Djokovic higher peak and floor, Nadal better average?

[SpicyCurry1990]

I think this is a good way to describe their playing levels.

When Djokovic is at his absolute peak, he is almost always much better than absolute peak Nadal (examples: Madrid 2011, Rome 2011, Wimbledon 2011, USO 2011, WTF 2013, Miami 2014). In these peak-vs-peak battles, Djokovic blew Nadal off the court. The only peak-vs-peak battle that was a close Djokovic win was AO 2012. The only peak-vs-peak battle Nadal has won is FO 2013 needing a 9-7 5th set on his best court with some net touching luck.

Djokovic's highest level is probably top 3 in the open era with peak Borg and peak Federer.

Similarly when Djokovic is playing at his worst and is subpar, he is better than Nadal when at his worst. This is shown by Djokovic's incredible consistency since Wimbledon 2010:

16/16 Slam QFs reached
15/16 Slam SFs reached (1 QF loss to 2014 AO champion Wawrinka)
9/11 Slam loses to eventual champions (2010 Wimbledon to Berdych, 2011 FO to Federer only loses to finalists)

Prime Djokovic's poorest forms in slams came at Wimbledon 2010 and 2012, but he still reached the SFs both times. Meanwhile Nadal's 2 poorest forms were losses in the 1st and 2nd round of Wimbledon 2012 and 2013.

Djokovic's quality of defeat in his AO QF exit in 2014 (9-7 loss to eventual champion Wawrinka, only guy to push him to 5 sets) was also far stronger than Nadal's AO QF exit in 2011 (straight setted by Ferrer who promptly got wrecked by Murray in the SF, who then promptly got straight setted by Djokovic in the final)

However, when Nadal and Djokovic are both playing at average levels, Nadal is almost always better. This has been the case at USO 2010, FO 2012, USO 2013, and FO 2014. Average levels are the levels a player is most likely to be at and hence this is the level range you find both players at during most slams. When this is the case Nadal is simply a stronger player than Djokovic and has proven it on both clay and hardcourts. They have not had an average level meeting on grass yet. Djokovic still beats Nadal at this level sometimes, but only in non-slam matches (MC 2013, Beijing 2013, Rome 2014) because Nadal is capable of sustaining his higher average level better than Djoker in a best 3/5.

I would rate their totals as such out of 10:

Djokovic peak - 9.8
Nadal peak - 9.5
Nadal average - 9.2
Djokovic average - 8.6
Djokovic floor - 7.5
Nadal floor - 5

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal played average at the 2010 USO, FO2012 and USO 2013?

 

[swordtennis]

Nice write up and basically nails it. However I argue Djokovic does not blow Nadal off the court per say when they both are at their peaks. He dominates but he does get a few timely breaks which usually is not the case in the rivalry. Fedal usually get the key breaks.

Added: op don't get discouraged with the Fanboys you put some good work in and numbers.

 

[Kenshin]

We should break down their peak level by surfaces-

Nadal on Grass (2007, 2008 Wimbledon) > Djokovic on grass (2011 Wimbledon)
Nadal on Clay (2008 French Open) > Djokovic on Clay (2013 French Open)

On hard court it is debatable because Djokovic's has an edge at Australian Open. However, Nadal has an edge at US Open. Djokovic is definitely the better overall hardcourt player than Nadal.

 

[octogon]

Nadal's peak level on clay is far, far ahead of Djokovic. I don't even know how that's a discussion. Nadal is well past his peak on clay, and has been for a couple of years, yet Djokovic still can't beat him in best of 5.

Djokovic wasn't playing peak Nadal on clay at the FO 2013....Nadal was vulnerable on the surface last year, as he was this year. Either way, below-peak Nadal still beats peak Djokovic on clay in best of 5. That kind of says everything.

And Djokovic has never faced peak Nadal on grass.

Nadal has different peaks on different surfaces. Nadal's hardcourt peak was in 2013, and he took out Djokovic at the US Open final.

I don't really go along with this theory. Djokovic redlined in 2011 and completely caught Nadal by surprise with his massively increased fitness, and got into his head for a period, but it doesn't mean he's got a higher peak level of play on every surface. That's sort of absurd.

 

[easywin]

I think on clay, peakNadal is pretty much the best thing we will ever witness because his game is the embodiment of clay tennis.

Its hard to measure how much the matchup hurts Nadal. His cross forehand is his bread and butter but it is nearly a non factor against Djokovic.

Otherwise I'd partly agree. Djokovics game is much better balanced to go in "peak-mode" conditions on surfaces outside of clay.
However, tennis will always stay a mental game and if both "peak-versions" would meet on any surface, it would always come down to 5th set and 2-3 points like Djokovic bumping into the net at RG13 or Nadal missing that easy backhand DTL being up 4/2 30/15 AO12

 

[clayqueen]

Seems like Djokovic has not been in peak mode for a while as he has lost 5 out of the last 6 slams he's played. He currently holds NO slams, none, zilch!

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Nadal played average at the 2010 USO, FO2012 and USO 2013?

Debatable

My contention would be:
1) Nadal's peak levels at FO were 2008 and 2010 for sure. His FO 2012 form was below that.

2) Nadal's peak hard court form I would say began in 2011 with Indian Wells and his best ever hard court performance was AO 2012. Even though he lost, it was because Djokovic was playing at the highest of levels as well, in what I consider the best match of all time. I think Nadal USO 2010 was not at that level. USO 2013 might have been.

In any case even if you want to describe those as peak Nadal performances, it does not change my evaluation for two reasons.

1) Clearly those three matches featured an average level Djokovic. If I conceded average Nadal > average Djokovic, obviously peak Nadal > average Djokovic. It actually adds MORE credence to the point that peak Djoker>peak Nadal, because we have an even larger sample size of peak Nadal and can compare them directly to both peak Djokovic and average Djokovic.

2) Based on my rankings, you can clearly see I don't think there is a very heavy difference between peak and average Nadal. Nadal's average form is pretty close to his peak form, he just has a massive drop off at floor. If he isn't playing badly, he is usually excellent. I wanted to keep increments on 0.5s, but I would almost be willing to say peak Nadal (over-all) is a 9.3 and average Nadal is a 9, while peak Djoker is a 9.8 and average Djoker an 8.5.

We should break down their peak level by surfaces-

Nadal on Grass (2007, 2008 Wimbledon) > Djokovic on grass (2011 Wimbledon)
Nadal on Clay (2008 French Open) > Djokovic on Clay (2013 French Open)

On hard court it is debatable because Djokovic's has an edge at Australian Open. However, Nadal has an edge at US Open. Djokovic is definitely the better overall hardcourt player than Nadal.

I'd argue 2011 USO Djokovic>any form of Nadal at USO. Remember we are discussing peaks here. Nadal has a better USO career with 2 wins over 1 both in titles and head to head, but peak 2011 Djoker I would say was stronger than both 2010 and 2013 USO Nadal. I'd rank 2011 USO Djok and 2012 AO Djok about equally and slightly above AO 2012 Nadal (Nadal's best HC level). I would put 2011 AO Djok as the highest hardcourt level ever displayed by either of these players and on par with 05-06 Fed level for best open era HC level ever.

I don't agree with Nadal having a higher grass peak. I'd say Nadal was pretty close to his 07/08 level on grass in 10/11 and above his 06 level. Djoker demolished Nadal at Wimbledon 2011 with around the same dominance as Fed did in Wimbledon 06. I think Djok 11 at Wimbledon is the strongest grass peak outside of Federer in this generation.

I'll address clay below

Nadal's peak level on clay is far, far ahead of Djokovic. I don't even know how that's a discussion. Nadal is well past his peak on clay, and has been for a couple of years, yet Djokovic still can't beat him in best of 5.

Djokovic wasn't playing peak Nadal on clay at the FO 2013....Nadal was vulnerable on the surface last year, as he was this year. Either way, below-peak Nadal still beats peak Djokovic on clay.

Let me correct myself, absolute Peak Nadal on clay yes. That would be 08/10 FO Nadal (prior to prime Djokovic arriving). I would argue that rendition of Nadal is the strongest player form in the history of tennis and rank that as my true 10.

But since Wimby 2010 (when I consider prime Djokovic beginning), I would say the peak levels are close. Nadal in 2011 was still definitely in his peak on clay and Djoker took 4 straight sets off him. That was probably the best version of Clay Djoker. Unfortunately we didn't see them face at the FO due to Fed's match-up advantage over Djok getting the best of him there. FO 2013 Nadal I think was stronger than FO 2014 by far. He needed a few matches to recover fully on clay and was pretty average at MC, but by FO 2013 he was at his best clay form since Wimby 2010. I think his level shown in the 5th set of FO 2013 SF vs Djoker was stronger than anything he showed in 2011 or even 2012 and was only behind his 2008/2010 forms.

