear to you, I consider nadal's clay prime from the start of his 81 matches streak, not before that.

A "valid" injury. lol. Do you know how many players play with injuries that they don't announce to the world? That is an excuse.


its not an excuse, when you see the injury actually hindering the player. its called basic common sense, which you lack.


Nadal had an off day, Soderling took advantage, and then lost to Federer...just like he did in Madrid a few weeks prior. Stop trying to complicate things.

that's dumb ...delpo was beaten comprehensively in straights by Federer in madrid as well, but he played much better at RG and too him to 5.
Soderling was in much better form at RG and he'd have played federer tougher had he been in the same form as he was in the 4R match vs nadal. Its not complicating things..its plain observation ...

So basically you're just arguing for the sake of arguing now. Nadal has Federer well-figured out but still lost to him 11 times. Do those 11 losses invalidate the fact that he has figured Federer out? Federer figured Roddick out but still lost to him 3 times. Do those 3 losses invalidate the fact that he has figured him out.

You are being extremely intellectually dishonest.

No, clueless, you are the delusional one. How does a player who has another player 'figured out' lose to him 22 times ?

21 wins to 3 losses means those losses were the exception rather than the rule.

23-11 and 22-22 does not mean those losses were the exception. get it !?

and again, you are sh*t clueless equating federer-roddick to either djokovic-nadal or federer-nadal.

federer-nadal is even off clay , it was actually in favour of federer till 2012 end.


In control enough to make him play worse more often than not. That's the point

and yet , lost to him in 2 big matches outside of clay, USO 10, USO 13

no, their even h2h is what disproves the bullsh*t you were talking about. I pointed out to the big matches to show that happened in the big matches as well, not just smaller events

So the exceptions are going to disprove the rule? That's 4 matches out of 21. Great job at being pedantic.

see above for how exceptions to rule is actually applied.

Again, my point went over your head. If Roddick who matches up much worse vs federer than nadal does vs djokovic can play close to his best or at his best vs federer for those many matches, nadal sure as hell can do that in many more.
 

Tony48

Legend
if nadal was in his clay prime back during his losses to gaudio and andreev, then djokovic was in his prime from AO 07 onwards .... use some common sense, whatever little you have ...

Just so to make it clear to you, I consider nadal's clay prime from the start of his 81 matches streak, not before that.

Nadal wins the 3 biggest clay tournaments of the year (including 3 additional ones) and he isn't in his prime? LOL. Your desperation is all too palpable.

its not an excuse, when you see the injury actually hindering the player. its called basic common sense, which you lack.

The win counts. Protest as much as you want, but the win isn't going away.

that's dumb ...delpo was beaten comprehensively in straights by Federer in madrid as well, but he played much better at RG and too him to 5.
Soderling was in much better form at RG and he'd have played federer tougher had he been in the same form as he was in the 4R match vs nadal. Its not complicating things..its plain observation ...

LOL, del Potro won 7 games in Madrid to Soderling's ONE. Don't even compare those two matches. I can't think of any time in the history of tennis where a player wins a single game, and then comes back to beat that same player in a slam in the very next match...in just a few weeks no less. A typical straight setter going to five? That happens all the time.

The situations are not comparable at ALL.

No, clueless, you are the delusional one. How does a player who has another player 'figured out' lose to him 22 times ?

Do you know what a trend is? The H2H was in Nadal's favor, and now it has trended dramatically in Novak's favor. He obviously hadn't figured him out earlier in the H2H, but now he has. Since 2011 when Novak came into his prime, he is 16-7 against Nadal.

But I don't really care what you think on the matter. By most accounts, Djokovic indeed has Nadal figured out, so your intellectual dishonesty is of no concern.

and yet , lost to him in 2 big matches outside of clay, USO 10, USO 13

no, their even h2h is what disproves the bullsh*t you were talking about. I pointed out to the big matches to show that happened in the big matches as well, not just smaller events

Djokovic's didn't have Nadal figured out until 2011.

And losing the U.S Open in 2013 doesn't disprove it. Federer had Safin figured out but lost to him in the 2005 Australian Open. Just because you have someone "figured out" doesn't mean you can't lose to them in big matches. Or is this another rule you came up with?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nadal wins the 3 biggest clay tournaments of the year (including 3 additional ones) and he isn't in his prime? LOL. Your desperation is all too palpable.

