Djokovic is actually closer to Nadal than Nadal is to Federer

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Obviously Novak which is why you're trolling.

But the sum aggregates of their totals at 4 slams mean that Nadal is the better player and as well as better at one HC slam and one HC surface (Decoturf).
That's all you needed to say in the first place instead of going all round the houses.
 

FHtennisman

Professional
That's all you needed to say in the first place instead of going all round the houses.
Nope, my point still is, that Nadal is better at an entire HC slam - so Novak is the better overall player, but he certainly isn't yet the better player in all of the most important HC tournaments.
 

Ferss111

Rookie
Wouldn't be too sure about that, it's slam totals that are the definitive measuring stick and each defeat hurts when it impacts your standing in the all time record books. Though 4 slams may be insurmountable for Novak to overcome already.
I think he will win much more than 4 slams. Don't see who can stop him to be honest.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Wouldn't be too sure about that, it's slam totals that are the definitive measuring stick and each defeat hurts when it impacts your standing in the all time record books. Though 4 slams may be insurmountable for Novak to overcome already.
I'm not really bothered about Djokovic surpassing him overall as I've already accepted that won't happen. As long as he remains better than him on 2/3 surfaces that's good enough for me.
 

FHtennisman

Professional
I think he will win much more than 4 slams. Don't see who can stop him to be honest.
I'd be delighted if Novak ended up winning more slams than Nadal, but at this stage, I just don't see him doing it since no one else I don't think has won 4 slams yet past the age of 31 (Fed is one away but even his chances of another slam look very precarious).
 

FHtennisman

Professional
I'm not really bothered about Djokovic surpassing him overall as I've already accepted that won't happen. As long as he remains better than him on 2/3 surfaces that's good enough for me.
Fair enough, though I suspect Novak himself probably believes he does have a chance as if Nadal can win 3 in a hurry, why can't he?
 

Ferss111

Rookie
I'd be delighted if Novak ended up winning more slams than Nadal, but at this stage, I just don't see him doing it since no one else I don't think has won 4 slams yet past the age of 31 (Fed is one away but even his chances of another slam look very precarious).
I just don't see who can stop him from winning slams now. Nadal just showed he can't do that, Federer is 37 after all, Murray of course can't. The young generation? No.
 

FHtennisman

Professional
I just don't see who can stop him from winning slams now. Nadal just showed he can't do that, Federer is 37 after all, Murray of course can't. The young generation? No.
I'm not going to predict how many more he will or won't win, he's definitely in with a shot if he can sustain the form he showed at Wimbledon for the next few slams but that's not a guarantee for a player that's now 31 and hasn't been consistent since 2016.

I have him and Nadal as favourites for the US Open, So let's see what happens, beginning at Toronto next week.
 

Ferss111

Rookie
I'm not going to predict how many more he will or won't win, he's definitely in with a shot if he can sustain the form he showed at Wimbledon for the next few slams but that's not a guarantee for a player that's now 31 and hasn't been consistent since 2016.

I have him and Nadal as favourites for the US Open, So let's see what happens, beginning at Toronto next week.
Right now I have Djokovic as the only favorite for the US Open. But you are right, we'll see.
 

Enceladus

Hall of Fame
No way Nadal is finishing behind Federer in the slam count. ;)
For that scenario to happen we need a constant slam blockage from Djokovic in the next 3-4 years and we all know that god mode Djokovic can shine only for small period of time. :);)
From your comment, Nadal will be a factor for the GS tournaments for another 3/4 years (up to 35/36 of his age). IMO, Nadal will not last so long. He does not have Federer's thrifty gaming style.
 
Last edited:

Fabresque

Hall of Fame
No way Nadal is finishing behind Federer in the slam count. ;)
For that scenario to happen we need a constant slam blockage from Djokovic in the next 3-4 years and we all know that god mode Djokovic can shine only for small period of time. :);)
You also need to consider if Nadal can keep a high level at the age of 35-36....
 