Nice write up and basically nails it. However I argue Djokovic does not blow Nadal off the court per say when they both are at their peaks. He dominates but he does get a few timely breaks which usually is not the case in the rivalry. Fedal usually get the key breaks.

Added: op don't get discouraged with the Fanboys you put some good work in and numbers.

Appreciate the encouragement. Perhaps my use of language was too harsh I'd agree with dominate over blow off the court, I was using them interchangeably. But I suppose blow off the court is more likely to imply something like 6-1 6-3 6-0.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Funny how people use the "peak card" to suite their theory and even more when someone is trying to say that the number 1-2 players for the last 4 years are not in their peak Nadal is like a superman, he is not in his peak since 2008 and yet he still wins everything "because he is Nadal".

Lets me ask all the smart guys, how can Nole challenge peak Nadal on clay in 2009 big time and yet he cant beat him at Roland Garos 14 where Nadal is so far from his best. Does that mean that Nole 09 is stronger than 14 ?

 

[Bukmeikara]

Another question how you deffer a "peak form" from an "above average form" ? Do the players run faster, hit harder or start to use their brain more? People here tend to think that if they use words as "peak" and "prime" they are some bad asses who know everything. Once a player reached 23-25 most oftenly he has reached his peak level, yes he can improve something slighly in the next years but to start comparing Nadal 2010 with Nadal 2013 where at the first case he has maded 3 more winners than the second but in 2013 he had less 7 unforced errors and trying to find some major answers in this stats is just waste of time.

 

[forehand fan]

nadal has better average and better peak level.. djoker only has a better floor level

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Funny how people use the "peak card" to suite their theory and even more when someone is trying to say that the number 1-2 players for the last 4 years are not in their peak Nadal is like a superman, he is not in his peak since 2008 and yet he still wins everything "because he is Nadal".

Lets me ask all the smart guys, how can Nole challenge peak Nadal on clay in 2009 big time and yet he cant beat him at Roland Garos 14 where Nadal is so far from his best. Does that mean that Nole 09 is stronger than 14 ?

Peak is different from Prime. People don't randomly fall in and out of their primes. Nadal 08-14 has always been in his prime, Djokovic from mid-2010-14 has always been in his prime as well. Thats why they have been the top 2 players for the last 4 years. But within the scope of a prime ebbs and flows certainly determine when someone is peaking. You can peak, regress, and re-peak. When top players peak it means you are witnessing GOAT level play. No one maintains that for the full extent of their prime. Peak performance levels are a rarity, which is why it was surreal to see Djokovic play at peak levels for 9 months in 2011.

To answer your question, Nadal in both 09 and 14 was not in his peak clay form (both prime though). This should be made obvious by what happened to Nadal at RG in 09. Djoker in 2014 also challenged Nadal big time on clay (beat him for the Rome title and reached the RG finals) whereas he lost early at RG in 09 and didn't take any titles off Nadal. Even based on results alone you can see Nole 14 is stronger than Nole 09 on clay. I would contend that if Nole had been playing at his peak clay levels (2011 or 2013 RG), he would have beaten Nadal at 2014 RG. Unfortunately he too was not playing at his peak.

 

[Bukmeikara]

But peak is a very subjective thing, how you can prove me that at match A he is playing at his peak and in match B he isnt? If you look the stats, for example of Nadal 09-14, you would probably see that his statistics are pretty much the same(first serve, won points, break points) with some of them increasing or decreasing with a 1-2% which is almost irrelevant. If you play 100 matches a year, is their a big difference if your first serve percentage is 65 in 2009 and 64 in 2013? You cant compare this kind of things without numbers because everyone things differently, one would say to you that Nadal peak ended 05 other would tell you 09, who is right ?

And if Nadal losses a match does that means that he is not in his peak form? Because this is disrespectfull for all the other players out there. Probably a lot of versions of Nadal would have lose to Soderling on that day, if not all .

 

[ibbi]

How have you come to the determination that those Djokovic 2011 wins were peak vs. peak, but the US Open 2010 match, and Roland Garros 2012 match which took place just either side of Djokovic's period of dominance are average levels? How in fact have you determined peak or average periods in general?

And Nadal quite clearly got injured in the second game of his match with Ferrer in Australia in 2011, so I don't see how that comparison is remotely relevant.

I would say Djokovic has the better average level, which is why he has the consistent levels of quality at slams that you point out, but Nadal has the highs and lows. Djokovic vs. Nadal is a naturally advantageous matchup for Novak more than Rafa, and Nadal has to work his butt off to deal with Nole, and when he does he generally forces Djokovic to go for too much, hence the blitz of errors you so often see from him against the Spaniard.

That's not to say Djokovic can't deal with a Nadal coming full force at him (Australia 2012 is evidence of that) but ultimately I think it has more to do with levels of confidence going into the match more than anything else when it comes to these two.

 

[Maximagq]

My two cents:
Djokovic at his best > Nadal at his best
Djokovic at his best >> Nadal at his average
Djokovic at his best >>> Nadal at his worst
Djokovic at his average << Nadal at his best
Djokovic at his average > Nadal at his average
Djokovic at his average >> Nadal at his worst
Djokovic at his worst <<< Nadal at his best
Djokovic at his worst < Nadal at his average
Djokovic at his worst > Nadal at his worst

 

[Maximagq]

The problem is that Djokovic's level can vary from best to worst in a single match!

 

[powerangle]

I think their physical peaks, averages, and lows are quite similar. It's all about the mentality. Currently Rafa has it in spades in the slams versus Nole.

If Novak were more confident and mentally stable, they'd split their slam meetings, IMHO.

 

[Mustard]

Debatable

My contention would be:
1) Nadal's peak levels at FO were 2008 and 2010 for sure. His FO 2012 form was below that.

Nadal's 2012 French Open form was much superior to his 2010 French Open form. Although he won in 2010 without dropping a set, he never looked as convincingly dominant as he did in 2012.

2) Nadal's peak hard court form I would say began in 2011 with Indian Wells and his best ever hard court performance was AO 2012. Even though he lost, it was because Djokovic was playing at the highest of levels as well, in what I consider the best match of all time. I think Nadal USO 2010 was not at that level. USO 2013 might have been.

A baffling statement.

I don't agree with Nadal having a higher grass peak. I'd say Nadal was pretty close to his 07/08 level on grass in 10/11 and above his 06 level. Djoker demolished Nadal at Wimbledon 2011 with around the same dominance as Fed did in Wimbledon 06. I think Djok 11 at Wimbledon is the strongest grass peak outside of Federer in this generation.

Nadal dominated grass in 2008 in a way Djokovic never has on grass. I watched Nadal's win over Murray at 2008 Wimbledon last night, and it was a clinic by Nadal. In 2011, Djokovic was in a very good place against Nadal in their matches, but I think Nadal's form at 2011 Wimbledon prior to the final was better than Djokovic's.

Let me correct myself, absolute Peak Nadal on clay yes. That would be 08/10 FO Nadal (prior to prime Djokovic arriving). I would argue that rendition of Nadal is the strongest player form in the history of tennis and rank that as my true 10.

But since Wimby 2010 (when I consider prime Djokovic beginning), I would say the peak levels are close.

2010 Wimbledon? Djokovic was underachieving at this time and was still trying to correct the mechanics of his serve following his brief employment of Todd Martin. When Djokovic faced Federer in the semi finals of the 2010 US Open, there weren't many people who thought that Djokovic would win.

Nadal in 2011 was still definitely in his peak on clay and Djoker took 4 straight sets off him.

Nadal's form on clay in 2011 was well below his usual standard, and I'm not talking about the matches with Djokovic, but throughout most of the 2011 clay-court season. In the first week of the 2011 French Open, Nadal was talking about a crisis of confidence and that he felt like he had been playing on the ATP Tour for 100 years. It was only in the last few matches of the 2011 French Open that he got his level up to the standard needed, and Federer defeated Djokovic, of course, which annoys the Nadal haters to this day

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

How have you come to the determination that those Djokovic 2011 wins were peak vs. peak, but the US Open 2010 match, and Roland Garros 2012 match which took place just either side of Djokovic's period of dominance are average levels? How in fact have you determined peak or average periods in general?

As you said yourself they are on either side of his period of dominance. Look at the composite results.

