Djokovic is closer to Federer than Nadal is

Nadal won his first grass slam and first hard slam at about the same age Federer did. Nadal had adapted to, and won on all three surfaces by the age of 22. That is crazy fast.
Exactly. But still people to this day claim Nadal never adapted to certain surfaces till late on LOL
The simple fact is hes less consistent off of clay, which was normal for 'clay courters' before Nadals time. But he was able to do what most others couldn't, and that was win on other surfaces.
I still believe him winning Wimbledon in 08 against Federer has got to be as big an achievement as anything in tennis before or since, all things considered.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Exactly. But still people to this day claim Nadal never adapted to certain surfaces till late on LOL
The simple fact is hes less consistent off of clay, which was normal for 'clay courters' before Nadals time. But he was able to do what most others couldn't, and that was win on other surfaces.
I still believe him winning Wimbledon in 08 against Federer has got to be as big an achievement as anything in tennis before or since, all things considered.
Federer made his first Wimbledon final one month before his 22nd birthday, Nadal had made his third Wimbeldon final one month after his 22nd birthday. They both won their first slam on HC at AO while they were 22 years old. Nadal adapted very quickly to ALL surfaces.
 
Federer made his first Wimbledon final one month before his 22nd birthday, Nadal had made his third Wimbeldon final one month after his 22nd birthday. They both won their first slam on HC at AO while they were 22 years old. Nadal adapted very quickly to ALL surfaces.
Your knowledge of the game is remarkable. To just pop that out off the top of your head.o_O:cool:
 
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 :-D

And for the record, Nadal has 3 USO titles, not 2. ;)
Grass is undoubtely a specialist surface no doubt about that. Less than before as the grass has slow down.

You are right. Fed and Novak could have had 6 FO titles each as they only lost to Nadal on many occasions. It's a shame didn't switch racket earlier in his career. He would have benefited a lot from it especially on clay against Nadal.

You have to be honest. Hard courts requires less adaptation. Each player can play their own style. It's a shame they have slow down hard court over the years. They should be fast.
 
Exactly. But still people to this day claim Nadal never adapted to certain surfaces till late on LOL
The simple fact is hes less consistent off of clay, which was normal for 'clay courters' before Nadals time. But he was able to do what most others couldn't, and that was win on other surfaces.
I still believe him winning Wimbledon in 08 against Federer has got to be as big an achievement as anything in tennis before or since, all things considered.
He never truly adapted to indoor conditions. That's why he's never been able to win the YEC and lost on many occasions in the RR.
 
Federer made his first Wimbledon final one month before his 22nd birthday, Nadal had made his third Wimbeldon final one month after his 22nd birthday. They both won their first slam on HC at AO while they were 22 years old. Nadal adapted very quickly to ALL surfaces.
Nadal is an amazing player on all surfaces but he's only the goat of clay as most of his titles have been on that surface. (11 FO out of 17 GS 24 MS 1000 on clay out of 33 MS1000 and 0 YEC). Out of clay he's won 6 GS out of the 14 GS finals he's played. On top of that he's been beaten really early in GS outside of FO.
 
Federer made his first Wimbledon final one month before his 22nd birthday, Nadal had made his third Wimbeldon final one month after his 22nd birthday. They both won their first slam on HC at AO while they were 22 years old. Nadal adapted very quickly to ALL surfaces.
Big difference is that Fed has won 6 AO 8 wimbledon 5 US Open and 6 YEC.:):) Novak 7 AO 4 Wimbledon 3 US open and 5 YEC.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
Big difference is that Fed has won 6 AO 8 wimbledon 5 US Open and 6 YEC.:):) Novak 7 AO 4 Wimbledon 3 US open and 5 YEC.
They are just better on those surfaces in terms of consistency, durability and sustainability. If Nadal was just as good, he would have been the GOAT a long time ago.
 
They are just better on those surfaces in terms of consistency, durability and sustainability. If Nadal was just as good, he would have been the GOAT a long time ago.
He can only be GOAT of clay or of the left handed tennis players.:cool::cool: Lack of consistency durability and sustainability on every surface outside of clay.
 
Those stats aren't right/manipulated as they stop at 3rd round.... For fedalovic to meet it has to be at least semi final level but really final level so almost pointless to stop at 3rd round

2nd peoblem is you are saying let's wait till their careers are over... In that case you need to stop adding feds numbers at age 32.5 as that is how old nadal is

I haven't looked but I assume by age 32.5 fed has way more finals and semis and slams as nadal had at 32.5. I'm guessing same for Novak but not sure
From Wimbledon 2003 to WImbledon 2013 Fed won 17 GS reached 24 GS finals 33 GS SF and 6 YEC.