(For the record, I still think the Big 3 will end up in the current order, ie Federer > Nadal > Djokovic, but things are not as straightforward as they look, and certinaly not as clear cut as 20 > 17 > 16, imho. Sure, some younger people bought into the Sampras narrative that "slams are everything", but let's be real, no-one in their right mind ever ranked Sampras above Laver. Heck, some even rank him below Borg. The ATP is currently pushing that narrative too because it's the one that makes the race look interesting, but they will change it as soon as they find another one that they feel is more exciting.)

1) Slams. No surprise there, everyone knows the totals by heart, with Nadal 3 slams behind Federer and 4 slams ahead of Djokovic. At face value, 4 > 3, but that's before the following kicks into motion.

2) Majors. The only real way of counting achievements if you also want to consider the earlier eras of tennis. Problem is, they're not equivalent and they've changed over the years, so some leeway is obviously needed. Still, when counting majors:
- Nadal doesn't add anything to his tally (or adds 1 because of OG; and although Olympics was never important in tennis, it's starting to become so, so I would be tempted to give it to him, for a major total of 18).
- Djokovic gains a whopping 5 (YEC), for a total of 18 (ties Nadal in that respect).

(Note: this doesn't mean that they're equal, as 1 major isn't worth 1 slam, obviously. Still, they have to count for something.)

3) Dominance. Djokovic is much stronger than Nadal in that respect, with two clear (although not very long) periods of dominance, but Nadal is catching up thanks to the perfect storm that was 2017.

4) Surface/condition analysis. (Yeah, I know this could be seen as basically another take on the "Rafa's resume is clay-skewed" argument.) Of the four surfaces/playing conditions, at the moment, Djokovic has got two at GOAT level and two at ATG level, while Nadal has one at GOAT+ level and two at ATG level, ie:

Nadal:
- clay: GOAT+ (ie best ever)
- grass: ATG
- HC: ATG+ (close to GOAT)
- indoor: irrelevant

Djokovic:
- clay: ATG
- grass: ATG+ (close to GOAT)
- HC: GOAT
- indoor: GOAT

(By way of comparison, here is Federer's tally and why his resume is so impressive: )
Federer:
- clay: ATG (would have been GOAT without Nadal)
- grass: GOAT+ (best ever)
- HC: GOAT+ (best ever)
- indoor: GOAT+ (best ever--although this may be disputed as there are much less indoor tournaments than there were before; still, at least GOAT)

5) Other. The four slams in a row by Djokovic (2015-2016), although not a calendar slam, are obviously worth something, too.


So, to wrap it up, if we count two YEC's as one slam (roughly) and add another one for the fact that Djokovic once won four in a row, even without factoring in things like dominance or mastery of the various surfaces and playing conditions, we get to something like 23 > 17 > 16, which seems closer to the current tennis landscape and the respective careers of the Big 3, imho.
what is this garbage? this is a giant block of shlt that no one wants to read.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
(For the record, I still think the Big 3 will end up in the current order, ie Federer > Nadal > Djokovic, but things are not as straightforward as they look, and certinaly not as clear cut as 20 > 17 > 16, imho. Sure, some younger people bought into the Sampras narrative that "slams are everything", but let's be real, no-one in their right mind ever ranked Sampras above Laver. Heck, some even rank him below Borg. The ATP is currently pushing that narrative too because it's the one that makes the race look interesting, but they will change it as soon as they find another one that they feel is more exciting.)

1) Slams. No surprise there, everyone knows the totals by heart, with Nadal 3 slams behind Federer and 4 slams ahead of Djokovic. At face value, 4 > 3, but that's before the following kicks into motion.

2) Majors. The only real way of counting achievements if you also want to consider the earlier eras of tennis. Problem is, they're not equivalent and they've changed over the years, so some leeway is obviously needed. Still, when counting majors:
- Nadal doesn't add anything to his tally (or adds 1 because of OG; and although Olympics was never important in tennis, it's starting to become so, so I would be tempted to give it to him, for a major total of 18).
- Djokovic gains a whopping 5 (YEC), for a total of 18 (ties Nadal in that respect).