This is already answered : " I consider nadal's clay prime from the start of his 81 matches streak, not before that."



The win counts. Protest as much as you want, but the win isn't going away.

its not an indicator of his form in the CC season ..that's the point.


LOL, del Potro won 7 games in Madrid to Soderling's ONE. Don't even compare those two matches. I can't think of any time in the history of tennis where a player wins a single game, and then comes back to beat that same player in a slam in the very next match...in just a few weeks no less. A typical straight setter going to five? That happens all the time.

The situations are not comparable at ALL.

I was comparing federer-delpo to federer-soderling

federer routinely beat delpo in madrid 09
federer routinely beat soderling in madrid 09

delpo was in clearly better form in RG 09, hence took federer to 5.
if soderling was in similar form as he was in the match vs nadal , he'd have played federer tougher, get it ?


Do you know what a trend is? The H2H was in Nadal's favor, and now it has trended dramatically in Novak's favor. He obviously hadn't figured him out earlier in the H2H, but now he has. Since 2011 when Novak came into his prime, he is 16-7 against Nadal.

But I don't really care what you think on the matter. By most accounts, Djokovic indeed has Nadal figured out, so your intellectual dishonesty is of no concern.

Djokovic's didn't have Nadal figured out until 2011.

And losing the U.S Open in 2013 doesn't disprove it. Federer had Safin figured out but lost to him in the 2005 Australian Open. Just because you have someone "figured out" doesn't mean you can't lose to them in big matches. Or is this another rule you came up with?

another dumb comparison. Safin has 2 wins vs federer overall ..

RG 12, RG 13,USO 13, RG 14 - that's 4 big matches ...

since 2011, nadal has beat djokovic at (overall)

MC 2012 ( thrashing )
Rome 2012
RG 2012

RG 2013
Canada 2013
USO 13

RG 14

I am however a bit concerned at the intellectual cluelessness and delusions exhibited by some djokovic fans like you since djokovic 15. Fortunately facts are there to disprove your delusions.
 
Last edited:

Tony48

Legend
This is already answered : " I consider nadal's clay prime from the start of his 81 matches streak, not before that."

What you "consider" Nadal's prime is irrelevant. Performing that incredibly well on the surface that year makes it Nadal's prime. Period. You're window of perfection (Nadal's clay streak) doesn't invalidate the other periods of Nadal's prime.

its not an indicator of his form in the CC season ..that's the point.

You have a subjective criteria of what constitutes "form". According to you, some injuries render wins worthless, while other injuries don't. So any further discussion on this point is irrelevant.

I was comparing federer-delpo to federer-soderling

federer routinely beat delpo in madrid 09
federer routinely beat soderling in madrid 09

6-0, 6-1 vs. 6-3, 6-4

And yet you use the word "routinely" to describe both. lol. I don't think so. Pretty sure a "6-1, 6-0" loss deserves a more descriptive word. After all, there are actual TERMS for what happened in the Soderling match: a bagel and a breadstick.

So nice try trying to classify both losses in the same manner.

delpo was in clearly better form in RG 09, hence took federer to 5.
if soderling was in similar form as he was in the match vs nadal , he'd have played federer tougher, get it ?

Nice try, once again. But we were using the Madrid matches to illustrate their clay form. And once you realized that the matches aren't as comparable as you thought they were, you're trying to run away from it.

another dumb comparison. Safin has 2 wins vs federer overall ..

versus Federer's 10 wins...which means that Federer has Safin figured out. But Federer STILL lost to Safin in a slam, therefore contradicting your theory that a player who has someone figured out can't lose to them in a slam.

RG 12, RG 13,USO 13, RG 14 - that's 4 big matches ...

LOL, you said "and yet , lost to him in 2 big matches outside of clay, USO 10, USO 13". So now you're bringing clay into the picture now that your point has been refuted?

Make up your mind!
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Nadal wins the 3 biggest clay tournaments of the year (including 3 additional ones) and he isn't in his prime? LOL. Your desperation is all too palpable.