Djokovic after winning the AO 2012 match very clearly regressed from his peak to his average levels for almost all of 2012, not peaking again until the post-USO hardcourt season. Look at Djoker's composite results from AO to RG 2012, he was beaten by Murray, Isner, Tipsarevic, and Nadal twice and won 1 title. One of his losses to Nadal was a 6-3, 6-1 drubbing. Going more in depth you can look at the match statistics and see things like break opportunities created, unforced errors, clutch points, and see he was clearly not on the same level. Just compare the Rome 2011 and 2012 finals via the eye test if you don't want that level of detail.

Nole was also dealing with family issues with his grandfather's death around this time. Also immediately following RG2012, Nole played probably the worst slam performance of his prime at Wimbledon 2012, was straight setted in back-to-backs against Murray and Del Po at the Olympics, ate a Bagel against Fed at Cincy, and lost in a slam for the first time vs Murray. Lets compare that to all of his peak periods.

I would classify 4 periods of peak play during Nole's career:
1 - AO 2011 - USO 2011 (1 loss, ignoring the cincy final injury)
2 - Beijing 2012-Dubai 2013 (1 loss)
3 - Isolated French Open 2013 (1 loss)
4 - Beijing 2013-Monte Carlo 2014 QF (2 losses, prior to wrist injury)

Djokovic was near unbeatable during these times losing just 5 matches total, most requiring monstrous efforts and going down to the wire:

1) RG 2011 SF - Fed played the best clay match in his career to end the Nole streak. It was his best level ever on clay. Super tight 4 setter with 2 tiebreaks falling Fed's way.

2) Paris 2012 R2 - Querry had the best serving performance of his career in sets 2 and 3. Djoker's return level was still amazing in this match as seen by the 1st set bagel. But Querry hit another level which he has never seen before or since to eek out a tight 3 setter. Bizarre match.

3) RG 2013 F - Rafa's best clay match (looking at winners vs unforced errors) since RG 2010. 2nd ever FO 5th set Nadal has played and went to 9-7, with Rafa needing to hit 22 5th set winners, and catch the net touch break to get it done.

4) AO 2014 QF - Wawrinka's career peak level. Djokovic was playing at his 2012 AO level in this tournament, meaning Wawrinka was playing at the 3rd highest hardcourt level seen in the open era (behind Fed 05-06 and Nole AO 2011) and it took a 9-7 5th set to get it done. No one else even got Wawrinka to a 5th set.

5) Dubai 2014 SF - Fed rejuvenated from a career worst 2013 taps into his classic fast hard court game from the past to come from a set and a break down to win. His best hard court showing since Cincy 2012. Admittedly the only (non-injury) Djoker peak loss not requiring a legendary effort but still went 3 sets.

Compare that to where Nole's level was at from post AO 2012 to USO 2013 losing 11 times, several in straight sets and winning just 2 titles.

As for USO 2010, similar assessments can be made. Look at Nole's stats for the match vs his average 2011 run stats and look at his performances in Wimby (2nd worst prime slam performance), Canada, Cincy, Shanghai, Paris, and the WTF around the USO. Not to mention Djok didn't start Gluten Free (which set off his stamina boost) until the end of 2010.

FO 2012 and USO 2010 are on either side of the peak vs peak, but there are a lot of other matches that give us context as to Nole's level in those matches. His performances in those matches, the eye test and surrounding results display a lack of peak level performance.

And Nadal quite clearly got injured in the second game of his match with Ferrer in Australia in 2011, so I don't see how that comparison is remotely relevant.

Fair enough, injuries are certainly unpredictable we can toss out that specific comparison.

My point was the quality of loss for Djokovic though, showing his consistency. The AO QF loss to Wawrinka is one of the strongest quality losses in this era. Looking at his dominance, winners hit, and court coverage Wawrinka at AO 2014 played at a higher level than almost anyone ever has on hardcourt.

Also, Djoker has had his fair share of injuries as well, but has never missed a slam in his prime, while in the same time Nadal has missed 2. That factors into the floor.

I would say Djokovic has the better average level, which is why he has the consistent levels of quality at slams that you point out, but Nadal has the highs and lows. Djokovic vs. Nadal is a naturally advantageous matchup for Novak more than Rafa, and Nadal has to work his butt off to deal with Nole, and when he does he generally forces Djokovic to go for too much, hence the blitz of errors you so often see from him against the Spaniard.

That's not to say Djokovic can't deal with a Nadal coming full force at him (Australia 2012 is evidence of that) but ultimately I think it has more to do with levels of confidence going into the match more than anything else when it comes to these two.

The consistency has nothing to do with average levels. Average Djoker and average Nadal are above almost any peak levels other players have. Only Fed, Murray, Del Po, and Wawrinka have shown peaks above average Nadal/Djoker. Anyone else (Ferrer/Tsonga/Berdych or lower) requires peak play from them plus below average Nadal/Djoker play (or injury) to result in losses. The consistency is about Djokovic's far higher floor level not the average levels. At average levels, Nadal plays better, but when Djokovic is at his best he is almost unstoppable.

Like I said, the only slam matches I can remember seeing where Djokovic actually played at his peak levels and lost were FO 2013 and AO 2014 and both took 9-7 5th setters from elite players also at their peaks to do it.

But peak is a very subjective thing, how you can prove me that at match A he is playing at his peak and in match B he isnt? If you look the stats, for example of Nadal 09-14, you would probably see that his statistics are pretty much the same(first serve, won points, break points) with some of them increasing or decreasing with a 1-2% which is almost irrelevant. If you play 100 matches a year, is their a big difference if your first serve percentage is 65 in 2009 and 64 in 2013? You cant compare this kind of things without numbers because everyone things differently, one would say to you that Nadal peak ended 05 other would tell you 09, who is right ?

And if Nadal losses a match does that means that he is not in his peak form? Because this is disrespectfull for all the other players out there. Probably a lot of versions of Nadal would have lose to Soderling on that day, if not all .

A lot of it goes based on the eye test by watching the matches and drudging through those minor stat differences and looking at surrounding results. I get what you are saying, this is my opinion piece and why I phrased the topic as a question.

And of course a loss does not mean he isn't in his peak, but you have to look at the circumstances. Nadal lost in STRAIGHT SETS that year to Fed on Clay at Madrid, something which has NEVER happened before or since. Nadal also was clearly injured and SKIPPED Wimbledon after the RG 09 loss and missed a great deal of time. Nadal also was beaten in 4 sets, not even stretching it to a 5th. A lot of points to indicate he was not at his peak form. I would contend your final point by saying look at the very next year. Soderling's form at RG2010 and RG2009 were pretty equivalent and with Nadal back in peak form in 2010, he beat Soderling in straight sets in the 2010 RG Finals.

My two cents:
Djokovic at his best > Nadal at his best
Djokovic at his best >> Nadal at his average
Djokovic at his best >>> Nadal at his worst
Djokovic at his average << Nadal at his best
Djokovic at his average > Nadal at his average
Djokovic at his average >> Nadal at his worst
Djokovic at his worst <<< Nadal at his best
Djokovic at his worst < Nadal at his average
Djokovic at his worst > Nadal at his worst

I'd agree with a lot of this but have minor changes:

Djokovic at his best < Nadal at his God tier (RG 08/10)

Djokovic at his best > Nadal at his best
Djokovic at his best >> Nadal at his average
Djokovic at his best >>>> Nadal at his worst
Djokovic at his average << Nadal at his best
Djokovic at his average < Nadal at his average
Djokovic at his average >>> Nadal at his worst
Djokovic at his worst <<< Nadal at his best
Djokovic at his worst << Nadal at his average
Djokovic at his worst >> Nadal at his worst

Basically I'd rate Nadal's worst lower than you, and his average higher. The only equivalency I would change is them both at their average, otherwise its just degrees

 

[octogon]

To be honest, I don't think Djokovic's peak level of play is higher than Nadal's at all. On clay, Nadal's peak is far superior, and I'd say even on grass, considering Nadal's record on the surface compared to Djokovic. It's more even on hardcourts, with Djkovic maybe having the edge.

The difference in 2011 for Djokovic was his otherworldly increase in stamina...Nadal was used to being able to easily outlast his opponents, and he was suddenly faced with a guy who never got tired, and developed even more stamina than him. Almost out of nowhere.

It was demoralising and affected Nadal mentally. He was losing matches to Djokovic he had no buisiness losing in the manner he did. Nadal at his grass court peak, is simply a better grass court player than Djokovic, and lost to him due to confidence issues, not because Djokovic has some higher peak grass game than Nadal (does anyone seriously believe that?).

