Djokovic is closer to Federer than Nadal is
- Thread starter Nole Slam
- Start date
Novak's wins at the WTF have to be taken into account along the way. In my opinion with the beating at the australian open he is number two on the GOAT list. But Nadal and Novak haven't ended their careers yet. They are still loads of tennis to be played. Next FO will be amazing and a big turning point for both careers. Maybe just as important as was the last wimbledon semi finals. If Novak wins the FO it will be the second time he will be holding all 4 slams at the same time and that will get him closer to Nadal and Federer in number of slams. On the other hand if Nadal wins the french open, he will win his 12th FO his 18th Slam 2 away from Fed. In the case he would beat Novak in the final it could have an impact.
Nadal is not only the king of clay. As you said he's won the other majors 2 wimbledons 3 Us opens and 1 australian. He is a compete player but he's only in the discussion as being the goat due to his amazing clay court skills. Fed and Novak are more complete player. They are just as good on all surfaces. They only lost to the king of clay on clay. Fed would have completed a career grand slam in 2006 and 2007 if he hadn't faced Nadal on clay.
I do agree that Nadal would have won a lot more if he hadn't faced Fed and Novak. For example the year 2011. Nadal was playing unbelievable tennis the same kind of tennis that brought him 3 slams in 2010. He only lost to Novak at Wimbledon US open and australia 2012. But Nadal also lost 1st rounds at wimbledon in 2013 The australian open in 2016 showing that he is a lot more vulnerable on those surfaces than Novak and Fed on clay. I think Fed has played 23 semi finals of slams in a row and Novak has managed to get similar numbers. That's why i would put Nadal 3rd on the goat list. In a way he was extremely lucky that courts at wimbledon australian open and Us open were slow down. With his style of play i don't think he would have achieved as much otherwise.
Nadal is not only the king of clay. As you said he's won the other majors 2 wimbledons 3 Us opens and 1 australian. He is a compete player but he's only in the discussion as being the goat due to his amazing clay court skills. Fed and Novak are more complete player. They are just as good on all surfaces. They only lost to the king of clay on clay. Fed would have completed a career grand slam in 2006 and 2007 if he hadn't faced Nadal on clay.
I do agree that Nadal would have won a lot more if he hadn't faced Fed and Novak. For example the year 2011. Nadal was playing unbelievable tennis the same kind of tennis that brought him 3 slams in 2010. He only lost to Novak at Wimbledon US open and australia 2012. But Nadal also lost 1st rounds at wimbledon in 2013 The australian open in 2016 showing that he is a lot more vulnerable on those surfaces than Novak and Fed on clay. I think Fed has played 23 semi finals of slams in a row and Novak has managed to get similar numbers. That's why i would put Nadal 3rd on the goat list. In a way he was extremely lucky that courts at wimbledon australian open and Us open were slow down. With his style of play i don't think he would have achieved as much otherwise.
Last edited:
That thread was prompted by a tennis-related issue.
No wonder it got so few responses, in the place where very few even have a clue what it means. Same with the AO final thread, where apart from Hitman and one other person, noone has anything to say, but there are 3 GOAT threads on their 4th page at the same time, because everyone is an "expert".
BTW, you are delusional to think that your explanation works. You should read your posts in that thread, and enjoy the knee-jerk in them. Quite the hilarity, I must say.
No wonder it got so few responses, in the place where very few even have a clue what it means. Same with the AO final thread, where apart from Hitman and one other person, noone has anything to say, but there are 3 GOAT threads on their 4th page at the same time, because everyone is an "expert".
BTW, you are delusional to think that your explanation works. You should read your posts in that thread, and enjoy the knee-jerk in them. Quite the hilarity, I must say.
I hope that my thread remains redundant forever, but should a disaster strike, I will remind you about it, and will remember again about your "impression about weirdness" expressed in the form of "troll thread" knee-jerk.
BTW, Andy Murray and Andy Roddick must have never heard about the expert advice offered on TTW by 12.5, since both of them wore ankle braces in competition (accidentally I also use either ASO or Aircast, when I experience such issues).
BTW, Andy Murray and Andy Roddick must have never heard about the expert advice offered on TTW by 12.5, since both of them wore ankle braces in competition (accidentally I also use either ASO or Aircast, when I experience such issues).
