Djokovic is closer to Federer than Nadal is

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Djokovic was not at his top and was actually lucky to win with tbe roof.

Grass is not hard court. Check out Beijing 2013 2015 Doha 2016 Ao 2019 London 2013 2015
No but it does matter, as everyone seems to claim that Nadal cant touch Djokovic off of clay. It doesn't matter if Djokovic wasn't his best ever form in 2018, neither was Nadal in 2015 or 16, which you quoted as proof of your point.

Also I love how you mention 2013 as some hard court proof because of Beijing and London, conveniently forgetting that Nadal beat him at the USO and The Rogers cup in 2013 LOL
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
No but it does matter, as everyone seems to claim that Nadal cant touch Djokovic off of clay. It doesn't matter if Djokovic wasn't his best ever form in 2018, neither was Nadal in 2015 or 16, which you quoted as proof of your point.

Also I love how you mention 2013 as some hard court proof because of Beijing and London, conveniently forgetting that Nadal beat him at the USO and The Rogers cup in 2013 LOL
Not conveniently. US open 2013 was the last time Nadal won a set against Djokovic on hard courts. Since then Nadal been destroyed. Last destruction was AO 2019.

Nadal won 5 times against Novak on hard courts twice during summer 2013.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Not conveniently. US open 2013 was the last time Nadal won a set against Djokovic on hard courts. Since then Nadal been destroyed. Last destruction was AO 2019.

Nadal won 5 times against Novak on hard courts twice during summer 2013.
OK one surface theres a massive gulf between them LOL If we want to play that game though, itll be nearly 3 years since Djokovic took a set off of Nadal on clay.
Lets hope he can change that stat soon eh...
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
OK one surface theres a massive gulf between them LOL If we want to play that game though, itll be nearly 3 years since Djokovic took a set off of Nadal on clay.
Lets hope he can change that stat soon eh...
Novak will win sets against Nadal on clay. I have no doubt about that. 7/7 since 2011 on clay. 5/5 if you take away 2015 2017 and 2018 as both players were not in top form.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Novak will win sets against Nadal on clay. I have no doubt about that. 7/7 since 2011 on clay. 5/5 if you take away 2015 2017 and 2018 as both players were not in top form.
Oh so you take away the out of form years. In that case Djokovic has only won 1 set against Nadal on clay since 2014 French Open. Since Nadals 2015-16 shouldn't count on your logic.

1 set in almost 5 years....
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Oh so you take away the out of form years. In that case Djokovic has only won 1 set against Nadal on clay since 2014 French Open. Since Nadals 2015-16 shouldn't count on your logic.

1 set in almost 5 years....
2016 Nadal won MC. Do you think you're out of form when you win MC?:p:p
He was favorit with Novak to win the FO that year. That's why he was gutted to withdraw from the FO in 2016.

1 set is still better than 0:-D:-D
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
2016 Nadal won MC. Do you think you're out of form when you win MC?:p:p
He was favorit with Novak to win the FO that year. That's why he was gutted to withdraw from the FO in 2016.

1 set is still better than 0:-D:-D
Yes he was better in 2016, and probably the 2nd best player on clay, but he wasn't near his best, or even his 2017 form.
He was never beating Djokovic at that point still, even though he ran him close in Rome.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Clay has got 1 slam and 3 MS that's more than enough. Grass 1 GS that's all.
True. But HC/Grass are closer to each other than clay is. They play more similar. HC is a modern version of grass to a extent even though it has clear difference.
We need more diversity more attacking players than retrievers so that's why i think courts should be faster. If not it's same style of tennis all year round.
That is fine but that is also a opinion from you.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Nadal pushed his body to the limits. He went even further than Ferrer. Nadal not injured is a beast. He gets every ball back in play outlast his opponents until there's no solution.
Ferrer to me looks like he plays as physical as Rafa. He is shorter than Nadal and takes longer to finish points on average and has not adapted in his career as Nadal has.
He played loads of tournaments in a small amount of time. MC Barcelone Madrid Roma FO Queens Wimbledon.
Sometimes top players are stubborn like that including Nadal.
 

pistolPetros

New User
Novak is almost there already. Another Nole slam and he's done what Fed failed to do in the weakest era ever twice. At that point imo he has a real argument for being better, just like Fed wawas prematurely crowned GOAT after a few 3 slam seasons. 2 non calendar slams>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 weak era 3 slam seasons
 

pistolPetros

New User
Last set dropped by Novak against Nadal on hard court: Us open 2013....