(Note: this doesn't mean that they're equal, as 1 major isn't worth 1 slam, obviously. Still, they have to count for something.)

3) Dominance. Djokovic is much stronger than Nadal in that respect, with two clear (although not very long) periods of dominance, but Nadal is catching up thanks to the perfect storm that was 2017.

4) Surface/condition analysis. (Yeah, I know this could be seen as basically another take on the "Rafa's resume is clay-skewed" argument.) Of the four surfaces/playing conditions, at the moment, Djokovic has got two at GOAT level and two at ATG level, while Nadal has one at GOAT+ level and two at ATG level, ie:

Nadal:
- clay: GOAT+ (ie best ever)
- grass: ATG
- HC: ATG+ (close to GOAT)
- indoor: irrelevant

Djokovic:
- clay: ATG
- grass: ATG+ (close to GOAT)
- HC: GOAT
- indoor: GOAT

(By way of comparison, here is Federer's tally and why his resume is so impressive: )
Federer:
- clay: ATG (would have been GOAT without Nadal)
- grass: GOAT+ (best ever)
- HC: GOAT+ (best ever)
- indoor: GOAT+ (best ever--although this may be disputed as there are much less indoor tournaments than there were before; still, at least GOAT)

5) Other. The four slams in a row by Djokovic (2015-2016), although not a calendar slam, are obviously worth something, too.


So, to wrap it up, if we count two YEC's as one slam (roughly) and add another one for the fact that Djokovic once won four in a row, even without factoring in things like dominance or mastery of the various surfaces and playing conditions, we get to something like 23 > 17 > 16, which seems closer to the current tennis landscape and the respective careers of the Big 3, imho.
Great post.

 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Quite literally, one major is worth one slam. They mean the same thing. OSG and WTF aren't majors.
There are actually two ways of looking at it. Your stance is obviously slams = majors, and that's fine... except it totally dismisses everything that happened pre-Open Era, and I'm not ready to live in a tennis world where Wawrinka is considered better than Pancho Gonzales because he won more slams.

The other way of looking at it is considering that "majors" is actually different from "slams", and that said "majors" mean "the biggest tournaments of your time". In that sense, WTF *is* definitely a major, and the Olympics can be argued to be one, too. Other majors throughout history: Pro Slams, Dallas WTC (but not the Australian Open at the beginning of the '70's), you get my drift. It's worth noting that this is not just an isolated view, too. At RG 2015 (ie the last time he played there), Federer was presented by the official speaker as "winner of 23 major tournaments", not "winner of 17 grand slam tournaments", for example. Proof that this view is gaining traction? It's probably too early to tell.

I'm not going to bring up Emerson (although I guess I could, for the lolz), but of course, if you totally dismiss what happened during the Pro Era (because "no slams"), you're left with Sampras as a greater player than Laver (and Rosewall, and Gonzales, and Tilden/Budge, too), and yet, just about everything points out to these players having greater achievements (and, for some of them, much greater achievements) than Pete.

As for Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic being the top 3 players in history, I think you're suffering from recency bias and we need to let their achievements sink in. Top 10-12? I would say yes. But top 3? Are they really as good as they seem to be, or will the ATG's from the next generations be up there, too, because of the harmonization of surfaces? ie will winning 15+ slams be the new normal for ATG's, now? Time will tell.
 
There are actually two ways of looking at it. Your stance is obviously slams = majors, and that's fine... except it totally dismisses everything that happened pre-Open Era, and I'm not ready to live in a tennis world where Wawrinka is considered better than Pancho Gonzales because he won more slams.