I agree that it is underestimated, but the problem is that the WTF is such a unique tournament compared to everything else in the calendar that it is almost like a separate entity and mostly is used like a TB in case there is a tie.
I don't think that I have heard of or read from too many people about it as a way to make up for a difference in Majors.
For example, if one is to randomly assign to it Majors, then the same should be the case for Masters, #1s, YE#1s etc, and, good luck with that.
I think it is best to wait and see what happens, and when all is said and done to analyse how every achievement contributes to the greatness of the player, instead of trying to sum everything using dubious transformations.
I don't think that I have heard of or read from too many people about it as a way to make up for a difference in Majors.
For example, if one is to randomly assign to it Majors, then the same should be the case for Masters, #1s, YE#1s etc, and, good luck with that.
I think it is best to wait and see what happens, and when all is said and done to analyse how every achievement contributes to the greatness of the player, instead of trying to sum everything using dubious transformations.
The weakness of the first position is that it completely discounts 90% of the tour (unless the two players are equal in slam victories). The difficulty in the second position is the agreeing relative weight of the non-slam achievements vs slams. I have chosen to use the ATP weightings as they are the only one where there is some broad (though far from total) agreement on.
Last edited:
Agree with the bolded section of the first paragraph.
With regards to early exits for Rafa showing he is more vulnerable than Fed & Djoker, I am going to have to debunk that one - he has exited:
With regards to early exits for Rafa showing he is more vulnerable than Fed & Djoker, I am going to have to debunk that one - he has exited:
- in the first round a total of 2 times; at AO once (2016) and Wimbledon once (2013)
- in the second round a total of 5 times; three times at Wimby (2005, 2012, 2015), and twice at the USO (2003, 2004)
- in the third round a total of 5 times; once at AO (2004), once at RG (2016 - a withdrawal after his second round match), once at Wimby (2003) and twice at the USO (2005, 2015)
- in the first round a total of 6 times; at RG three times (1999, 2002 & 2003) and Wimby three times (1999, 2000 and 2002)
- in the second round a total of 1 time; at Wimby (2013)
- in the third round a total of 5 times; at AO (2000, 2001, 2015), at RG (2004) and at USO (2000)
- in the first round a total of 2 times; at AO (2005 & 2006)
- in the second round a total of 3 times; at AO (2017), RG (2005), Wimby (2008)
- in the third round a total of 5 times; at RG (2009), Wimby (2005 & 2016), USO (2005, 2006)
- Fed: 12
- Rafa: 12
- Djoker: 10
- without Rafa, Djokerer would have won much more on clay
- Without Djokerer, Rafa would have won much more on grass & hard
- None of them are retired yet and there is more history to be written
What is the point of such posts?
The context of such stat is regarding their susceptibility to upsets which means that they have already achieved a certain high level.
Federers first big tournament win was Hamburg in 2002.
For Djokovic it was Miami 2007.
For Nadal it was MC 2005.
Everything before that is unrelated to the issue at hand, as it is uncertain what their level was at the time.
What is the point of such posts?
The context of such stat is regarding their susceptibility to upsets which means that they have already achieved a certain high level.
Federers first big tournament win was Hamburg in 2002.
For Djokovic it was Miami 2007.
For Nadal it was MC 2005.
Everything before that is unrelated to the issue at hand, as it is uncertain what their level was at the time.
The context of such stat is regarding their susceptibility to upsets which means that they have already achieved a certain high level.
Federers first big tournament win was Hamburg in 2002.
For Djokovic it was Miami 2007.
For Nadal it was MC 2005.
Everything before that is unrelated to the issue at hand, as it is uncertain what their level was at the time.
2013 One of Nadal's best year on the tour where he won French Open and Us Open lost in the first round of wimbledon against Steve Darcis. And he's had some really poor results over the years at Wimbledon the most prestigious tournament. (Rosol Darcis Muller Brown Kyrgios)
Without Nadal, Federer and Djokovic would have won everything on clay. On the other hand Nadal may have lost to other players.
Last edited:
Clay is a specialist surface with no competition especially the last two years. (by the way i love playing on clay).
Hard courts are nowadays really slow compared to before.(like grass) It's a fair ground where every style of play can be executed.
Fed has got 6 AO and 5 Us opens Novak 7 AO and 3 Us opens but has reached 8 finals and Nadal 1 AO and 2 Us opens.