The win counts. Protest as much as you want, but the win isn't going away.



LOL, del Potro won 7 games in Madrid to Soderling's ONE. Don't even compare those two matches. I can't think of any time in the history of tennis where a player wins a single game, and then comes back to beat that same player in a slam in the very next match...in just a few weeks no less. A typical straight setter going to five? That happens all the time.

The situations are not comparable at ALL.



Do you know what a trend is? The H2H was in Nadal's favor, and now it has trended dramatically in Novak's favor. He obviously hadn't figured him out earlier in the H2H, but now he has. Since 2011 when Novak came into his prime, he is 16-7 against Nadal.

But I don't really care what you think on the matter. By most accounts, Djokovic indeed has Nadal figured out, so your intellectual dishonesty is of no concern.



Djokovic's didn't have Nadal figured out until 2011.

And losing the U.S Open in 2013 doesn't disprove it. Federer had Safin figured out but lost to him in the 2005 Australian Open. Just because you have someone "figured out" doesn't mean you can't lose to them in big matches. Or is this another rule you came up with?

What you "consider" Nadal's prime is irrelevant. Performing that incredibly well on the surface that year makes it Nadal's prime. Period. You're window of perfection (Nadal's clay streak) doesn't invalidate the other periods of Nadal's prime.



You have a subjective criteria of what constitutes "form". According to you, some injuries render wins worthless, while other injuries don't. So any further discussion on this point is irrelevant.



6-0, 6-1 vs. 6-3, 6-4

And yet you use the word "routinely" to describe both. lol. I don't think so. Pretty sure a "6-1, 6-0" loss deserves a more descriptive word. After all, there are actual TERMS for what happened in the Soderling match: a bagel and a breadstick.

So nice try trying to classify both losses in the same manner.



Nice try, once again. But we were using the Madrid matches to illustrate their clay form. And once you realized that the matches aren't as comparable as you thought they were, you're trying to run away from it.



versus Federer's 10 wins...which means that Federer has Safin figured out. But Federer STILL lost to Safin in a slam, therefore contradicting your theory that a player who has someone figured out can't lose to them in a slam.



LOL, you said "and yet , lost to him in 2 big matches outside of clay, USO 10, USO 13". So now you're bringing clay into the picture now that your point has been refuted?

Make up your mind!

0588436001428792271_filepicker.jpg
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
I take it this is one of those eternal threads,huh?
It's one where people are arguing over complicated trivia no-one really cares about when we already know what they're really arguing about.

I just thought I'd cut right to the meat of the issue.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
What you "consider" Nadal's prime is irrelevant. Performing that incredibly well on the surface that year makes it Nadal's prime. Period. You're window of perfection (Nadal's clay streak) doesn't invalidate the other periods of Nadal's prime.

actually it is very relevant. Because that's the time slot when Nadal was very tough to beat on clay.



You have a subjective criteria of what constitutes "form". According to you, some injuries render wins worthless, while other injuries don't. So any further discussion on this point is irrelevant.

its both based on results and actually watching the matches.

it depends on what the injury is and how seriously its affecting the player/match .......that's plain common sense ...is that too much for you ?


6-0, 6-1 vs. 6-3, 6-4

And yet you use the word "routinely" to describe both. lol. I don't think so. Pretty sure a "6-1, 6-0" loss deserves a more descriptive word. After all, there are actual TERMS for what happened in the Soderling match: a bagel and a breadstick.

So nice try trying to classify both losses in the same manner.

again, you are in your dream land ...I wasn't comparing federer-del potro to nadal-soderling at all. Read again ...

I said :

"I was comparing federer-delpo to federer-soderling

federer routinely beat delpo in madrid 09
federer routinely beat soderling in madrid 09"

federer beat soderling 6-1,7-5 in madrid, he beat delpo 6-3,6-4 .....not a big difference

Hence "that's dumb ...delpo was beaten comprehensively in straights by Federer in madrid as well, but he played much better at RG and too him to 5.
Soderling was in much better form at RG and he'd have played federer tougher had he been in the same form as he was in the 4R match vs nadal. Its not complicating things..its plain observation ..."