The other way of looking at it is considering that "majors" is actually different from "slams", and that said "majors" mean "the biggest tournaments of your time". In that sense, WTF *is* definitely a major, and the Olympics can be argued to be one, too. Other majors throughout history: Pro Slams, Dallas WTC (but not the Australian Open at the beginning of the '70's), you get my drift. It's worth noting that this is not just an isolated view, too. At RG 2015 (ie the last time he played there), Federer was presented by the official speaker as "winner of 23 major tournaments", not "winner of 17 grand slam tournaments", for example. Proof that this view is gaining traction? It's probably too early to tell.

I'm not going to bring up Emerson (although I guess I could, for the lolz), but of course, if you totally dismiss what happened during the Pro Era (because "no slams"), you're left with Sampras as a greater player than Laver (and Rosewall, and Gonzales, and Tilden/Budge, too), and yet, just about everything points out to these players having greater achievements (and, for some of them, much greater achievements) than Pete.

As for Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic being the top 3 players in history, I think you're suffering from recency bias and we need to let their achievements sink in. Top 10-12? I would say yes. But top 3? Are they really as good as they seem to be, or will the ATG's from the next generations be up there, too, because of the harmonization of surfaces? ie will winning 15+ slams be the new normal for ATG's, now? Time will tell.
I really think that comparing eras which are too far from each other, and where the game has changed significantly, is fruitless. Even going back 25 years, the most important tournaments now are different;oing back even further, players didn't even bother to turn up to the Australian Open; going back further, the winner of Wimbledon receieved a Bye to the final the next year. When comparing Tilden and Nadal, we're talking about different sports, really. So I'll revise what I said to the big 3 being the greatest 3 players of the open era. My reasons for this are that, despite facing each other, they all still managed to break numerous records and get the most slams in history (well, almost in Djokovic's case). This is also in an era where more people are playing tennis than ever before (partly because of how much population his increased), prize money and sponsorship is at its peak, and travel is easier than it's ever been. I think there's an argument that had Borg not retired so young, and if he'd played the Australian Open, he'd be right up there too. Sampras is certainly in the conversation too. But I think the big 3 come out on top.

I get what you're trying to say with regards to the word "Major", but I think the word today is for the most part synonymous with Grand Slam, and is my preferred word because it avoids confusion with "Grand Slam" being something which can also refer to winninig all four majors/slams in a calendar year. I'm not necessarily happy with the nomenclature though, and I see your point. I think to count year end championships and ignore masters is a mistake though, as there's not much between them at the moment.

I really do appreciate your perspective though, it's very interesting to read what you have to say. I am aware of recency bias as a thing, but I really do think we are unlikely to see players dominating the way the big three have in our lifetimes, unless our lifetimes are very long indeed. We'll certainly get individuals at their level popping up, but I doubt it'll be three at the same time.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
(For the record, I still think the Big 3 will end up in the current order, ie Federer > Nadal > Djokovic, but things are not as straightforward as they look, and certinaly not as clear cut as 20 > 17 > 16, imho. Sure, some younger people bought into the Sampras narrative that "slams are everything", but let's be real, no-one in their right mind ever ranked Sampras above Laver. Heck, some even rank him below Borg. The ATP is currently pushing that narrative too because it's the one that makes the race look interesting, but they will change it as soon as they find another one that they feel is more exciting.)

1) Slams. No surprise there, everyone knows the totals by heart, with Nadal 3 slams behind Federer and 4 slams ahead of Djokovic. At face value, 4 > 3, but that's before the following kicks into motion.

2) Majors. The only real way of counting achievements if you also want to consider the earlier eras of tennis. Problem is, they're not equivalent and they've changed over the years, so some leeway is obviously needed. Still, when counting majors:
- Nadal doesn't add anything to his tally (or adds 1 because of OG; and although Olympics was never important in tennis, it's starting to become so, so I would be tempted to give it to him, for a major total of 18).
- Djokovic gains a whopping 5 (YEC), for a total of 18 (ties Nadal in that respect).

(Note: this doesn't mean that they're equal, as 1 major isn't worth 1 slam, obviously. Still, they have to count for something.)