I know Nadal fans love to pretend that the YEC are worth nothing. Winning 6 YEC and 5 YEC like Fed and Novak did is a great achievements that needs to be acknowledge.
Everyone knows that Djokovic was injured in 2017 and 2018. Even not playing at his best he beat Nadal at Wimbledon last year who was on a great run until then.
Hard courts are nowadays really slow compared to before.(like grass) It's a fair ground where every style of play can be executed.
Fed has got 6 AO and 5 Us opens Novak 7 AO and 3 Us opens but has reached 8 finals and Nadal 1 AO and 2 Us opens.
I know Nadal fans love to pretend that the YEC are worth nothing. Winning 6 YEC and 5 YEC like Fed and Novak did is a great achievements that needs to be acknowledge.
Everyone knows that Djokovic was injured in 2017 and 2018. Even not playing at his best he beat Nadal at Wimbledon last year who was on a great run until then.
What is the point of such posts?
The context of such stat is regarding their susceptibility to upsets which means that they have already achieved a certain high level.
Federers first big tournament win was Hamburg in 2002.
For Djokovic it was Miami 2007.
For Nadal it was MC 2005.
Everything before that is unrelated to the issue at hand, as it is uncertain what their level was at the time.
The context of such stat is regarding their susceptibility to upsets which means that they have already achieved a certain high level.
Federers first big tournament win was Hamburg in 2002.
For Djokovic it was Miami 2007.
For Nadal it was MC 2005.
Everything before that is unrelated to the issue at hand, as it is uncertain what their level was at the time.
Rafa has had 7 early exits in slams since 2005
Djoker has had 4 early exits in slams since 2007
Fed has had 6 searly exists in slams since 2002
It still debunks the narrative that Rafa has a massive lead in terms of early exits over the other two.
Because he hasn't reached 23 GS semi finals in a row 10 GS finals in a row hasn't played all GS finals in a calendar year. On top of that, he hasn't won the word tour finals even on some occasions lost in the round robins.....He's never had a year as good as Fed and Novak in 2005 2006 2015 season. From Wimbledon 2003 to Wimbledon 2013 no early losses to weak players.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics
As you said yourself, Nadal lost in the first round of wimbledon against Steve Darcis when he was in his prime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics
As you said yourself, Nadal lost in the first round of wimbledon against Steve Darcis when he was in his prime.
Re: your first paragraph - an injury punctuated career and prime will tend to return those kind of results. Re: your last, losing to Steve Darcis puts you out of GOAT contention? lol I've already showed the stats on early exits and they aren't really much different to Fed's.
Posters love to point out Rafa's shortcomings (of which all players have), but never seem to mention the extraordinary things that he has done that the other two haven't:
Posters love to point out Rafa's shortcomings (of which all players have), but never seem to mention the extraordinary things that he has done that the other two haven't:
- 11 slams at one tournament
- 11 titles at three different events (one slam, one M1000, one ATP500)
- The only one of the three to win a slam more than once on all three surfaces
- The only one of the three to win the channel slam twice (the two polar opposite surfaces in our game)
- The M1000 leader
- Beaten the Federer in his prime in a slam on grass, beaten Djoker in his prime in a slam on hard courts
He has.
Most of his early defeats have come right in the middle of his supposedly most prolific years as a tennis player, unlike the other two.
Also, your calculation is obviously incorrect.
If you count everything after the said years mentioned, you get:
Nadal: 6
Federer: 4
Djokovic: 4
If you correct that for the highest winning level (Majors) the difference is even more visible:
Nadal: 6
Federer: 3
Djokovic: 2
It means that once they entered Majors winning form, Nadal has been upset twice as much as Federer, and thrice as much as Djokvic, while being one year older than Djokovic and 5 years younger than Federer. The difference is huge.
Most of his early defeats have come right in the middle of his supposedly most prolific years as a tennis player, unlike the other two.
Also, your calculation is obviously incorrect.
If you count everything after the said years mentioned, you get:
Nadal: 6
Federer: 4
Djokovic: 4
If you correct that for the highest winning level (Majors) the difference is even more visible:
Nadal: 6
Federer: 3
Djokovic: 2
It means that once they entered Majors winning form, Nadal has been upset twice as much as Federer, and thrice as much as Djokvic, while being one year older than Djokovic and 5 years younger than Federer. The difference is huge.