Last time Nadal has a lost a set against thiem at the french open: never happened.

Limp forehand:

I assume you watched Roddick on hard courts during the Weak Era, correct? If not, have a gander.

Honestly, his grass performance against Fed in 2005 was pitiable. Rushing the net Kamikaze style off the worst approach shots on record, standing so close to the net he was in danger of touching it, shot selection that would make Kyrgios look like a genius, etc.


Nole beat Nadal on AO hard who beat Fed on the same surface. If Nadal is weak competition, what does that make Fed?
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
I assume you watched Roddick on hard courts during the Weak Era, correct? If not, have a gander.

Honestly, his grass performance against Fed in 2005 was pitiable. Rushing the net Kamikaze style off the worst approach shots on record, standing so close to the net he was in danger of touching it, shot selection that would make Kyrgios look like a genius, etc.


Nole beat Nadal on AO hard who beat Fed on the same surface. If Nadal is weak competition, what does that make Fed?

Roddick on HC.

Fed was amazing on hard courts winning US open 5 times in a row.

Fed winning AO at 35 and 36 years old with Nadal as main threat on hard court is weak era. The same applies to Novak.
 

pistolPetros

New User

Roddick on HC.

Fed was amazing on hard courts winning US open 5 times in a row.

Fed winning AO at 35 and 36 years old with Nadal as main threat on hard court is weak era. The same applies to Novak.
You pick the one match Roddick won against Federer, not just on hard, but on anything, during the Weak era.

Quaint.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
You pick the one match Roddick won against Federer, not just on hard, but on anything, during the Weak era.

Quaint.
I am not a Roddick fan by the way. He was a good player. Won a slam got to number one played several slam finals has beaten Fed a couple of time. Won against Nadal and Novak at GS level.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
I assume you watched Roddick on hard courts during the Weak Era, correct? If not, have a gander.

Honestly, his grass performance against Fed in 2005 was pitiable. Rushing the net Kamikaze style off the worst approach shots on record, standing so close to the net he was in danger of touching it, shot selection that would make Kyrgios look like a genius, etc.


Nole beat Nadal on AO hard who beat Fed on the same surface. If Nadal is weak competition, what does that make Fed?
Djokovic Nadal since US open 2013 on hard courts

AO 2019 63 62 63
Beijing 2015 6/2 6/2
Indian Wells 2016 7/6 6/2
Doha 2016 6/1 6/2
Miami 2014 6/3 6/3
Beijing 2013 6/3 6/3

Indoor hard courts

London 2013: 63 64
London 2015 63 63

Do you think Nadak was close in these matches?

17 sets played

1 6/1
5 6/2
9 6/3
1 6/4
1 7/6
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Nadal actually tries to be very agressive a lot. He is not as good at serving as Federer or shortening points. You do not do what Nadal has done without being able to end points well or hit agressive. So he ends up in long rallies more.
I think he is not as talented tennis wise as Novak Fed so he can not shortened the points. He has to fight and push his body to his limits in order to compete with them. And that's why he's better on clay as he can get many more balls back a thing he can not do as much in indoor conditions. And that's why he gets injured more.

And he's done well. Winning 3 Us open's 1 AO 2 Wimbledon even with slowed down surfaces is an amazing achievements.And he may win more.

Nadal has improved a lot on quicker surfaces:





Tennis wise he's not in the same league as Fed and Novak.

Funny on those 2 videos u can see how much surfaces have slow down.
 
Last edited:

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
I think he is not as talented tennis wise as Novak Fed so he can not shortened the points. He has to fight and push his body to his limits in order to compete with them. And that's why he's better on clay as he can get many more balls back a thing he can not do as much in indoor conditions. And that's why he gets injured more.

And he's done well. Winning 3 Us open's 1 AO 2 Wimbledon even with slowed down surfaces is an amazing achievements.And he may win more.

Nadal has improved a lot on quicker surfaces:





Tennis wise he's not in the same league as Fed and Novak.