Now coming to Nadal-Soderling, he won only one game in Rome 09, but he was in much better form at RG >> clearly visible to anyone who actually followed tennis and has a clue.

and there's a reason why its one of the biggest upsets in tennis. it was a shocker.


Nice try, once again. But we were using the Madrid matches to illustrate their clay form. And once you realized that the matches aren't as comparable as you thought they were, you're trying to run away from it.

^^ again, see proof your cluelessness above ...


versus Federer's 10 wins
...which means that Federer has Safin figured out. But Federer STILL lost to Safin in a slam, therefore contradicting your theory that a player who has someone figured out can't lose to them in a slam.

first of all, it was never my theory that a player who has someone figured out can't lose to that person at a slam. I was poking holes at your dumb theory that nadal-djokovic with an even h2h is with djokovic figuring nadal out. The big matches was one point to show that , not the entirety.
By comparing nadal-djokovic with federer-roddick , you already showed your 'understanding' of the game ..


LOL, you said "and yet , lost to him in 2 big matches outside of clay, USO 10, USO 13". So now you're bringing clay into the picture now that your point has been refuted?

Make up your mind!

that's because you shifted your goalpost from djokovic has nadal figured out to djokovic has nadal figured out from 2011 onwards.

I also posted the whole set of matches where nadal defeated djokovic from 2011 onwards, but you chose to ignore that.
 

Tony48

Legend
actually it is very relevant. Because that's the time slot when Nadal was very tough to beat on clay.

Once again, you are being extraordinarily unreasonable. Nadal had a 96% win rate on clay in 2005. By most reasonable accounts (apparently not including yours) that would make one very "tough to beat".

again, you are in your dream land ...I wasn't comparing federer-del potro to nadal-soderling at all. Read again ...

I said :

"I was comparing federer-delpo to federer-soderling

federer routinely beat delpo in madrid 09
federer routinely beat soderling in madrid 09"

federer beat soderling 6-1,7-5 in madrid, he beat delpo 6-3,6-4 .....not a big difference

Hence "that's dumb ...delpo was beaten comprehensively in straights by Federer in madrid as well, but he played much better at RG and too him to 5.
Soderling was in much better form at RG and he'd have played federer tougher had he been in the same form as he was in the 4R match vs nadal. Its not complicating things..its plain observation ..."

Now coming to Nadal-Soderling, he won only one game in Rome 09, but he was in much better form at RG >> clearly visible to anyone who actually followed tennis and has a clue.

Yeah, someone goes from winning 1 game just a few weeks earlier to winning a slam match. So basically Soderling went from the worst clay form in the history of tennis (with zero clay titles and zero clay finals to his name) to the best clay form in the history of tennis....overnight, no less. LOL

When has that EVER happened in the history of tennis? To someone so dominant on a surface? Nadal is better on clay than Federer is on grass, and not even HE has ever lost to someone that he only dropped 1 game to on grass.

Your "form" argument is completely unprecedented. It has never happened in the history of the game and you trying to say it was just "form" absolutely ludicrous.

first of all, it was never my theory that a player who has someone figured out can't lose to that person at a slam. I was poking holes at your dumb theory that nadal-djokovic with an even h2h is with djokovic figuring nadal out. The big matches was one point to show that , not the entirety.
By comparing nadal-djokovic with federer-roddick , you already showed your 'understanding' of the game ..

Now you're backpedaling. In addressing my comment about Djokovic figuring out Nadal, you said "so what happened to this figuring out in USO 10 and USO 13 ?" And now your position is that a player who has figured someone out can't lose to them in a slam (now that you see it happened else where)?

LOL.

This discussion is over.


that's because you shifted your goalpost from djokovic has nadal figured out to djokovic has nadal figured out from 2011 onwards.
Caption from CNN: "Nadal, despite his recent upturn, can't figure out a way to defeat Djokovic."

Even CNN knows that "figuring out Nadal" refers to their recent meetings. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit to understand common sense.

I also posted the whole set of matches where nadal defeated djokovic from 2011 onwards, but you chose to ignore that.

I ignored it because I posted it myself: "Since 2011 when Novak came into his prime, he is 16-7 against Nadal."