In some metrics yes, but main metric is slam count, he is behind by 5 slam and in case of Fed, slams are well distributed, winning at least 5 in 3 different slam.
Apart from slam count Novak is quite near to Fed, same year as no. 1, closing gap for weeks as number 1, 5 yec( one less than fed) more masters, winning all masters at some point.
Apart from slam count Novak is quite near to Fed, same year as no. 1, closing gap for weeks as number 1, 5 yec( one less than fed) more masters, winning all masters at some point.
He has.
Most of his early defeats have come right in the middle of his supposedly most prolific years as a tennis player, unlike the other two.
Also, your calculation is obviously incorrect.
If you count everything after the said years mentioned, you get:
Nadal: 6
Federer: 4
Djokovic: 4
If you correct that for the highest winning level (Majors) the difference is even more visible:
Nadal: 6
Federer: 3
Djokovic: 2
It means that once they entered Majors winning form, Nadal has been upset twice as much as Federer, and thrice as much as Djokvic, while being one year older than Djokovic and 5 years younger than Federer. The difference is huge.
Most of his early defeats have come right in the middle of his supposedly most prolific years as a tennis player, unlike the other two.
Also, your calculation is obviously incorrect.
If you count everything after the said years mentioned, you get:
Nadal: 6
Federer: 4
Djokovic: 4
If you correct that for the highest winning level (Majors) the difference is even more visible:
Nadal: 6
Federer: 3
Djokovic: 2
It means that once they entered Majors winning form, Nadal has been upset twice as much as Federer, and thrice as much as Djokvic, while being one year older than Djokovic and 5 years younger than Federer. The difference is huge.
In terms of correcting the stats for majors, that is just statistical cherry-picking. Don't move the goal posts when your argument has been debunked.
I hoped that for once you will be considerate of the conversation, but, "no".
Let us see what we have, and why: in 2002 Federer had his fist ever spring HC/clay court season, where he actually started getting serious results. You might not remember it, but I do: he had a very steady R4 or higher results up until the Miami tournament, where he managed to reach up until the final, after which his level understandably dropped, not being used to playing that long at that level. He lost early in is next tournaments, just to pick himself up , this time to win Hamburg.His next tournament was RG, where, again, his level was on the floor. Who beat him in the R1 there: the world #45. By no means a pushover, no? He had early losses at Wimbledon, Gstaad, Canada and Cincinnati , before picking himself up and having a decent performance at USO and till the end of the year. That was Federer's break through year.
Unlike him, Nadal had his M1000 and Majors breakthrough in the same year, so he achieved his higher level much earlier, so that was an advantage for him over both Federer and Djokovic, in that comparison, but I am sure that you wouldn't mind missing to acknowledge that fact, seeing the way you argue.
I proposed a method that to some extend eliminates that, but you were quick to get onto it, but without saying why. However I know why.
In your desperation you make the mistake to not apply your approach towards Nadal, so, let us see: I discarded also Nadal's results for 2005, after he won MC. However, even with your nitpicking, the results will stand so:
Nadal 8
Federer 6
Djokovic 4
So, Nadal has twice as many early exits as the player from his own generation, despite of maturing earlier, and a quarter more than Federer, despite of the latter playing for five more years.
So, even discarding the Majors level (which is a fair assessment for the reasons already stated), and your inability to defend your positions , leading to having to deal with multiple corrections, including correcting your own "unintentional" errors, Nadal is massively behind the other two, when it comes to holding against early upsets.
Instead of "debunking" the myth, now it is not a myth anymore , but a plainly explained truth, so thank you for the chance to show it to everyone reading here.
Let us see what we have, and why: in 2002 Federer had his fist ever spring HC/clay court season, where he actually started getting serious results. You might not remember it, but I do: he had a very steady R4 or higher results up until the Miami tournament, where he managed to reach up until the final, after which his level understandably dropped, not being used to playing that long at that level. He lost early in is next tournaments, just to pick himself up , this time to win Hamburg.His next tournament was RG, where, again, his level was on the floor. Who beat him in the R1 there: the world #45. By no means a pushover, no? He had early losses at Wimbledon, Gstaad, Canada and Cincinnati , before picking himself up and having a decent performance at USO and till the end of the year. That was Federer's break through year.