Even though Nadal is well past his grass peak, if he were to face Djokovic in the final for this wimbledon, I'd favour nadal if both played at their best, because that mental block Nadal developed against Djokovic in 2011 is gone. Djokovic had a surprise element in his game for about a year, and now it's gone. Nadal's peak has always been higher.

 

[gambitt]

Hey guys. I went to a barbeque today followed by a pleasant walk with some friends and their dogs, but it looks like I missed out on the real fun.

So did we decide on which player is better or will there be a further seven million hours of analysis?

 

[octogon]

Well, Nadal is obviously the better player, but as Djokovic hype threads go, I've seen worse

 

[Backspin1183]

Thank you for your opinion. We've seen them destroy each other many times.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Nadal's 2012 French Open form was much superior to his 2010 French Open form. Although he won in 2010 without dropping a set, he never looked as convincingly dominant as he did in 2012.

There is something to be said about not dropping a set and winning a slam, a rare feat. Are we really going to say his form was worse because he was winning sets 6-3 or 6-4 and not 6-1 and 6-2, when he was winning them all? He dominated with no peers.

Additionally went 22-0 on clay in 2010 winning both Monte Carlo and FO without dropping a set and also winning Madrid and Rome, dropping just one set each. 22-0 match record 51-2 set record. Considering that totality I would say 2010 was more dominant on clay than 2012 considering he lost an RG set and lost a clay match at Madrid.

Besides Nadal's 81-match unbeaten clay streak from 05-07 and his dominant 08 RG run without dropping a set and 1 3 0 finals win are both probably above these runs as well. In any case this is a pointless. I already said I'm willing to concede 2012 was peak Nadal on clay and showed how this classification actually strengthens my argument.

A baffling statement.

How so? Like I said I'm willing to concede USO 2010 and USO 2013 as peak Nadal as well. Same point about FO 2012. Djokovic wasn't at his peak in any of those matches. Whether its peak Nadal vs average Djoker or average Nadal vs average Djoker the results are the same and both support my point of:
God-clay Nadal > peak Djoker > peak Nadal > average Nadal > average Djoker.

I still stand by that 2012 AO Final was Nadal's best hard court performance though from a pure tennis (not results) perspective.

Nadal dominated grass in 2008 in a way Djokovic never has on grass. I watched Nadal's win over Murray at 2008 Wimbledon last night, and it was a clinic by Nadal. In 2011, Djokovic was in a very good place against Nadal in their matches, but I think Nadal's form at 2011 Wimbledon prior to the final was better than Djokovic's.

Murray was still not at his peak yet on grass in 08. He was just coming up through the ranks and wasn't at his elite level until at least 09. He wasn't even top 10 in the world during the Wimby 08 match. I should hope Nadal dominated him there.

Djoker won Wimbledon in 2011 without needing to play a single 5th set. No one has ever done that in this generation besides Federer. How is that not dominating in a way Nadal never has on grass? J

2010 Wimbledon? Djokovic was underachieving at this time and was still trying to correct the mechanics of his serve following his brief employment of Todd Martin. When Djokovic faced Federer in the semi finals of the 2010 US Open, there weren't many people who thought that Djokovic would win.

From AO 09 - FO 10, Djokovic reached just 1 slam SF. Wimbledon 2010 ended 2 years of early exits for Djoker at Wimbledon, marking his return to the SF for the first time since 07, which he has continued every year since. It was also the beginning of his 14 straight slam SF streak (#2 all time) which was ended at AO 2014 by Wawrinka. Wimbledon 2010 was the start of his prime, when Djokovic stopped underachieving. Of course most pegged Fed to win the USO 2010 match, Fed had been in 6 straight finals there losing just once in an epic to Del Po. That USO SF win was Djoker's true coming out party, but the groundwork was laid at Wimby.

Nadal's form on clay in 2011 was well below his usual standard, and I'm not talking about the matches with Djokovic, but throughout most of the 2011 clay-court season. In the first week of the 2011 French Open, Nadal was talking about a crisis of confidence and that he felt like he had been playing on the ATP Tour for 100 years. It was only in the last few matches of the 2011 French Open that he got his level up to the standard needed, and Federer defeated Djokovic, of course, which annoys the Nadal haters to this day

How so? In 2011 on clay: Nadal won Barcelona without dropping a set, won Monte Carlo dropping 1 set, got to the finals of both Madrid and Rome dropping just 1 set each, and won the French Open dropping just 3 sets.

5 of his 6 set loses were very understandable:
1)MC SF 2nd set to Murray -
2011 was Murray's best clay year, he nearly beat Djokovic during his 43-0 run at Rome and had his best FO showing reaching the SF and being competitive. Not surprising he could grab 1 set from Nadal. Nadal of course replied with a breadstick in the 3rd set on this match.

2)Madrid SF 1st set to Federer -
Madrid/Hamburg is of course Nadal's weakest clay tournament historically and Federer's strongest, where he has scored both of his clay wins over Nadal and won many titles. Very understandable he could get a set. Nadal replied winning 6-3, 6-1.

3/4) French Open 1st Round 2d/3rd sets to Isner -
Against a monster big server like Isner, if he is serving at his best sometimes there is nothing you can do. Isner forced two tiebreakers and won them both. We've seen Isner when hot beat Fed in 4 on clay and earn multiple wins over Djokovic. Nadal replied to break Isner 3 times in the final two sets for a 6-2 6-4 finish and then did not drop another set for the rest of RG until the final.

5) French Open Final 3rd set to Federer -
This was Federer's best RG. He beat peak Djokovic, the only loss peak Djokovic took in his run and did it in 4 sets. Federer managed to take sets from Nadal even during his peak 05-07 RG matches so him grabbing one here is no surprise. Nadal breadsticked Fed in the 4th for the win.

The only head scratching set lost was in the 1st round at Rome against world #148 - Paolo Lorenzi where he could not break in the 1st set and dropped the tiebreak. But fluke loses like this happen once in a while and Nadal picked up a Bagel in the 3rd set in this match and went on not to drop another set until he met Djokovic.

Over-all his record on clay in 2011 does not lead me to believe he was any less dominant than usual (outside of his Nole matches):

25-0 in matches
57-6 in sets
Barcelona, MC, FO titles
Madrid, Rome Finals

vs Djokovic:
0-2 in matches
0-4 in sets
lost Madrid and Rome Finals

2011 Djokovic on clay was better than Nadal on clay while Nadal was still at near his clay best. This wasn't god tier clay Nadal (81 in a row, 08 RG), but still peak level Nadal. It is a shame we didn't get to see Djoker/Nadal at RG that year. Fed never ends up in Nadal's half at RG :twisted:

 

[eldanger25]

It's a difficult and interesting question, though I think you're being slightly unfair to Nadal with some of your characterizations - particularly given that you seem to've implicitly excluded the first half of Novak's career - which was wonderful though inconsistent - and the first half of Nadal's career - which was a different kind of peak than the more stable, conservationist, serve-oriented game he's developed from 2010 onward - in these metrics.

The thing is, I don't think either of their "peak" versions intersected. The best version of Nadal I've ever seen was the rolling 12 month period from about MC 2008 to Rome/Madrid 2009 (full credit to Djokovic for stretching Nadal physically and mentally in that epic SF). Three majors on three surfaces, all against twentysomething Federer, Olympic gold on HC, a nice blend of clay/hard masters titles, etc.

It's easy to forget, but the levels Nadal reached in terms of pure athleticism in the 2000s was just as unreal as what Djokovic has done fitness and flexibility-wise in the 2010s. To his credit, Nadal has papered over memories of his earlier self and compensated for persistent physical issues by developing a more consistent, stable game across surfaces in the last few years, and those results speak for themselves, but that run from 2008/early 2009 was a pretty brilliant example of probably the best pure athlete tennis has ever seen (minus maybe Borg) with mind and body in full flower. Watching Nadal these days - particularly on grass, where he moves and reacts like an aging heavyweight, with little of the old poetry - is kind of sad, though also inspiring of course. The only comparison I can make is Cassius Clay of the 1960s versus Muhammad Ali of the 1970s.

Similarly, the best version of Novak I've seen was AO 2011-12, with four majors in five tries, including three straight victories over Nadal, a king's ransom of masters series titles, the most famous/epic ROS in Open Era history, and surely the point of the decade (and it isn't even half over yet), singlehandedly decapitating the Fedal Era, etc. Watching him in 2011 was a privilege, he was like some hybrid octopus/barracuda on the baseline. However, it's also true that Nadal was better and more consistent in 2011 than Djokovic was in 2008/09, so there are more comparison points.