And as of Sunday, Djokovic is 17-7...but no, he hasn't apparently "figured him out" according to you (despite everyone saying otherwise)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Once again, you are being extraordinarily unreasonable. Nadal had a 96% win rate on clay in 2005. By most reasonable accounts (apparently not including yours) that would make one very "tough to beat".

again, since your comprehension abilities are mediocre, let me dumb it down for you :

buoenos aires : lost to gaudio
costa de suipe : won
acapulco : won
valencia : lost to andreev

I don't consider these are part of his clay prime ......

I consider it from starting from Monte Carlo 2005, when the clay streak started , that includes these tournaments in 2005 ...

MC 2005
Barcelona 2005
Rome 2005
RG 2005


Yeah, someone goes from winning 1 game just a few weeks earlier to winning a slam match. So basically Soderling went from the worst clay form in the history of tennis (with zero clay titles and zero clay finals to his name) to the best clay form in the history of tennis....overnight, no less. LOL

When has that EVER happened in the history of tennis? To someone so dominant on a surface? Nadal is better on clay than Federer is on grass, and not even HE has ever lost to someone that he only dropped 1 game to on grass.

Your "form" argument is completely unprecedented. It has never happened in the history of the game and you trying to say it was just "form" absolutely ludicrous.

so now you are a dishonest as well now ?

you skipped quoting my line "and there's a reason why its one of the biggest upsets in tennis. it was a shocker." which was important in the context of the conversation.

Did I say best clay form in the history of tennis ? Nope , I didn't say that. However it was a very high level and his level in that match and the QF match vs federer in RG 2010 CLEARLY eclipse any match of Novak at RG ........



Now you're backpedaling. In addressing my comment about Djokovic figuring out Nadal, you said "so what happened to this figuring out in USO 10 and USO 13 ?" And now your position is that a player who has figured someone out can't lose to them in a slam (now that you see it happened else where)?

LOL.

This discussion is over.

its called poking holes at an ill-formed argument.You'll understand one day, may be !



Caption from CNN
: "Nadal, despite his recent upturn, can't figure out a way to defeat Djokovic."

Even CNN knows that "figuring out Nadal" refers to their recent meetings. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit to understand common sense.

and maybe if you got your head out of Novak's la la land, you'd also notice recent upturn there ...meaning nadal has been clearly below form for quite some time --that's when quite a few of djokovic's victories were scored. See below as well ...


I ignored it because I posted it myself
: "Since 2011 when Novak came into his prime, he is 16-7 against Nadal."

And as of Sunday, Djokovic is 17-7...but no, he hasn't apparently "figured him out" according to you (despite everyone saying otherwise)

Counting from 2011 to 2013 : 10-6 to djokovic, 3-3 in slams
Counting from 2011 to 2014 : 12-7 to djokovic, 3-4 in slams

that's competitive and not indicative of a "figuring out", even more so when you consider the slam #s.

2015 nadal was sh*t nadal, didn't even make the semi-final of a slam and was below par for most part ...and Djokovic being in great form has been dismantling him ...
 

Tony48

Legend
I don't consider these are part of his clay prime ......

Up until now (and every single discussion on every single tennis forum), a player's prime is discussed in terms of "years". Let me bring your attention to this thread: we have been discussion players' prime in terms of YEARS in this very thread. And now you're trying to cherry pick tournaments, streaks, etc...another attempt at moving the goal posts (which you do quite often).

2005 is Nadal's clay prime. Not a single point I made above is in dispute. The discussion is over.

so now you are a dishonest as well now ?

you skipped quoting my line "and there's a reason why its one of the biggest upsets in tennis. it was a shocker." which was important in the context of the conversation.

Did I say best clay form in the history of tennis ? Nope , I didn't say that. However it was a very high level and his level in that match and the QF match vs federer in RG 2010 CLEARLY eclipse any match of Novak at RG ........

You said it was Soderling's "form", and I showed how no one's form in the history of the game has ever changed that dramatically in a H2H in that short of a period. Again: Nadal had an off day, Soderling took advantage, and then lost to Federer...just like he did in Madrid a few weeks prior.

Unless you can cite to similar occurrences that would lend precedence to this form, the discussion is over.

its called poking holes at an ill-formed argument.You'll understand one day, may be !