Funny on those 2 videos u can see how much surfaces have slow down.
I agree Federer and Djokovic have a lot of areas they are better than Nadal. But Nadal has areas of his game which he is better than them too.
I do not think Nadal has lots of non clay slams but we will see.
That is good comparsion you put. Nadal before his best vs Roddick at his best then Nadal at his best vs Roddick out of it.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Nadal is not bad but super bad. Banning a referee (that's cheating and says a lot about the guy) always blaming injuries for his losses.

Why do you think does he get more injured than Fed and Novak?

Because he has to push his own limits to keep in touch with Fed and Novak standards. That's what happened against Cilic last year at the AO. Nadal was not unlucky. He paid the price for overplaying and his style of play.

Djokovic was a joke at the time and he's come out as a really good guy. Down to earth close to his fans and not pretentious.




Who do you consider favourite for the next slam?
I don't know to be fair.

Nadal is a beast on clay at the FO on a best out of 5. In that regard Australian open must not be taken too much into account. Hard court; balls that don't favour spin.



Novak thrashed Nadal at Miami 6/3 6/3 in 2014 won against him on clay in Roma and lost in 4 tough sets in the final of the FO.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGJUBRgVH_g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j3gorXjd4s



60/40 for Nadal.

What are your thoughts on the matter?
 
Last edited:

Benjamin Rio

Professional
I agree Federer and Djokovic have a lot of areas they are better than Nadal. But Nadal has areas of his game which he is better than them too.
I do not think Nadal has lots of non clay slams but we will see.
That is good comparsion you put. Nadal before his best vs Roddick at his best then Nadal at his best vs Roddick out of it.
Nadal is pure determination physical and he's achieved a lot without a decent serve on that level.

His top spin shots are better than Novak and Fed. Amazing skills at the volley and smash as well.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Nadal is pure determination physical and he's achieved a lot without a decent serve on that level.
I would agree. Serve has been a weakness. Did well to improve it in 2017-18 and make tweaks on it for faster courts like USO 2010 and USO 2013.
His top spin shots are better than Novak and Fed. Amazing skills at the volley and smash as well.
I agree. Not as good as Federer at the net but better than most including Novak.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Nadal is pretty oustanding in that area of his game. Very underestimated skill of his.

Fed is amazing to.
Nadal is certainly better than some give him credit, but Federer is a level above.

I was actually amazed how incompetent Nadal looked at the net at the AO final this year when he actually had to pull off a volley that was not a sitter. It was simply a disaster. I haven't looked up his stats on that for the match, but he botched almost every volley that was moderately difficult.

:cool:
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
Nadal is certainly better than some give him credit, but Federer is a level above.

I was actually amazed how incompetent Nadal looked at the net at the AO final this year when he actually had to pull off a volley that was not a sitter. It was simply a disaster. I haven't looked up his stats on that for the match, but he botched almost every volley that was moderately difficult.

:cool:
True
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Even probably better volley than Fed.

But I think Novak from the back of the court is the best.
Yeh No. Did you see Nadal brick his volleys so far in 2019? He bricks a stupid amount of volleys when truly challenged at the net. He likes to come in on sure things and then tennis fans think he's godlike because he puts away volleys that the opponent has no chance of reaching anyway.

Federer isn't just a slightly better volleyer than Nadal. He's a lot better - different league.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
I don't know to be fair.

Nadal is a beast on clay at the FO on a best out of 5. In that regard Australian open must not be taken too much into account. Hard court; balls that don't favour spin.



Novak thrashed Nadal at Miami 6/3 6/3 in 2014 won against him on clay in Roma and lost in 4 tough sets in the final of the FO.






60/40 for Nadal.

What are your thoughts on the matter?
So difficult to say. I think if they both hit form in RG, then its the final everyone wants to see. I don't think 2015 really meant anything, although it was still a defeat for Nadal at RG.
I would say itll be a solid match decided by very little. It seems Djokovic has tendency to get nervous playing there, and lost some huge matches he should've won.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
"Rafa has had an injury punctuated career" i have got two things to say on that matter:

Nadal's has got less tennis skills than Fed and Novak. He's more physical and defensive. He has to fight hard to keep in touch with the best players. He is sometimes outplayed. That's why he gets injured.

Federer dominance slowed down: Of course. When you get old you can't dominate the way you used to. That's why he's losing nowadays to Tsitsipras Millman etc etc. But no one has ever dominated the tour as he did and the way he did it.