Unlike him, Nadal had his M1000 and Majors breakthrough in the same year, so he achieved his higher level much earlier, so that was an advantage for him over both Federer and Djokovic, in that comparison, but I am sure that you wouldn't mind missing to acknowledge that fact, seeing the way you argue.
I proposed a method that to some extend eliminates that, but you were quick to get onto it, but without saying why. However I know why.
In your desperation you make the mistake to not apply your approach towards Nadal, so, let us see: I discarded also Nadal's results for 2005, after he won MC. However, even with your nitpicking, the results will stand so:
Nadal 8
Federer 6
Djokovic 4
So, Nadal has twice as many early exits as the player from his own generation, despite of maturing earlier, and a quarter more than Federer, despite of the latter playing for five more years.
So, even discarding the Majors level (which is a fair assessment for the reasons already stated), and your inability to defend your positions , leading to having to deal with multiple corrections, including correcting your own "unintentional" errors, Nadal is massively behind the other two, when it comes to holding against early upsets.
Instead of "debunking" the myth, now it is not a myth anymore , but a plainly explained truth, so thank you for the chance to show it to everyone reading here.
I hoped that for once you will be considerate of the conversation, but, "no".
Let us see what we have, and why: in 2002 Federer had his fist ever spring HC/clay court season, where he actually started getting serious results. You might not remember it, but I do: he had a very steady R4 or higher results up until the Miami tournament, where he managed to reach up until the final, after which his level understandably dropped, not being used to playing that long at that level. He lost early in is next tournaments, just to pick himself up , this time to win Hamburg.His next tournament was RG, where, again, his level was on the floor. Who beat him in the R1 there: the world #45. By no means a pushover, no? He had early losses at Wimbledon, Gstaad, Canada and Cincinnati , before picking himself up and having a decent performance at USO and till the end of the year. That was Federer's break through year.
Unlike him, Nadal had his M1000 and Majors breakthrough in the same year, so he achieved his higher level much earlier, so that was an advantage for him over both Federer and Djokovic, in that comparison, but I am sure that you wouldn't mind missing to acknowledge that fact, seeing the way you argue.
I proposed a method that to some extend eliminates that, but you were quick to get onto it, but without saying why. However I know why.
In your desperation you make the mistake to not apply your approach towards Nadal, so, let us see: I discarded also Nadal's results for 2005, after he won MC. However, even with your nitpicking, the results will stand so:
Nadal 8
Federer 6
Djokovic 4
So, Nadal has twice as many early exits as the player from his own generation, despite of maturing earlier, and a quarter more than Federer, despite of the latter playing for five more years.
So, even discarding the Majors level (which is a fair assessment for the reasons already stated), and your inability to defend your positions , leading to having to deal with multiple corrections, including correcting your own "unintentional" errors, Nadal is massively behind the other two, when it comes to holding against early upsets.
Instead of "debunking" the myth, now it is not a myth anymore , but a plainly explained truth, so thank you for the chance to show it to everyone reading here.
Let us see what we have, and why: in 2002 Federer had his fist ever spring HC/clay court season, where he actually started getting serious results. You might not remember it, but I do: he had a very steady R4 or higher results up until the Miami tournament, where he managed to reach up until the final, after which his level understandably dropped, not being used to playing that long at that level. He lost early in is next tournaments, just to pick himself up , this time to win Hamburg.His next tournament was RG, where, again, his level was on the floor. Who beat him in the R1 there: the world #45. By no means a pushover, no? He had early losses at Wimbledon, Gstaad, Canada and Cincinnati , before picking himself up and having a decent performance at USO and till the end of the year. That was Federer's break through year.
Unlike him, Nadal had his M1000 and Majors breakthrough in the same year, so he achieved his higher level much earlier, so that was an advantage for him over both Federer and Djokovic, in that comparison, but I am sure that you wouldn't mind missing to acknowledge that fact, seeing the way you argue.
I proposed a method that to some extend eliminates that, but you were quick to get onto it, but without saying why. However I know why.
In your desperation you make the mistake to not apply your approach towards Nadal, so, let us see: I discarded also Nadal's results for 2005, after he won MC. However, even with your nitpicking, the results will stand so:
Nadal 8
Federer 6
Djokovic 4
So, Nadal has twice as many early exits as the player from his own generation, despite of maturing earlier, and a quarter more than Federer, despite of the latter playing for five more years.