Wimbledon 2013 was the first time Federer was knocked out early by a poor player since Wimbledon 2003
 
0 wtf and 1 title indoor hard really hurts him basically excludes from GOAT discussions.

Don't get me wrong he is bloody good indoors it's just we have to be brutal in GOAT discussions.
Both Novak and Fed have achieved more than Nadal.

Still you have to acknowledge Nadal's ability to have been able to win outside of clay with his game. Poor serve heavy top spin shots.
 
Yeah 18/19 finals is ridiculous. That's actually perfect stat to show it is ridiculous to say it isn't nadals fault that more slam final meetings didn't happen @titoelcolombiano... Nadal has never got anywhere near that level of consistency he has something like 5 finals in a row

Don't get me wrong nadals numbers are amazing too its just I don't agree at all it wasn't nadals failure to go deep that led to less h2h meetings at fed preferred slams.
When you Nadal's record at Wimbledon especially. It hurts. I think he won 8 matches from wimbledon 2012 to Wimbledon 2017. Wimbledon is the most prestigious event of tennis many RR at YEC....
 
I think the big 3 will each win 5 slams post 30 years old (though Djokovic may surprise - his form in the last 2 rounds at the AO 2019 was awesome). Making their final count:

Federer - 21 Slams
Nadal - 19 Slams
Djokovic - 17 Slams
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Im pretty sure it took Djokovic longer to become more 'adaptable' to surfaces. Nadal having won every slan in his early 20s, it took Djokovic to almost 30 to claim his first RG.
The surfaces now have never been as similar, which tells a story too about Djokovic.
I have lived to see the day when a Nadal fan will complain about the homogenisation of the surfaces.

As for the ability to learn, Djokovic started from a very different place compared to Nadal, and the development of his game has been much more serious (and visible) than Nadal's.

If you look at it, he developed his physical preparation and conditioning, changed racquets, morphed into a super competent server, improved on his biggest weaknesses (who remembers that once going to his overhead was a money shot for winning the point?) etc., etc.

Nadal's game has always been the same, and regressing at times, never did much to change it, and is left to this day with considerable weaknesses compared to Djokovic. His biggest effort to change something in his game was to develop a huge serve, which he didn't manage to keep and make part of his game.

:cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Exactly. But still people to this day claim Nadal never adapted to certain surfaces till late on LOL
The simple fact is hes less consistent off of clay, which was normal for 'clay courters' before Nadals time. But he was able to do what most others couldn't, and that was win on other surfaces.
I still believe him winning Wimbledon in 08 against Federer has got to be as big an achievement as anything in tennis before or since, all things considered.
You have to know what you are comparing.

In his first participation at Wimbledon Nadal was eliminated in the early rounds by a certain Gilles Muller. Yes, the same Gilles Muller. In his second attempt he reached the final. That is not a learning curve. That is a surface that he already was pretty competent on.

In contrast with that, in the early years of his participation Djokovic was struggling with clay court specialists on the surface, and, of course, was always losing to players that were in reasonably good form, and possessed a big serve.

At the time of his second participation at Wimbledon, Nadal was already a two times Majors winner, which speaks of a different overall level than Novak. Again, nothing to do with a "learning curve".

:cool:
 
Those stats aren't right/manipulated as they stop at 3rd round.... For fedalovic to meet it has to be at least semi final level but really final level so almost pointless to stop at 3rd round

2nd peoblem is you are saying let's wait till their careers are over... In that case you need to stop adding feds numbers at age 32.5 as that is how old nadal is

I haven't looked but I assume by age 32.5 fed has way more finals and semis and for. Wtf and masters as nadal had at 32.5. I'm guessing same for novak but not sure
So what is an early exit for you? So anything short of a SF is an early exit? lol

Fed is good enough to play and win slams at 37/38 and be ranked in the top 3 - it is find to consider his current results. You can't cherry pick parts of someone's career, it has to be the whole thing. Otherwise, we'll stop counting Rafa's stats after 2014 because he peaked at 19. No, it doesn't work that way.

You might be right about finals and semis, I'm not sure. But I do know this. At the end of the year that they both turned 32 Federer and Nadal had won both won 17 slams and Rafa had 33 M1000 titles to Federer's 21.
 