3) Dominance. Djokovic is much stronger than Nadal in that respect, with two clear (although not very long) periods of dominance, but Nadal is catching up thanks to the perfect storm that was 2017.

4) Surface/condition analysis. (Yeah, I know this could be seen as basically another take on the "Rafa's resume is clay-skewed" argument.) Of the four surfaces/playing conditions, at the moment, Djokovic has got two at GOAT level and two at ATG level, while Nadal has one at GOAT+ level and two at ATG level, ie:

Nadal:
- clay: GOAT+ (ie best ever)
- grass: ATG
- HC: ATG+ (close to GOAT)
- indoor: irrelevant

Djokovic:
- clay: ATG
- grass: ATG+ (close to GOAT)
- HC: GOAT
- indoor: GOAT

(By way of comparison, here is Federer's tally and why his resume is so impressive: )
Federer:
- clay: ATG (would have been GOAT without Nadal)
- grass: GOAT+ (best ever)
- HC: GOAT+ (best ever)
- indoor: GOAT+ (best ever--although this may be disputed as there are much less indoor tournaments than there were before; still, at least GOAT)

5) Other. The four slams in a row by Djokovic (2015-2016), although not a calendar slam, are obviously worth something, too.


So, to wrap it up, if we count two YEC's as one slam (roughly) and add another one for the fact that Djokovic once won four in a row, even without factoring in things like dominance or mastery of the various surfaces and playing conditions, we get to something like 23 > 17 > 16, which seems closer to the current tennis landscape and the respective careers of the Big 3, imho.
Guess it depends on what you define as "closer," personally if it was me, and if I was to assign a percentage of a slam to WTF's, I would then also have to consider what it would be for a Masters. If you're going to count WTF's you can't just leave out Masters 1000's as they're "closer" in terms of achievement to a WTF than a WTF is to a Slam.
 

Incognito

Legend
Guess it depends on what you define as "closer," personally if it was me, and if I was to assign a percentage of a slam to WTF's, I would then also have to consider what it would be for a Masters. If you're going to count WTF's you can't just leave out Masters 1000's as they're "closer" in terms of achievement to a WTF than a WTF is to a Slam.

Have you not gotten the memo? The closer Nadal gets to Federer’s major tally, the further down he is placed in the rankings of the greats.:rolleyes:
 

GabeT

Legend
4 slams in a row, which no one has accomplished since Laver, and which no one has accomplished with 3 different surfaces, is “worth something too”.

Worth something too.

LOL
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
The reason why Nadal has won 0 world tour finals titles is because he always had to face at least one of Federer or Djokovic at their very best there. If he had a joke of a draw like Djokovic's RG 2016 then he would have won it for sure. You are completely wrong if you think Djokovic is an all time great (or even close to being an all time great) on clay.
He did have a joke of a draw. 2017.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Federer: 8-6-5-1
Nadal: 11-3-2-1
Djokovic: 6-4-2-1

Roger tops Rafa and Nole in quantity and diversity, Nadal tops Nole in quantity, and Djokovic edges Rafa in diversity. Yes, Djokovic is closer to Nadal than Nadal is to Federer.

The USO will be interesting.

Federer wins: 8-6-6-1
Nadal wins: 11-4-2-1
Djokovic wins: 6-4-3-1

(But neither will happen because: Zverev wins)
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
I’m of two minds on this. I can admit that, objectively, Nadal has had the greater career numerically. I have no qualms with people placing him higher than Djokovic on their all-time lists, as even I myself do.

Yet, if both were to retire today, I’d also rather have Djokovic’s career for its completeness and more dominant peak. Nadal being 22-28 in non-clay finals has never sat well with me. Those two surfaces make up 70% of the tour, yet he’s only won 22 titles on them in 13+ years as a Top 5 player? Can’t look past that within the context of this hypothetical.
 

Incognito

Legend
I’m of two minds on this. I can admit that, objectively, Nadal has had the greater career numerically. I have no qualms with people placing him higher than Djokovic on their all-time lists, as even I myself do.