So, even discarding the Majors level (which is a fair assessment for the reasons already stated), and your inability to defend your positions , leading to having to deal with multiple corrections, including correcting your own "unintentional" errors, Nadal is massively behind the other two, when it comes to holding against early upsets.
Instead of "debunking" the myth, now it is not a myth anymore , but a plainly explained truth, so thank you for the chance to show it to everyone reading here.
He had won the french ooen and was going to win the Us open.
I hoped that for once you will be considerate of the conversation, but, "no".
Let us see what we have, and why: in 2002 Federer had his fist ever spring HC/clay court season, where he actually started getting serious results. You might not remember it, but I do: he had a very steady R4 or higher results up until the Miami tournament, where he managed to reach up until the final, after which his level understandably dropped, not being used to playing that long at that level. He lost early in is next tournaments, just to pick himself up , this time to win Hamburg.His next tournament was RG, where, again, his level was on the floor. Who beat him in the R1 there: the world #45. By no means a pushover, no? He had early losses at Wimbledon, Gstaad, Canada and Cincinnati , before picking himself up and having a decent performance at USO and till the end of the year. That was Federer's break through year.
Unlike him, Nadal had his M1000 and Majors breakthrough in the same year, so he achieved his higher level much earlier, so that was an advantage for him over both Federer and Djokovic, in that comparison, but I am sure that you wouldn't mind missing to acknowledge that fact, seeing the way you argue.
I proposed a method that to some extend eliminates that, but you were quick to get onto it, but without saying why. However I know why.
In your desperation you make the mistake to not apply your approach towards Nadal, so, let us see: I discarded also Nadal's results for 2005, after he won MC. However, even with your nitpicking, the results will stand so:
Nadal 8
Federer 6
Djokovic 4
So, Nadal has twice as many early exits as the player from his own generation, despite of maturing earlier, and a quarter more than Federer, despite of the latter playing for five more years.
So, even discarding the Majors level (which is a fair assessment for the reasons already stated), and your inability to defend your positions , leading to having to deal with multiple corrections, including correcting your own "unintentional" errors, Nadal is massively behind the other two, when it comes to holding against early upsets.
Instead of "debunking" the myth, now it is not a myth anymore , but a plainly explained truth, so thank you for the chance to show it to everyone reading here.
Let us see what we have, and why: in 2002 Federer had his fist ever spring HC/clay court season, where he actually started getting serious results. You might not remember it, but I do: he had a very steady R4 or higher results up until the Miami tournament, where he managed to reach up until the final, after which his level understandably dropped, not being used to playing that long at that level. He lost early in is next tournaments, just to pick himself up , this time to win Hamburg.His next tournament was RG, where, again, his level was on the floor. Who beat him in the R1 there: the world #45. By no means a pushover, no? He had early losses at Wimbledon, Gstaad, Canada and Cincinnati , before picking himself up and having a decent performance at USO and till the end of the year. That was Federer's break through year.
Unlike him, Nadal had his M1000 and Majors breakthrough in the same year, so he achieved his higher level much earlier, so that was an advantage for him over both Federer and Djokovic, in that comparison, but I am sure that you wouldn't mind missing to acknowledge that fact, seeing the way you argue.
I proposed a method that to some extend eliminates that, but you were quick to get onto it, but without saying why. However I know why.
In your desperation you make the mistake to not apply your approach towards Nadal, so, let us see: I discarded also Nadal's results for 2005, after he won MC. However, even with your nitpicking, the results will stand so:
Nadal 8
Federer 6
Djokovic 4
So, Nadal has twice as many early exits as the player from his own generation, despite of maturing earlier, and a quarter more than Federer, despite of the latter playing for five more years.
So, even discarding the Majors level (which is a fair assessment for the reasons already stated), and your inability to defend your positions , leading to having to deal with multiple corrections, including correcting your own "unintentional" errors, Nadal is massively behind the other two, when it comes to holding against early upsets.
Instead of "debunking" the myth, now it is not a myth anymore , but a plainly explained truth, so thank you for the chance to show it to everyone reading here.
Yes, Nadal had a string of totally surprising losses especially at Wimbledon that should have not happened. One or two early surprises to an inspired players are OK, especially given his difficulty against certain type of players and styles (I mean his troubles with Brown for example), but overall he was underperforming far too often there.