You failed to address a single point I made after I clearly showed you backpedaling. The discussion is indeed over.

and maybe if you got your head out of Novak's la la land, you'd also notice recent upturn there ...meaning nadal has been clearly below form for quite some time --that's when quite a few of djokovic's victories were scored. See below as well ...

Oh, so now the argument has moved from "Djokovic didn't figure Nadal out!" to "the only reason he figured him out is....."

Again, discussion over.

Counting from 2011 to 2013 : 10-6 to djokovic, 3-3 in slams
Counting from 2011 to 2014 : 12-7 to djokovic, 3-4 in slams

that's competitive and not indicative of a "figuring out", even more so when you consider the slam #s.

2015 nadal was sh*t nadal, didn't even make the semi-final of a slam and was below par for most part ...and Djokovic being in great form has been dismantling him ...

I already showed you CNN's description of their recent H2H. Does Nadal himself need to tell you that he can't figure out how to beat Djokovic? You can dress it up how ever you want, but everyone has concluded that Djokovic has figured out Nadal. Your semantics (calling it "competitive" or whatever) is irrelevant and everyone else will say otherwise.

Discussion: over. Thanks for playing.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Up until now (and every single discussion on every single tennis forum), a player's prime is discussed in terms of "years". Let me bring your attention to this thread: we have been discussion players' prime in terms of YEARS in this very thread. And now you're trying to cherry pick tournaments, streaks, etc...another attempt at moving the goal posts (which you do quite often).

2005 is Nadal's clay prime. Not a single point I made above is in dispute. The discussion is over.

pretty sure, I myself have mentioned countless times for instance that federer's prime is from 2003 YEC to 2010 AO ... its not necessary to have it in terms of years ...so have quite a few others

you fail .......



You said it was Soderling's "form", and I showed how no one's form in the history of the game has ever changed that dramatically in a H2H in that short of a period. Again: Nadal had an off day, Soderling took advantage, and then lost to Federer...just like he did in Madrid a few weeks prior.

Unless you can cite to similar occurrences that would lend precedence to this form, the discussion is over.

you are a thick, clueless fella if you think soderling was in remotely similar form in rome/madrid as he was in RG ...either that or you are in delusion

I don't have to "show" that his form improved dramatically >> it was clearly visible to those who actually watched him play at that RG >> but then maybe you were in your basement crying after djokovic crashed out to Kohlscreiber in 3R :D

Here's a hint though : he beat in-form ferrer in 5, nadal in 4, thrashed davydenko, beat in-form gonzalez in 5 ...maybe that's a hint he was in much better at that RG than at Rome where he won 1 game vs nadal or at Madrid where he won 6 games vs Federer in 1 R

a) Soderling's peak at RG > Djokovic's peak at RG
b) Federer = 1 RG, djokovic = ZERO RG ..
c) Soderling remains the only guy to beat prime nadal at RG, djokovic's win in 15 doesn't come with 10 country miles of that win ..

Suck it up


Oh, so now the argument has moved from "Djokovic didn't figure Nadal out!" to "the only reason he figured him out is....."

Again, discussion over.

I already showed you CNN's description of their recent H2H. Does Nadal himself need to tell you that he can't figure out how to beat Djokovic? You can dress it up how ever you want, but everyone has concluded that Djokovic has figured out Nadal. Your semantics (calling it "competitive" or whatever) is irrelevant and everyone else will say otherwise.

Discussion: over. Thanks for playing.

LOL, obviously you are thick ...you first started with djokovic has nadal figured out, then changed it to since 11 and when I showed that 11-13 or even 11-14 wasn't figuring out, you bring up one year and a CNN article that talks about something recent.

When did I ever say djokovic in the past year hasn't had Nadal's number ?

I will repeat ....

Counting from 2011 to 2013 : 10-6 to djokovic, 3-3 in slams
Counting from 2011 to 2014 : 12-7 to djokovic, 3-4 in slams

that's competitive and not indicative of a "figuring out", even more so when you consider the slam #s.

2015 nadal was sh*t nadal, didn't even make the semi-final of a slam and was below par for most part ...and Djokovic being in great form has been dismantling him ...

You fail as usual ..
 
Last edited:
Top