Yet, if both were to retire today, I’d also rather have Djokovic’s career for its completeness and more dominant peak.

Not me. I’d take 17 majors over 13 anyday.
Nadal has a totally different career path from Djokovic’. Nadal manage to win at least a major for 10 straight years which is a record, while Novak 6. Also Nadal has 4 seasons of multiple major wins, Novak has 3. And this is despite the fact that there are 2 majors on HC.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Not me. I’d take 17 majors over 13 anyday.
Nadal has a totally different career path from Djokovic’. Nadal manage to win at least a major for 10 straight years which is a record, while Novak 6. Also Nadal has 4 seasons of multiple major wins, Novak has 3. And this is despite the fact that there are 2 majors on HC.
No worries, I’m not denying that it’s subjective, in fact it’s entirely subjective.

I prefer Djokovic’s career anyway, despite Nadal’s lead in majors and being the overall greater player (so far.)
 

cognitohand

New User
Nice try.

20 - 17 = 3.
17 - 13= 4.

Nadal is closer to Federer than Djokovic to Nadal. Nadal is only 3 GS behind Federer, while Djokovic is 4 GS behind Nadal.

Also, your claim that Federer would be clay GOAT without Nadal is laughable. Decugis with 8 RG, Borg with 6 RG, and Djokovic with 5 RG would be over him. Djokovic in 2008 would have stopped Federer and would lead the H2H on clay over Federer, not to mention Djokovic would have more Masters 1000 on clay.

Following your logic, Nadal without Djokovic and Federer would be the second grass GOAT with 6 Wimbledon titles, only behind Sampras.

With your reasoning, Nadal would be the best HC player of all time without Djokovic and Federer, since he would have 7 HC Slams tied with Sampras.

P.S.:
1. Nadal has his GS titles more evenly distributed by surface than both Djokovic and Federer. Nadal has won at least 2 GS on each surface (grass, hard and clay), while Federer and Djokovic only have won 1 GS on clay. 2 GS on each surface >>>>> 1 GS on each surface.

2. Olympic Gold in singles: Federer and Djokovic 0, Nadal 1.

3. Record of Masters 1000: Nadal, 32.
Federer is not even an ATG on clay. He represents one of Nadals several weak clay era competition that Nadal has beaten.

P.s. Nadal does not have a better distribution. For starters he has 0 WTF so has no distribution there. Also he is significantly worse at three slams then Federer is worse at 3 slams so no he does not have a better distribution.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
No worries, I’m not denying that it’s subjective, in fact it’s entirely subjective.

I prefer Djokovic’s career anyway, despite Nadal’s lead in majors and being the overall greater player (so far.)
Yeah, just because you'd prefer his career over Nadal's {and I'm completely with you on the reasons you give} doesn't necessarily mean you think he's the greater player. That's something a lot of people on here can't seem to get their heads around.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
He was already, even before his US Open victory.
I don't think this is logically so at all. Before Nadal crashed with his latest knee injury I would have guessed that he would get close to 20 before Novak could catch him.

But now it's all about the knee. That changes everything, because if Nadal can only win at RG, then advantage moves to Novak in catching up.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I don't think this is logically so at all. Before Nadal crashed with his latest knee injury I would have guessed that he would get close to 20 before Novak could catch him.

But now it's all about the knee. That changes everything, because if Nadal can only win at RG, then advantage moves to Novak in catching up.
I meant that Djokovic was closer to Nadal even when he was 4 slams behind than Nadal currently is to Federer despite there only being a 3 slam gap between them. I'm not one of those posters that believes majors are the be all and end all and take everything into account when assessing a player's career. ;)
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
I meant that Djokovic was closer to Nadal even when he was 4 slams behind than Nadal currently is to Federer despite there only being a 3 slam gap between them. I'm not one of those posters that believes majors are the be all and end all and take everything into account when assessing a player's career. ;)
How are you feeling Djok11? Nice couple months for us ND fans huh?
 

ghostofMecir

Hall of Fame
The reason why Nadal has won 0 world tour finals titles is because he always had to face at least one of Federer or Djokovic at their very best there. If he had a joke of a draw like Djokovic's RG 2016 then he would have won it for sure. You are completely wrong if you think Djokovic is an all time great (or even close to being an all time great) on clay.
Loooool! A Nadal fan admitting that Nadal can’t win the WTF/YEC because you can’t get easy draws there.
 