I think that ultimately that showed that he was far less adaptable to conditions than originally thought. Djokovic did far, far, far better in that regard, and finally the results are starting to show. That is why I enjoy the history of the rivalries: ultimately, the freak occurrences are dwarfed by the logic of the normality.
I think that ultimately that showed that he was far less adaptable to conditions than originally thought. Djokovic did far, far, far better in that regard, and finally the results are starting to show. That is why I enjoy the history of the rivalries: ultimately, the freak occurrences are dwarfed by the logic of the normality.
I hoped that for once you will be considerate of the conversation, but, "no".
Let us see what we have, and why: in 2002 Federer had his fist ever spring HC/clay court season, where he actually started getting serious results. You might not remember it, but I do: he had a very steady R4 or higher results up until the Miami tournament, where he managed to reach up until the final, after which his level understandably dropped, not being used to playing that long at that level. He lost early in is next tournaments, just to pick himself up , this time to win Hamburg.His next tournament was RG, where, again, his level was on the floor. Who beat him in the R1 there: the world #45. By no means a pushover, no? He had early losses at Wimbledon, Gstaad, Canada and Cincinnati , before picking himself up and having a decent performance at USO and till the end of the year. That was Federer's break through year.
Unlike him, Nadal had his M1000 and Majors breakthrough in the same year, so he achieved his higher level much earlier, so that was an advantage for him over both Federer and Djokovic, in that comparison, but I am sure that you wouldn't mind missing to acknowledge that fact, seeing the way you argue.
I proposed a method that to some extend eliminates that, but you were quick to get onto it, but without saying why. However I know why.
In your desperation you make the mistake to not apply your approach towards Nadal, so, let us see: I discarded also Nadal's results for 2005, after he won MC. However, even with your nitpicking, the results will stand so:
Nadal 8
Federer 6
Djokovic 4
So, Nadal has twice as many early exits as the player from his own generation, despite of maturing earlier, and a quarter more than Federer, despite of the latter playing for five more years.
So, even discarding the Majors level (which is a fair assessment for the reasons already stated), and your inability to defend your positions , leading to having to deal with multiple corrections, including correcting your own "unintentional" errors, Nadal is massively behind the other two, when it comes to holding against early upsets.
Instead of "debunking" the myth, now it is not a myth anymore , but a plainly explained truth, so thank you for the chance to show it to everyone reading here.
Let us see what we have, and why: in 2002 Federer had his fist ever spring HC/clay court season, where he actually started getting serious results. You might not remember it, but I do: he had a very steady R4 or higher results up until the Miami tournament, where he managed to reach up until the final, after which his level understandably dropped, not being used to playing that long at that level. He lost early in is next tournaments, just to pick himself up , this time to win Hamburg.His next tournament was RG, where, again, his level was on the floor. Who beat him in the R1 there: the world #45. By no means a pushover, no? He had early losses at Wimbledon, Gstaad, Canada and Cincinnati , before picking himself up and having a decent performance at USO and till the end of the year. That was Federer's break through year.
Unlike him, Nadal had his M1000 and Majors breakthrough in the same year, so he achieved his higher level much earlier, so that was an advantage for him over both Federer and Djokovic, in that comparison, but I am sure that you wouldn't mind missing to acknowledge that fact, seeing the way you argue.
I proposed a method that to some extend eliminates that, but you were quick to get onto it, but without saying why. However I know why.
In your desperation you make the mistake to not apply your approach towards Nadal, so, let us see: I discarded also Nadal's results for 2005, after he won MC. However, even with your nitpicking, the results will stand so:
Nadal 8
Federer 6
Djokovic 4
So, Nadal has twice as many early exits as the player from his own generation, despite of maturing earlier, and a quarter more than Federer, despite of the latter playing for five more years.
So, even discarding the Majors level (which is a fair assessment for the reasons already stated), and your inability to defend your positions , leading to having to deal with multiple corrections, including correcting your own "unintentional" errors, Nadal is massively behind the other two, when it comes to holding against early upsets.
Instead of "debunking" the myth, now it is not a myth anymore , but a plainly explained truth, so thank you for the chance to show it to everyone reading here.
Wow! So your first paragraph is waffle that says nothing other than in 2002 Fed had his breakthrough year, which we had already established.