So how do you compare? Also, don't you have to analyze mental as well as physical peaks? If so, you'd have to throw out Nadal from the third set of the YEC 2010 final (or maybe from the fireworks display in the middle of the Ferrer AO 2011 match) through about set 3 of the 2011 US Open final that year, and you'd have to toss out Novak's summer 2013 results - including their recent US Open final - since I believe both men were mentally weary during those runs - only Fed among the three has known how to hold the throne with any serenity.

I suppose that leaves AO 2012 and RG 2013 from your list, but I have a hard time with saying AO 2012 was peak anything (that match, though epic, made me dislike both men more - it was like watching some interminably long documentary about flustered zookeepers trying and failing to get two very elderly endangered turtles into position to mate). Moreover, I was more impressed with Nadal at AO 2009 than his 2012 self, and not just because of the outcome - his performances across the final weekend against Verdasco and Fed were the last great moments of Nadal the undiminished athlete at a major.

And, having watched Nadal run game on clay from 2005-08, and Novak in 2011, it's hard to call RG 2013 anything other than a crafty vet holding off a game, though far from zoning, challenger.

What I'd say is that peak Novak and peak Nadal never met and never will (for instance, I think Novak may yet improve on his 2011 level of play on grass over the next 1-2 years, while Nadal won't hit his 2007/08 grass court levels, 2006/08 clay court levels, or 2009 AO level without a time machine and Huey Lewis soundtrack). The latest version of Nadal translated best to HC play, and the two may yet fashion a few more great epics on that surface - here's to hoping.

Bottom line: Novak is Rafa's Joe Frazier. No shame in that, Smokin' Joe was a golden god.

 

[Chanwan]

It's a difficult and interesting question, though I think you're being slightly unfair to Nadal with some of your characterizations - particularly given that you seem to've implicitly excluded the first half of Novak's career - which was wonderful though inconsistent - and the first half of Nadal's career - which was a different kind of peak than the more stable, conservationist, serve-oriented game he's developed from 2010 onward - in these metrics.

The thing is, I don't think either of their "peak" versions intersected. The best version of Nadal I've ever seen was the rolling 12 month period from about MC 2008 to Rome/Madrid 2009 (full credit to Djokovic for stretching Nadal physically and mentally in that epic SF). Three majors on three surfaces, all against twentysomething Federer, Olympic gold on HC, a nice blend of clay/hard masters titles, etc.

It's easy to forget, but the levels Nadal reached in terms of pure athleticism in the 2000s was just as unreal as what Djokovic has done fitness and flexibility-wise in the 2010s. To his credit, Nadal has papered over memories of his earlier self and compensated for persistent physical issues by developing a more consistent, stable game across surfaces in the last few years, and those results speak for themselves, but that run from 2008/early 2009 was a pretty brilliant example of probably the best pure athlete tennis has ever seen (minus maybe Borg) with mind and body in full flower. Watching Nadal these days - particularly on grass, where he moves and reacts like an aging heavyweight, with little of the old poetry - is kind of sad, though also inspiring of course. The only comparison I can make is Cassius Clay of the 1960s versus Muhammad Ali of the 1970s.

Similarly, the best version of Novak I've seen was AO 2011-12, with four majors in five tries, including three straight victories over Nadal, a king's ransom of masters series titles, the most famous/epic ROS in Open Era history, and surely the point of the decade (and it isn't even half over yet), singlehandedly decapitating the Fedal Era, etc. Watching him in 2011 was a privilege, he was like some hybrid octopus/barracuda on the baseline. However, it's also true that Nadal was better and more consistent in 2011 than Djokovic was in 2008/09, so there are more comparison points.

So how do you compare? Also, don't you have to analyze mental as well as physical peaks? If so, you'd have to throw out Nadal from the third set of the YEC 2010 final (or maybe from the fireworks display in the middle of the Ferrer AO 2011 match) through about set 3 of the 2011 US Open final that year, and you'd have to toss out Novak's summer 2013 results - including their recent US Open final - since I believe both men were mentally weary during those runs - only Fed among the three has known how to hold the throne with any serenity.

I suppose that leaves AO 2012 and RG 2013 from your list, but I have a hard time with saying AO 2012 was peak anything (that match, though epic, made me dislike both men more - it was like watching some interminably long documentary about flustered zookeepers trying and failing to get two very elderly endangered turtles into position to mate). Moreover, I was more impressed with Nadal at AO 2009 than his 2012 self, and not just because of the outcome - his performances across the final weekend against Verdasco and Fed were the last great moments of Nadal the undiminished athlete at a major.

And, having watched Nadal run game on clay from 2005-08, and Novak in 2011, it's hard to call RG 2013 anything other than a crafty vet holding off a game, though far from zoning, challenger.

What I'd say is that peak Novak and peak Nadal never met and never will (for instance, I think Novak may yet improve on his 2011 level of play on grass over the next 1-2 years, while Nadal won't hit his 2007/08 grass court levels, 2006/08 clay court levels, or 2009 AO level without a time machine and Huey Lewis soundtrack). The latest version of Nadal translated best to HC play, and the two may yet fashion a few more great epics on that surface - here's to hoping.

Bottom line: Novak is Rafa's Joe Frazier. No shame in that, Smokin' Joe was a golden god.

great post. I don't necessarily agree with it all (Rafa has produced some mighty fine tennis in 2012 and 2013 and a bit even in 2014), but it's very well written and has a lot of truth in it.

To OP. I do think there' some truth to Novak beating Rafa more often than not when he's on his game. Since 2011 that is. And I think that's due to him being the aggressor in their rivalry. When his return is clicking at it's very best and his serve is fairly on as well, there's little Rafa (or pretty much anyone) can do. But both Fed and Murray have better chances vs. this version of Novak (if they peak that is) as their variety, different spins, slices etc. can confuse him more.
For Rafa to compete with and even beat this Novak, his forehand DTL needs to be 100 % on. And preferably the backhand DTL too.

 

[Bud]

nadal has better average and better peak level.. djoker only has a better floor level

This :lol:

 

[bjsnider]

The problem is that, leaving 2011 aside, Djokovic has lacked fitness at the back ends of big tournaments. I don't know why, but that's a fact. He would have captured at least one RG by now if not for that issue. He lost Wimbledon last year because of it, and the past couple of Opens. I don't understand what was so different about 2011. It's as if he was Popeye on a spinach bender. Maybe it's as simple as, he needs to take a lot more time off in between majors?

 

[Chanwan]

The problem is that, leaving 2011 aside, Djokovic has lacked fitness at the back ends of big tournaments. I don't know why, but that's a fact. He would have captured at least one RG by now if not for that issue. He lost Wimbledon last year because of it, and the past couple of Opens. I don't understand what was so different about 2011. It's as if he was Popeye on a spinach bender. Maybe it's as simple as, he needs to take a lot more time off in between majors?

He had some diet guru/fitness coach that left him again, didn't he?

 

[Mustard]

There is something to be said about not dropping a set and winning a slam, a rare feat. Are we really going to say his form was worse because he was winning sets 6-3 or 6-4 and not 6-1 and 6-2, when he was winning them all? He dominated with no peers.

At the 2012 French Open, Nadal was going through opponents far more ruthlessly. I watched all his matches at both tournaments at the time. In 2010, he was anxious to regain the title he had lost the previous year, and despite not dropping a set on his way to the title, he was not as convincingly dominant as he would be at the 2012 French Open. In 2012, Nadal didn't drop a set on orange clay until the French Open final, and he led that match 6-4, 6-3, 2-0, until conditions started getting damp.

I still stand by that 2012 AO Final was Nadal's best hard court performance though from a pure tennis (not results) perspective.

He was better at the 2009 Australian Open and 2010 US Open.

Murray was still not at his peak yet on grass in 08. He was just coming up through the ranks and wasn't at his elite level until at least 09. He wasn't even top 10 in the world during the Wimby 08 match. I should hope Nadal dominated him there.

I was talking about Nadal's performance. His mobility and shot-making was never better than what they were at that time.

Djoker won Wimbledon in 2011 without needing to play a single 5th set. No one has ever done that in this generation besides Federer. How is that not dominating in a way Nadal never has on grass?

Against Tomic in the quarter finals, Djokovic was in bother at 1 set all and down a break in the third set. Djokovic got out of it but wasn't really convincing. I expected Nadal to win the final based on their form in the tournament and the fact that Nadal hadn't lost in a major to Djokovic before. Nadal did start the match better, I thought, until Djokovic struck at the perfect moment, when Nadal was serving at 4-5 in the first set. Nadal got broken and was suddenly all over the place, as Djokovic raced through the second set.