Last edited:

Luckydog

Professional
WTF is a big tournament but Nadal winning 1 title there will not make him a great indoors player. I don't see a big difference between 0 titles and 1 title.
Huge difference here.
If you can win a wtf title,even if only once,it proves that you are able to do so.
If you always fail in your career to win a wtf title,it only proves that your ability is below par.
No difference here,dude?

PS: WTF is the competition among the best 8 players in a season. And unfortunately,Nadal never proves he's the best of the best 8 in any season.It tells something.It is absurd to claim a player who cannot win a WTF title is an ATG on HC.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
I meant that Djokovic was closer to Nadal even when he was 4 slams behind than Nadal currently is to Federer despite there only being a 3 slam gap between them. I'm not one of those posters that believes majors are the be all and end all and take everything into account when assessing a player's career. ;)
I'm not one either, but the slam race remains the way players are viewed by the masses. Laver's reputation is built on two grand slams. One of them happened when he was an amateur, and that year he was very clearly not the best tennis player. The pros were better. But that started his mystique, and his grand slam in 1969 capped it.

Very few people know about his amazing record in the pros.

Novak was hurt by his physical condition. Most people will not agree, but I'm convinced that if he had found out about gluten and changed his diet in his teens, he'd have a few more majors right now. So as amazing as he was in 2011, he started late on the slam-train, and he was unlucky to have two of the greatest players in tennis history both playing near the top of their game in 2012-2014. That was when he sucked up a lot of M1000s, but he was thwarted in most majors.

His NCYGS helped change that, but it hurt him following it up with such a slump. How much of the slump was physical, injury, and how much was psychological? I'm think now it was around 50/50.

No one could predict his miracle turn-around this summer. I thought he had more majors in him, but I did not believe he could be a holy terror again until he was most of the way through Wimbledon. At that point I told everyone I know well that I thought that IF he won Wimbledon, he would be the favorite at the USO.

Other players wer counting on the usual loss of speed and recovery that happens around age 30. Right now he's getting enormous criticism for being too skinny, but think about it: up until fairly recently it was a given that tennis players needed to be tall, thin, agile and fast. The whole idea of bulking up is fairly recent, and because Nadal has muscles, and Murray, and a few others, it was assumed that upper body strength was key.

But is it?

The answer may be no. It may be that a bit of upper body mass will help a bit with more pace on the serve, but otherwise I see the same Utron back that we saw a couple years ago. Maybe not 100% right now, but very close. People are now going to have to deal with him being the favorite at AO 2019, if he remains healthy and hungry.

So that's what I was saying. Even IF majors are "the big thing", he's now in a position to fully challenge again in that race.

Bad news for people who hate him, good news for him and his fans.
 

TheNatural

G.O.A.T.
Nadal is actually closer to Fed at the SLAMS. Nadal is 15% away from Fed's SLAM total, and Djokovic is 17.8% away from Nadal's SLAM total.

14/17= 82.2%
17/20=85%
 

zep

Hall of Fame
Nadal fans are so quiet lately.

Waiting for posters like @clayqueen @zep @Sport @Rafa24 @kevaninho @Rafa the King to hear their POV.
No problem if Djokovic overtakes Rafa. I would much rather see him as GOAT than Federer. Unlike you I won't lose my sleep over it lol. You should be more concerned about Djokovic eventually eclipsing Federer. Yes he is 6 slams away but with the level of young pretenders it's not out of his reach. I would love to see your face if and when Djokovic overtakes Federer.
 
Top