Slowing down the surfaces has benefited Nadal. If Hard courts grass would have been as fast as before Nadal would not have won those tournaments. Agassi winning wimbledon back in the day is a bigger achievement than Nadal winning it.

Djokovic has beaten Nadal on every court possible. Every GS WTF and every MS 1000. He has won all MS1000 5 WTF and has held all 4 slams at the same time. Do you really think that Nadal is as versatile as Novak?

Fed has played every GS finals in 2006 2007 and 2009 winning more than 94% of his matches in 2005 and 2006 mainly losing to the king of clay at the FO in 2005 2006 2007 2008. Do you really think that Nadal is as versatile as Fed? Fed played 4 finals in a row at the FO. He's unbelievable on every surfaces.

Fed and the Djoker are better players than Nadal on every surfaces except clay.

Semi finals

AO

Fed 14
Novak 7
Nadal 6

FO

Fed 7
Novak 8
Nadal 11

Wimb

Fed 12
Novak 8
Nadal: 6

US Open:

Fed: 10
Novak: 11
Nadal: 6
It's interesting that you say Rafa has less tennis skills than Fed & Novak. When matched up directly against each other that doesn't seem to be the case. The Djokodal H2H is in Novak's favour but hardly a blow-out at 28 - 25 and the Fedal H2H is 23 - 15. When we look at slams it is all Rafa's way: 6 - 6 v Djoker and 9 - 3 v Federer. All three have to fight hard to keep in touch with the other two and all three have been outplayed at times. You've referred to me as biased in another post but c'mon, that statement is just a denial of what is. None of my posts aim to detract from Fed or Djoker's greatness but they do intend to dispell some of the pure anti-Rafa BS that goes on on these threads.

Fed's dominance dominance slowed at age 27. That is very different to saying that he slowed past the age of 30. The reason that it slowed is that Djoker & Rafa started to mature on all surfaces and challenge him like Fed's generation couldn't.

In terms of slowing down of surfaces and who would have won etc. That is all hypothetical. We have no idea what would have happened if all three grew up training, playing and competing if surfaces were what they were in the 90's. We have no idea how Pete, Andre, Borg or Laver would have gone on the surfaces like they are today so it's irrelevant.

In terms of ''distribution of surface'' and ''versitility'' they are very weak arguments. In one sentence you talk about court homoginisation and they you talk about the versatility shown to win on these homoginised surfaces..... which one is it? You can't have it both ways. Rafa has won slams and masters on hard and clay and won slams on grass. He's also won a masters indoor plus many finals on all surfaces. The way it is portrayed is like he's won 17 RG, 33 clay masters and exited early everywhere else. Rafa has won everywhere and done everything, but distribution is a complete non-factor in terms of GOAThood anyway. Laver won the grand slam with three slams on grass, who cares. No ever detracts from it because of lack of distribution.

In terms of the stats you've provided - great. I've already addressed in various other posts the stats on early exist in slams and how it is pretty even, I've also broken down the times that each failed to reach the others in slams and that is not too different either and yes, Rafa has had injury cut him short in times that he would and should have had extended stays at the top. Who cares - he is one YE # 1 behind the other too which doesn't really back the ''Djokerer have dominated much more'' narritive.

Listen, Djoker & Federer are amazing champions but so is Rafa. I've never once suggested that Rafa is better than either of them, but the reverse also applies. There is nothing in it between the three of them.
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
It's interesting that you say Rafa has less tennis skills than Fed & Novak. When matched up directly against each other that doesn't seem to be the case. The Djokodal H2H is in Novak's favour but hardly a blow-out at 28 - 25 and the Fedal H2H is 23 - 15. When we look at slams it is all Rafa's way: 6 - 6 v Djoker and 9 - 3 v Federer. All three have to fight hard to keep in touch with the other two and all three have been outplayed at times. You've referred to me as biased in another post but c'mon, that statement is just a denial of what is. None of my posts aim to detract from Fed or Djoker's greatness but they do intend to dispell some of the pure anti-Rafa BS that goes on on these threads.

Fed's dominance dominance slowed at age 27. That is very different to saying that he slowed past the age of 30. The reason that it slowed is that Djoker & Rafa started to mature on all surfaces and challenge him like Fed's generation couldn't.