Djokovic, at that time, was in a good place against Nadal personally, by being able to outlast Nadal and beat him in rallies. It was a puzzle that Nadal had to solve. It took him a while.

From AO 09 - FO 10, Djokovic reached just 1 slam SF. Wimbledon 2010 ended 2 years of early exits for Djoker at Wimbledon, marking his return to the SF for the first time since 07, which he has continued every year since.

Did you watch these events, or just look up the stats?

Although Berdych had surprisingly beaten Federer in the quarter finals of 2010 Wimbledon, Djokovic was favoured to beat Berdych in the semi finals, but Djokovic was outplayed by Berdych and beaten in straight sets. This was soon after Melzer had caused a big upset in beating Djokovic in the quarter finals of the 2010 French Open. Djokovic was underachieving at this time, with some lacklustre matches when least expected.

When Djokovic played against Federer at the 2010 US Open, Federer was the strong favourite, because of Federer's history of beating Djokovic at the US Open combined with the size of the occasion. Djokovic coming from behind and saving 2 match points to win that match against the odds, was the start of Djokovic's revival. The look in his eyes after he won showed it, a mixture of shock and his confidence starting to return. Nadal was too strong for Djokovic at that time because Nadal was at the peak of his hardcourt powers and Djokovic's confidence had only just come back. It took a few months before Djokovic was at his peak, starting with the 2010 Davis Cup final, going on a big unbeaten run.

It was also the beginning of his 14 straight slam SF streak (#2 all time) which was ended at AO 2014 by Wawrinka. Wimbledon 2010 was the start of his prime, when Djokovic stopped underachieving. Of course most pegged Fed to win the USO 2010 match, Fed had been in 6 straight finals there losing just once in an epic to Del Po. That USO SF win was Djoker's true coming out party, but the groundwork was laid at Wimby.

No, the groundwork was laid at the 2010 US Open when he beat Federer. Djokovic didn't start dominating until a few months later, beginning with the 2010 Davis Cup final. In the interim, it was Federer who was doing well in the fall period.

How so? In 2011 on clay: Nadal won Barcelona without dropping a set, won Monte Carlo dropping 1 set, got to the finals of both Madrid and Rome dropping just 1 set each, and won the French Open dropping just 3 sets.

Murray very nearly pulled out of their 2011 Monte Carlo semi final before the match had began, due to injury, yet Nadal struggled mightily to beat Murray and win the match. He didn't look convincing when beating Ferrer in the final, either.

At 2011 Rome, he dropped a set to Lorenzi and was under pressure in the second set, which was shocking. At the 2011 French Open, he was taken to 5 sets by Isner, and was 1-5 and set points down in the third set against Andujar. As all this was going on, Djokovic was unbeaten for the whole calendar year at that time.

By Nadal's very high clay-court standards, his form during the 2011 clay-court season was considerably below that. He was, however, much better on clay later in the year in Davis Cup ties against France and Argentina.

The only head scratching set lost was in the 1st round at Rome against world #148 - Paolo Lorenzi where he could not break in the 1st set and dropped the tiebreak. But fluke loses like this happen once in a while and Nadal picked up a Bagel in the 3rd set in this match and went on not to drop another set until he met Djokovic.

Over-all his record on clay in 2011 does not lead me to believe he was any less dominant than usual (outside of his Nole matches):

25-0 in matches
57-6 in sets
Barcelona, MC, FO titles
Madrid, Rome Finals

vs Djokovic:
0-2 in matches
0-4 in sets
lost Madrid and Rome Finals

2011 Djokovic on clay was better than Nadal on clay while Nadal was still at near his clay best. This wasn't god tier clay Nadal (81 in a row, 08 RG), but still peak level Nadal. It is a shame we didn't get to see Djoker/Nadal at RG that year. Fed never ends up in Nadal's half at RG :twisted:

There's more to tennis than just match scorelines. Watching the matches gives you a clearer picture. Take it from me, Nadal during the 2011 clay-court season was considerably below his clay standard of 2010 and 2012.

 

[gambitt]

So only 6,999,998 hours to go then?

 

[eldanger25]

So only 6,999,998 hours to go then?

No need to get emotional over tennis fans talking tennis questions on a tennis forum. Sounds like you had a nice day so far - why ruin it by reading further?

 

[eldanger25]

great post. I don't necessarily agree with it all (Rafa has produced some mighty fine tennis in 2012 and 2013 and a bit even in 2014), but it's very well written and has a lot of truth in it.

To OP. I do think there' some truth to Novak beating Rafa more often than not when he's on his game. Since 2011 that is. And I think that's due to him being the aggressor in their rivalry. When his return is clicking at it's very best and his serve is fairly on as well, there's little Rafa (or pretty much anyone) can do. But both Fed and Murray have better chances vs. this version of Novak (if they peak that is) as their variety, different spins, slices etc. can confuse him more.
For Rafa to compete with and even beat this Novak, his forehand DTL needs to be 100 % on. And preferably the backhand DTL too.

Thanks for the kind words. I think you're spot on in your second paragraph, particularly w/r/t best of three matches. Novak only infrequently matches Nadal's basically peerless ability to weather the rhythms of high stakes five set matches.

 

[Chanwan]

Thanks for the kind words. I think you're spot on in your second paragraph, particularly w/r/t best of three matches. Novak only infrequently matches Nadal's basically peerless ability to weather the rhythms of high stakes five set matches.

True as well. For whatever reason, Novak's endurance or ability to focus didn't quite stay at those heights of 2011-early 2012.

 

[eldanger25]

True as well. For whatever reason, Novak's endurance or ability to focus didn't quite stay at those heights of 2011-early 2012.

Nadal has always been able to pretty uncomplainingly accept that over the course of these matches, he's gonna miss a few shots, sometimes in a row; get broken a few times; maybe lose a set or two; deal with an opponent zoning for a half hour to an hour; and face a crowd that'll always root for more tennis. Novak seems to often have difficulty accepting these basic realities of five set tennis, particularly at the semifinal and championship match level.

Might be Toni Nadal's greatest coaching gift to his nephew, now that I think of it - that stoicism.

 

[gambitt]

Nadal has always been able to pretty uncomplainingly accept that over the course of these matches, he's gonna miss a few shots, sometimes in a row; get broken a few times; maybe lose a set or two; deal with an opponent zoning for a half hour to an hour; and face a crowd that'll always root for more tennis. Novak seems to often have difficulty accepting these basic realities of five set tennis, particularly at the semifinal and championship match level.

Might be Toni Nadal's greatest coaching gift to his nephew, now that I think of it - that stoicism.

Did your cat keep jumping on your semicolon key or shall I send you a link to some grammar lesso... oh wait; I've already stopped caring.

 

[eldanger25]

Did your cat keep jumping on your semicolon key or shall I send you a link to some grammar lesso... oh wait; I've already stopped caring.

Appreciate your indifference in the nick of time - I've been under the grammar hammer before, and it's no fun. Have a nice rest of the day.

 

[gambitt]

I'll just leave you to appreciate this little "gift of stoicism"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3gliM25lgKs#t=3841

I'm sure he's simply saying "vamos".

 

[DRII]

although i strongly disagree with several examples of the OP's reasoning (he seems like a Nadal-hater that has gone through about 7 steps of a 12 step haters program); ultimately i agree that Nole's absolute peak is above that of Nadal's absolute peak.

But, what needs to be understood is that this, is very close, to a purely hypothetical exercise.

when it comes to the hypothetical peak vs peak, almost always the more offensive player comes out on top as long as defensive skill of the two players is comparable. thus peak Nole, and Federer for that matter, > peak Nadal.

given this criteria; the two best (male and female) modern 'peak' players I've seen are Marat Safin and Venus Williams (taking the different aspects of these players i've seen when they're were playing their best and extrapolating them over an entire match vs any other player).

However, in the real world, these peak vs peak discussions don't offer a whole lot of value. We all know that no player plays at their peak for an entire game let alone match or tournament. We also know that health can be a very significant factor, particularly in the case of certain players like Nadal...

 

[eldanger25]

I'll just leave you to appreciate this little "gift of stoicism"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3gliM25lgKs#t=3841

I'm sure he's simply saying "vamos".

Rosol definitely punched Nadal in the mouth in 2012, and nearly did the same the other day. Probably only Novak in 2011 and a few others have gotten Nadal that out of sorts.