Not sure why you would disregard Nadal's results in 2005. You were the one that came to me with the point that we should only consider the number of early exists from after they won their first big tournament; Federer's from 2002, Nadal's from 2005 and Djokovic's from 2007. These were your metrics, not mine - now you want to change the years because you've been made a fool of - lol . My original figures showed entire careers (i.e. not cherry-picking anything and letting their entire careers tell the story).
So which is it TH? Are we going with my figures on early exits in slams which looks at their entire careers?
- Fed: 12
- Rafa: 12
- Djoker: 10
- Rafa 7
- Fed 6
- Djoker 4
Wow! So your first paragraph is waffle that says nothing other than in 2002 Fed had his breakthrough year, which we had already established.
Not sure why you would disregard Nadal's results in 2005. You were the one that came to me with the point that we should only consider the number of early exists from after they won their first big tournament; Federer's from 2002, Nadal's from 2005 and Djokovic's from 2007. These were your metrics, not mine - now you want to change the years because you've been made a fool of - lol . My original figures showed entire careers (2) (i.e. not cherry-picking anything and letting their entire careers tell the story).
So which is it TH? Are we going with my figures on early exits in slams which looks at their entire careers?
Not sure why you would disregard Nadal's results in 2005. You were the one that came to me with the point that we should only consider the number of early exists from after they won their first big tournament; Federer's from 2002, Nadal's from 2005 and Djokovic's from 2007. These were your metrics, not mine - now you want to change the years because you've been made a fool of - lol . My original figures showed entire careers (2) (i.e. not cherry-picking anything and letting their entire careers tell the story).
So which is it TH? Are we going with my figures on early exits in slams which looks at their entire careers?
- Fed: 12
- Rafa: 12
- Djoker: 10
- Rafa 7
- Fed 6
- Djoker 4
Bolded: I already provided an explanation for the difference between the two metrics.
If you consider winning a M1000 and winning a Major to require the same level of ability and consistency, be my guest.
If you want to argue that both are unrelated to the upsets potential, be my guest.
Bolded 2: including the entire careers IS the cherry picking in this case, as it eliminates the level that the players are on, before the early round losses are considered "abnormal". The point of looking for them is to consider when they were "upsets", not simply counting how long a player needed to get to a certain level. You may pretend that that is not the case, but it is.
Noone is surprised whether an up and coming player has many early losses in Majors, as those are not considered a true sign of weakness at that stage of his career vs the time when a proven champion suffered them. You agreed with that when you accepted that winning tournaments is a reasonable measure for achieving such a level, and now you are backtracking from that agreement.
I already explained by which metric I am going and why, so I take it your question is an effort to reinforce your effort at backtracking.
Another sign that you try to argue without even admitting the facts is you continuing to present an incorrect information.
It is 8 early exits for Nadal as per your own data, not 7.
You also somehow missed to address the argument that I presented in that regard: Nadal has twice as many early exits as Djokovic (with one more year in age than him), and 25% more than Federer with 5 less.
That fact alone showcases a huge difference in their ability to avoid the said upsets.
Last edited:
Yes, Nadal had a string of totally surprising losses especially at Wimbledon that should have not happened. One or two early surprises to an inspired players are OK, especially given his difficulty against certain type of players and styles (I mean his troubles with Brown for example), but overall he was underperforming far too often there.
I think that ultimately that showed that he was far less adaptable to conditions than originally thought. Djokovic did far, far, far better in that regard, and finally the results are starting to show. That is why I enjoy the history of the rivalries: ultimately, the freak occurrences are dwarfed by the logic of the normality.
I think that ultimately that showed that he was far less adaptable to conditions than originally thought. Djokovic did far, far, far better in that regard, and finally the results are starting to show. That is why I enjoy the history of the rivalries: ultimately, the freak occurrences are dwarfed by the logic of the normality.
The surfaces now have never been as similar, which tells a story too about Djokovic.
Always laugh at this defending of hard courts, yet clay is a 'specialist surface'.
Really its more grass is the specialist surface, as its the least used surface on the professional tour.
Im pretty sure if Federer and Djokovic had 6 RG titles each, and less on HC's, then the argument would be twisted that hard court titles mean less
And for the record, Nadal has 3 USO titles, not 2.
Really its more grass is the specialist surface, as its the least used surface on the professional tour.
Im pretty sure if Federer and Djokovic had 6 RG titles each, and less on HC's, then the argument would be twisted that hard court titles mean less
And for the record, Nadal has 3 USO titles, not 2.