In terms of slowing down of surfaces and who would have won etc. That is all hypothetical. We have no idea what would have happened if all three grew up training, playing and competing if surfaces were what they were in the 90's. We have no idea how Pete, Andre, Borg or Laver would have gone on the surfaces like they are today so it's irrelevant.

In terms of ''distribution of surface'' and ''versitility'' they are very weak arguments. In one sentence you talk about court homoginisation and they you talk about the versatility shown to win on these homoginised surfaces..... which one is it? You can't have it both ways. Rafa has won slams and masters on hard and clay and won slams on grass. He's also won a masters indoor plus many finals on all surfaces. The way it is portrayed is like he's won 17 RG, 33 clay masters and exited early everywhere else. Rafa has won everywhere and done everything, but distribution is a complete non-factor in terms of GOAThood anyway. Laver won the grand slam with three slams on grass, who cares. No ever detracts from it because of lack of distribution.

In terms of the stats you've provided - great. I've already addressed in various other posts the stats on early exist in slams and how it is pretty even, I've also broken down the times that each failed to reach the others in slams and that is not too different either and yes, Rafa has had injury cut him short in times that he would and should have had extended stays at the top. Who cares - he is one YE # 1 behind the other too which doesn't really back the ''Djokerer have dominated much more'' narritive.

Listen, Djoker & Federer are amazing champions but so is Rafa. I've never once suggested that Rafa is better than either of them, but the reverse also applies. There is nothing in it between the three of them.
Novak is the same generation as Nadal. Earlier in their career Novak was losing to Nadal (mainly on clay) because he couldn't hold Nadal's intensity but he was never impressed with Nadal's tennis.


He always felt he was in control.

When Novak reached his peak and was fit and mentally strong enough he won most of their matches. Last 30 matches he has won 21 out of them.

In the last AO final, Nadal was simply outclassed.

Fed's dominance slow down because he got out of his peak and Novak and especially Nadal play an extreme physical game.

Slowing down the surfaces has favoured Novak Murray (to a lesser extent) and Nadal. Heavy top spin shots would have landed short on quick surfaces allowing attacking to destroy such players. (overpowering them and taking time away). Nadal has never been able to win the YEC. (even Kuerten Corretja were able to win that tournament)

Harmonization of the surfaces has benefited to all players Fed Novak Murray Nadal etc etc. Even in the context of having a similar court being played all year round Nadal has mainly won on clay. (2/3 of his slams and MS 1000) proving his lack of versility compared to Navak and Fed. That's why he has never dominated the tour the way Novak and Fed did in 2004 2005 2006 2011 2015).

We all know that Nadal is vulnerable to early exists especially. 8 matches won at Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament between 2012 and 2017. His injuries are the results of his style of play not bad luck.

As a matter of fact Novak and Fed are better players. They have had better results than Nadal. I acknowledge that Nadal has been doing amazingly well. Being the king of clay being able to win almost everywhere but he's still far away from Novak and Fed. At their peak those 2 players are invicible. (Fed 173 matches won in 2005 2006 for 9 defeats)

Last set won by Nadal against novak on HC dates back from US OPEN 2013. Novak has won the last 17 sets (9 6/3 and 5 6/2)........
 
Last edited:

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
Yes, no dispute that Djokovic would have finished # 1. I'm just pointing out that a fit Nadal would have made it much tighter and if he had found a way to hang on the # 1 scenario would be in his favour. I was just pointing out that there isn't that much difference between their # 1 stats. Anyway, that's history, Djoker got it and he will now sail off and start chasing down Fed's weeks record.

The more masters on hard is a double edged sword. It really means that Djoker should be far ahead of Nadal in the M1000 count as he has triple the opportunities on a surface that he prefers. Essentially Nadal wins more on clay than Djoker on hard and Nadal wins more on hard than Djoker on clay.

I get what you are saying about distribution.... to a point. If Nadal hadn't won all four and hadn't won on all surfaces twice you could criticise him, hence why Pete gets so much flack for not winning RG. It is a bit unfair to criticise his distribution when he has achieved so much on all surfaces and then as the cherry on top has utterly dominated once surface like the game of tennis has never seen. The clay GOAT thing is the jewel in the crown of a player that is one of the best ever on all surfaces, yet it is treated as a weakness by some and used to attack him.
The thing is though , when it comes to slams . Nadal's achievements are heavily lopsided.