I do think Rosol's spell on him is over, though.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

It's a difficult and interesting question, though I think you're being slightly unfair to Nadal with some of your characterizations - particularly given that you seem to've implicitly excluded the first half of Novak's career - which was wonderful though inconsistent - and the first half of Nadal's career - which was a different kind of peak than the more stable, conservationist, serve-oriented game he's developed from 2010 onward - in these metrics.

The thing is, I don't think either of their "peak" versions intersected. The best version of Nadal I've ever seen was the rolling 12 month period from about MC 2008 to Rome/Madrid 2009 (full credit to Djokovic for stretching Nadal physically and mentally in that epic SF). Three majors on three surfaces, all against twentysomething Federer, Olympic gold on HC, a nice blend of clay/hard masters titles, etc.

It's easy to forget, but the levels Nadal reached in terms of pure athleticism in the 2000s was just as unreal as what Djokovic has done fitness and flexibility-wise in the 2010s. To his credit, Nadal has papered over memories of his earlier self and compensated for persistent physical issues by developing a more consistent, stable game across surfaces in the last few years, and those results speak for themselves, but that run from 2008/early 2009 was a pretty brilliant example of probably the best pure athlete tennis has ever seen (minus maybe Borg) with mind and body in full flower. Watching Nadal these days - particularly on grass, where he moves and reacts like an aging heavyweight, with little of the old poetry - is kind of sad, though also inspiring of course. The only comparison I can make is Cassius Clay of the 1960s versus Muhammad Ali of the 1970s.

Similarly, the best version of Novak I've seen was AO 2011-12, with four majors in five tries, including three straight victories over Nadal, a king's ransom of masters series titles, the most famous/epic ROS in Open Era history, and surely the point of the decade (and it isn't even half over yet), singlehandedly decapitating the Fedal Era, etc. Watching him in 2011 was a privilege, he was like some hybrid octopus/barracuda on the baseline. However, it's also true that Nadal was better and more consistent in 2011 than Djokovic was in 2008/09, so there are more comparison points.

So how do you compare? Also, don't you have to analyze mental as well as physical peaks? If so, you'd have to throw out Nadal from the third set of the YEC 2010 final (or maybe from the fireworks display in the middle of the Ferrer AO 2011 match) through about set 3 of the 2011 US Open final that year, and you'd have to toss out Novak's summer 2013 results - including their recent US Open final - since I believe both men were mentally weary during those runs - only Fed among the three has known how to hold the throne with any serenity.

I suppose that leaves AO 2012 and RG 2013 from your list, but I have a hard time with saying AO 2012 was peak anything (that match, though epic, made me dislike both men more - it was like watching some interminably long documentary about flustered zookeepers trying and failing to get two very elderly endangered turtles into position to mate). Moreover, I was more impressed with Nadal at AO 2009 than his 2012 self, and not just because of the outcome - his performances across the final weekend against Verdasco and Fed were the last great moments of Nadal the undiminished athlete at a major.

And, having watched Nadal run game on clay from 2005-08, and Novak in 2011, it's hard to call RG 2013 anything other than a crafty vet holding off a game, though far from zoning, challenger.

What I'd say is that peak Novak and peak Nadal never met and never will (for instance, I think Novak may yet improve on his 2011 level of play on grass over the next 1-2 years, while Nadal won't hit his 2007/08 grass court levels, 2006/08 clay court levels, or 2009 AO level without a time machine and Huey Lewis soundtrack). The latest version of Nadal translated best to HC play, and the two may yet fashion a few more great epics on that surface - here's to hoping.

Bottom line: Novak is Rafa's Joe Frazier. No shame in that, Smokin' Joe was a golden god.

Great post as always, a lot to reflect on from all of this. In the spirit of not killing virtual trees like with our Lendl-Connors debate I'll simply say this in lieu of line by line replies:

Would you concede that from when Djokovic hit his prime until now the hierarchy of Djoker Peak>Nadal Peak>Nadal Average>Djoker Average>Djoker Floor>Nadal floor holds true?

I suppose it is impossible to know what peak Djoker would do vs 07/08 Grass Nadal or 09 AO Hard court Nadal (if we surmise that 09 AO> 12 AO Nadal).

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

At the 2012 French Open, Nadal was going through opponents far more ruthlessly. I watched all his matches at both tournaments at the time. In 2010, he was anxious to regain the title he had lost the previous year, and despite not dropping a set on his way to the title, he was not as convincingly dominant as he would be at the 2012 French Open. In 2012, Nadal didn't drop a set on orange clay until the French Open final, and he led that match 6-4, 6-3, 2-0, until conditions started getting damp.

You left out his spotless clay record in 2010. I really can't say winning a title without dropping a set at a slam is anything short of dominant. Either-ways as I said before we are splitting hairs. There is no point in debating the miniscule FO 2012 vs FO 2010 Nadal levels. The point is in either case 2012 FO was an average to above average Nadal beating an average to below average Nole.

He was better at the 2009 Australian Open and 2010 US Open.

Perhaps in the context of the entire tournament yes he maintained a consistently higher level in those tournaments. But in speaking of peak performance his level in the 2012 AO final was above any match in either of those tournaments. AO 2012 Djokovic's level was well above AO 09 Fed or Verdasco IMO.

I was talking about Nadal's performance. His mobility and shot-making was never better than what they were at that time.

gotcha

Against Tomic in the quarter finals, Djokovic was in bother at 1 set all and down a break in the third set. Djokovic got out of it but wasn't really convincing. I expected Nadal to win the final based on their form in the tournament and the fact that Nadal hadn't lost in a major to Djokovic before. Nadal did start the match better, I thought, until Djokovic struck at the perfect moment, when Nadal was serving at 4-5 in the first set. Nadal got broken and was suddenly all over the place, as Djokovic raced through the second set.

How was Nadal being pushed to 5th set overtime in the Wimbledon 08 final in anyway convincing? An incredible match for sure, but Djoker was never pushed like that on his grass peak. Plus you are giving absolutely no credit to Djoker's 2nd set breadstick? He was hitting winners and displaying sublime movement and shotmaking in that set. One of the best grass sets ever played in tennis.

Djokovic, at that time, was in a good place against Nadal personally, by being able to outlast Nadal and beat him in rallies. It was a puzzle that Nadal had to solve. It took him a while.

So what we are saying is Nadal was playing in great near peak grass form and Djokovic dominated him in the match and so instead of surmising Djok's grass game was legit, we pin it all on the mental?

Did you watch these events, or just look up the stats?

Although Berdych had surprisingly beaten Federer in the quarter finals of 2010 Wimbledon, Djokovic was favoured to beat Berdych in the semi finals, but Djokovic was outplayed by Berdych and beaten in straight sets. This was soon after Melzer had caused a big upset in beating Djokovic in the quarter finals of the 2010 French Open. Djokovic was underachieving at this time, with some lacklustre matches when least expected.

Of course I watched, apparently you didn't. Berdych played the best tournament of his life at Wimb 2010. As you said yourself he beat Fed there. He played an amazing match against Djoker and Djoker could not keep up with a big server crushing the ball on a fast court the way he did. Calling Djok's loss there an underachievement is giving no credit to T-Bird's play. The Melzer upset has nothing to do with this as I said the prime began at Wimbledon not FO.

When Djokovic played against Federer at the 2010 US Open, Federer was the strong favourite, because of Federer's history of beating Djokovic at the US Open combined with the size of the occasion. Djokovic coming from behind and saving 2 match points to win that match against the odds, was the start of Djokovic's revival. The look in his eyes after he won showed it, a mixture of shock and his confidence starting to return. Nadal was too strong for Djokovic at that time because Nadal was at the peak of his hardcourt powers and Djokovic's confidence had only just come back. It took a few months before Djokovic was at his peak, starting with the 2010 Davis Cup final, going on a big unbeaten run.

I agree with all of this, not sure what you are disputing.

No, the groundwork was laid at the 2010 US Open when he beat Federer. Djokovic didn't start dominating until a few months later, beginning with the 2010 Davis Cup final. In the interim, it was Federer who was doing well in the fall period.

I guess we are just looking at it in different ways. I see 3 progressions:
entering prime (Wimbledon) => Revival to the pinnacle (USO) => domination (DC on) while you only see two putting the revival and prime together. I think making a SF run on his worst surface ending a 2 year underachieving hiatus warrants more credit than you give.

Murray very nearly pulled out of their 2011 Monte Carlo semi final before the match had began, due to injury, yet Nadal struggled mightily to beat Murray and win the match. He didn't look convincing when beating Ferrer in the final, either.

At 2011 Rome, he dropped a set to Lorenzi and was under pressure in the second set, which was shocking. At the 2011 French Open, he was taken to 5 sets by Isner, and was 1-5 and set points down in the third set against Andujar. As all this was going on, Djokovic was unbeaten for the whole calendar year at that time.

By Nadal's very high clay-court standards, his form during the 2011 clay-court season was considerably below that. He was, however, much better on clay later in the year in Davis Cup ties against France and Argentina.


There's more to tennis than just match scorelines. Watching the matches gives you a clearer picture. Take it from me, Nadal during the 2011 clay-court season was considerably below his clay standard of 2010 and 2012.

No dispute that Clay Nadal 2011 was below 2010 and 2012, but it wasn't leagues below like 2014 was. It was still in the same stratosphere where you can call in peak Nadal.

 

[winstonplum]

At the 2012 French Open, Nadal was going through opponents far more ruthlessly. I watched all his matches at both tournaments at the time. In 2010, he was anxious to regain the title he had lost the previous year, and despite not dropping a set on his way to the title, he was not as convincingly dominant as he would be at the 2012 French Open. In 2012, Nadal didn't drop a set on orange clay until the French Open final, and he led that match 6-4, 6-3, 2-0, until conditions started getting damp.



He was better at the 2009 Australian Open and 2010 US Open.



I was talking about Nadal's performance. His mobility and shot-making was never better than what they were at that time.



Against Tomic in the quarter finals, Djokovic was in bother at 1 set all and down a break in the third set. Djokovic got out of it but wasn't really convincing. I expected Nadal to win the final based on their form in the tournament and the fact that Nadal hadn't lost in a major to Djokovic before. Nadal did start the match better, I thought, until Djokovic struck at the perfect moment, when Nadal was serving at 4-5 in the first set. Nadal got broken and was suddenly all over the place, as Djokovic raced through the second set.

Djokovic, at that time, was in a good place against Nadal personally, by being able to outlast Nadal and beat him in rallies. It was a puzzle that Nadal had to solve. It took him a while.



Did you watch these events, or just look up the stats?

Although Berdych had surprisingly beaten Federer in the quarter finals of 2010 Wimbledon, Djokovic was favoured to beat Berdych in the semi finals, but Djokovic was outplayed by Berdych and beaten in straight sets. This was soon after Melzer had caused a big upset in beating Djokovic in the quarter finals of the 2010 French Open. Djokovic was underachieving at this time, with some lacklustre matches when least expected.

When Djokovic played against Federer at the 2010 US Open, Federer was the strong favourite, because of Federer's history of beating Djokovic at the US Open combined with the size of the occasion. Djokovic coming from behind and saving 2 match points to win that match against the odds, was the start of Djokovic's revival. The look in his eyes after he won showed it, a mixture of shock and his confidence starting to return. Nadal was too strong for Djokovic at that time because Nadal was at the peak of his hardcourt powers and Djokovic's confidence had only just come back. It took a few months before Djokovic was at his peak, starting with the 2010 Davis Cup final, going on a big unbeaten run.



No, the groundwork was laid at the 2010 US Open when he beat Federer. Djokovic didn't start dominating until a few months later, beginning with the 2010 Davis Cup final. In the interim, it was Federer who was doing well in the fall period.



Murray very nearly pulled out of their 2011 Monte Carlo semi final before the match had began, due to injury, yet Nadal struggled mightily to beat Murray and win the match. He didn't look convincing when beating Ferrer in the final, either.

At 2011 Rome, he dropped a set to Lorenzi and was under pressure in the second set, which was shocking. At the 2011 French Open, he was taken to 5 sets by Isner, and was 1-5 and set points down in the third set against Andujar. As all this was going on, Djokovic was unbeaten for the whole calendar year at that time.

By Nadal's very high clay-court standards, his form during the 2011 clay-court season was considerably below that. He was, however, much better on clay later in the year in Davis Cup ties against France and Argentina.



There's more to tennis than just match scorelines. Watching the matches gives you a clearer picture. Take it from me, Nadal during the 2011 clay-court season was considerably below his clay standard of 2010 and 2012.

Awesome, as usual. You're the most astute Nadal observer on here, bar none. So as one Nadal fan to another, What do you think his chances are at this Wimbledon. I had a pet theory at the beginning of the year that he was going to go big in Wimbledon because two years in a row stinking up the joint was almost embarrassing. In some ways I think that losing at the AO has fired him up for the rest of the year.

He draw doesn't look brutal from here on out. Some really tough matches to be sure, but now that the court is eaten up a bit and he's got some nice wins under his belt, who knows? What say you about his chances?

 

[eldanger25]

Great post as always, a lot to reflect on from all of this. In the spirit of not killing virtual trees like with our Lendl-Connors debate I'll simply say this in lieu of line by line replies:

Would you concede that from when Djokovic hit his prime until now the hierarchy of Djoker Peak>Nadal Peak>Nadal Average>Djoker Average>Djoker Floor>Nadal floor holds true?

I suppose it is impossible to know what peak Djoker would do vs 07/08 Grass Nadal or 09 AO Hard court Nadal (if we surmise that 09 AO> 12 AO Nadal).

Thanks - I do agree with your post-2011 hierarchy, certainly w/r/t best of 3 matches. Would have to think more about it in terms of the majors, where Nadal is often peaking mentally.

 

[TTMR]

There are inverse peaks and floors within and without the matchup.

Against the field, Nadal has a lower floor and higher peak. Djokovic the better average.

Within the matchup, Djokovic has a higher peak and lower floor. Nadal the better average.

Against the field, Djokovic is less likely to be beaten by an absolute journeyman on a surging day, but more likely to be beaten by a top or near-top player.

Nadal is more vulnerable to players he's never faced before or faced infrequently, since he is an adaptive player. Nadal is less likely to be beaten by a top or near-top player than Djokovic.

 

[Mustard]

Awesome, as usual. You're the most astute Nadal observer on here, bar none. So as one Nadal fan to another, What do you think his chances are at this Wimbledon. I had a pet theory at the beginning of the year that he was going to go big in Wimbledon because two years in a row stinking up the joint was almost embarrassing. In some ways I think that losing at the AO has fired him up for the rest of the year.

He draw doesn't look brutal from here on out. Some really tough matches to be sure, but now that the court is eaten up a bit and he's got some nice wins under his belt, who knows? What say you about his chances?

I think Nadal is getting there slowly. He keeps dropping first sets, but has shown great tennis to get out of those situations. If he can start cutting out the slow starts, he has a serious chance of winning this title.

 

[DRII]

the one single match that best distills the Nadal vs Nole rivalry dynamics was their 2008 Queens Club final (the best 'new' grass court match i've ever scene overall).

both were at their most naturally aggressive forms in 2008 and Nadal won in two tough sets...

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

There are inverse peaks and floors within and without the matchup.

Against the field, Nadal has a lower floor and higher peak. Djokovic the better average.

Within the matchup, Djokovic has a higher peak and lower floor. Nadal the better average.

Against the field, Djokovic is less likely to be beaten by an absolute journeyman on a surging day, but more likely to be beaten by a top or near-top player.

Nadal is more vulnerable to players he's never faced before or faced infrequently, since he is an adaptive player. Nadal is less likely to be beaten by a top or near-top player than Djokovic.

Interesting take that I had not considered before. My two questions would be:

1- How do you surmise Djokovic has the lower floor head-to-head? I would argue we have never seen a floor vs floor Djokovic vs Nadal match because Nadal at floor levels never makes it to playing Djokovic. All of their h2h have been peak v peak, average v average, or average v peak.

2 - Wouldn't by your definition, Nadal have the higher average vs the field? Avoiding loses to journeymen indicates a higher floor for Djokovic. Being less likely to lose to top players indicates an elevated average vs the field for Nadal.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

the one single match that best distills the Nadal vs Nole rivalry dynamics was their 2008 Queens Club final (the best 'new' grass court match i've ever scene overall).

both were at their most naturally aggressive forms in 2008 and Nadal won in two tough sets...

The strongest form of Nadal at the greatest peak of his grass powers beating a young Djokovic only about 1 year into being an elite player, 2 years away from his prime, 2.5 years away from his peak, and 3 years away from his grass peak in two tight sets distills the whole rivalry dynamic for you?

Lol ok

 

[jg153040]

OP raised some good points. But I think it depends on the surface too.

I think at USO, Rafa has higher peak than Nole. Slightly. Although Nole has higher overall peak at HC.

Indoor, Rafa has lower lows than Nole.

Grass, Rafa has higher peak.