Clay slam = 25% of all slams yet Nadal has 64% of his 17 slams all on that one slam.

Sorry to beat a dead horse , but i can honestly say as a Fed fan that Nadal has tortured Fed throughout the years & i am disappointed that he doesn't have MC & Rome & a Gold Medal in Singles.

Is it that difficult for Nadal fans to admit the glaring obvious percentage of clay slams/titles in Nadal's resume?

Can't we just say that Nadal is an absolute god on 1 surface whilst being an ATG on HC (4 slams) & maybe really close to a Tier 2 Great on Grass (2 Wimbledon's , 3 Runner-Ups) ???

Djoker/Fed are both Gods on HC respectively , with Djoker being an ATG on Grass & Fed being The best all time on grass? (accomplishments)

So Really , , both Fed & Djoker have Nadal beat on 2/3 surfaces whilst Nadal beats them both on 1 surface
in terms of overall accomplishments.

It's really this simple

Fed/Djoker on HC & Grass >>>>>>>> Nadal

Nadal on Clay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fed/Djoker

Is it that hard to admit Nadal's clay dominance in his achievements. Whether it be slams or masters , clay represents a significant portion . I really do not understand why Nadal fans always have to try & battle Fed & Djoker fans with the distribution .

It's really not even close .

The only Feather in Nadal's cap is being tied with Djoker @ USO , otherwise in terms of numbers it's

Fed beats Nadal @ AO/Wim/USO

Djoker beats Nadal @ AO/Wimbledon

Nadal beats them both @ RG & absolutely nowhere else . With USO being tied with Djoker @ 3-3 .

Why is it so hard to see that in terms of slam distribution , Nadal is simply far & away behind both Fed & Djoker @ 3/4 of the slams?

Maybe it's hard for me to understand this defence as Fed has always had well rounded records & numbers , but i can clearly admit to where Fed has failed without hiding it. 1/5 RGs doesn't cut it for me as well as missing out on MC & Rome

Should have more than 6 YECs , those lost finals to Djoker really sucked. Maybe it's just me , i can be really honest? Who knows!
 

Benjamin Rio

Professional
The thing is though , when it comes to slams . Nadal's achievements are heavily lopsided.

Clay slam = 25% of all slams yet Nadal has 64% of his 17 slams all on that one slam.

Sorry to beat a dead horse , but i can honestly say as a Fed fan that Nadal has tortured Fed throughout the years & i am disappointed that he doesn't have MC & Rome & a Gold Medal in Singles.

Is it that difficult for Nadal fans to admit the glaring obvious percentage of clay slams/titles in Nadal's resume?

Can't we just say that Nadal is an absolute god on 1 surface whilst being an ATG on HC (4 slams) & maybe really close to a Tier 2 Great on Grass (2 Wimbledon's , 3 Runner-Ups) ???

Djoker/Fed are both Gods on HC respectively , with Djoker being an ATG on Grass & Fed being The best all time on grass? (accomplishments)

So Really , , both Fed & Djoker have Nadal beat on 2/3 surfaces whilst Nadal beats them both on 1 surface
in terms of overall accomplishments.

It's really this simple

Fed/Djoker on HC & Grass >>>>>>>> Nadal

Nadal on Clay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fed/Djoker

Is it that hard to admit Nadal's clay dominance in his achievements. Whether it be slams or masters , clay represents a significant portion . I really do not understand why Nadal fans always have to try & battle Fed & Djoker fans with the distribution .

It's really not even close .

The only Feather in Nadal's cap is being tied with Djoker @ USO , otherwise in terms of numbers it's

Fed beats Nadal @ AO/Wim/USO

Djoker beats Nadal @ AO/Wimbledon

Nadal beats them both @ RG & absolutely nowhere else . With USO being tied with Djoker @ 3-3 .

Why is it so hard to see that in terms of slam distribution , Nadal is simply far & away behind both Fed & Djoker @ 3/4 of the slams?

Maybe it's hard for me to understand this defence as Fed has always had well rounded records & numbers , but i can clearly admit to where Fed has failed without hiding it. 1/5 RGs doesn't cut it for me as well as missing out on MC & Rome

Should have more than 6 YECs , those lost finals to Djoker really sucked. Maybe it's just me , i can be really honest? Who knows!
 
Top