It is a "waffle" if you don't understand how development of the tennis players works, so I get why you could say that, if you weren't provided with an explanation. However, you were.

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.

:cool:
I said I see your point - that doesn't equate to me accepting or agreeing to your cherry picking as gospel. The careers need to be looked at as a whole - is it Rafa's fault that he was winning slams whilst the other two weren't?

Early exists in slams:

Rafa 12
Fed 12
Djoker 10
 
Yeah 18/19 finals is ridiculous. That's actually perfect stat to show it is ridiculous to say it isn't nadals fault that more slam final meetings didn't happen @titoelcolombiano... Nadal has never got anywhere near that level of consistency he has something like 5 finals in a row

Don't get me wrong nadals numbers are amazing too its just I don't agree at all it wasn't nadals failure to go deep that led to less h2h meetings at fed preferred slams.
Who are you referring to that had 18/19 finals and what are the years that these finals were made in?
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
I said I see your point - that doesn't equate to me accepting or agreeing to your cherry picking as gospel. The careers need to be looked at as a whole - is it Rafa's fault that he was winning slams whilst the other two weren't?

Early exists in slams:

Rafa 12
Fed 12
Djoker 10
I am fine with you repeating your findings, just like I cannot stop many to believe in things that live only to service their own reality.

I already pointed at the weaknesses in your approach, so I am satisfied that I had the chance to address them. Nothing changes just because you are choosing to ignore facts highly relevant to tennis knowledge.

:cool:
 
So what is an early exit for you? So anything short of a SF is an early exit? lol

Fed is good enough to play and win slams at 37/38 and be ranked in the top 3 - it is find to consider his current results. You can't cherry pick parts of someone's career, it has to be the whole thing. Otherwise, we'll stop counting Rafa's stats after 2014 because he peaked at 19. No, it doesn't work that way.

You might be right about finals and semis, I'm not sure. But I do know this. At the end of the year that they both turned 32 Federer and Nadal had won both won 17 slams and Rafa had 33 M1000 titles to Federer's 21.
"At the end of the year that they both turned 32 Federer and Nadal had won both won 17 slams and Rafa had 33 M1000 titles to Federer's 21."

Because Nadal is the king of clay: 11/17 of his GS and 24 of his 33 MS1000 have been won on clay.

I agree you can't cherry pick parts of someone's career. Nadal has won 8 matches at wimbledon from 2012 to 2017 and has lost to players he should have never lost to. At the YEC he's lost many times in the RR without even winning the tournament once. On the other hand Djokovic and Fed have won the tournament 5 and 6 times.
Without the homogenization of the surfaces Nadal wouldn't be in the discussion.
 
I said I see your point - that doesn't equate to me accepting or agreeing to your cherry picking as gospel. The careers need to be looked at as a whole - is it Rafa's fault that he was winning slams whilst the other two weren't?

Early exists in slams:

Rafa 12
Fed 12
Djoker 10
Please Nadal won 8 matches at Wimbledon from 2012 to 2017.
 
Again that is cherry picking you failed to mention 6 wtfs but mention masters for some reason and weeks no1 ye no 1 total titles etc

And mathematically and stats wise no you can't compare past their equal ages of 32.5. Fed doesn't have hundreds more match wins and titles right now than Nadal because he is better than Nadal he has it because he is 5 years older... And nadal still has chance to surpass those
I can't really see the debate on "cherry picking".

Clay= Nadal
Anything but red clay: Fed and Novak

If you want to be as biased as @titoelcolombiano ( i respect his opinion and he's allowed to idolise Nadal), Nadal has never won the Hopman cup and he's only good on red clay. He couldn't win Madrid Masters 1000 on blue clay.:cool::cool: and Dustin Brown Steve Darcis Rosol Verdasco Fognini Pouille Kyrgios are GOAT worth.
 
EVen the final of the AO in 2012 between the Djoker and Nadal looked like they were playing on clay.

Hard court should go faster. If it's to play a similar style than clay might as well put clay everywhere.
Slow hard court is still not the same as clay.
On the OP if Nole gets the DCGS, that will clinch it.
 
Certain fans will never learn.

Djokovic has an Everest to climb.

:cool:
He had 2 Everests aka Federer and Nadal to climb, when he started winning as a pro. We look at Everest, we say OK and simply turn around and go away. He says OK and starts climbing. Many fail to see what is in plain sight - he still is.

I think it's a very common mistake people make - to project their own self onto others - to think he sees anything tennis the same way we see. That is why he already did what no one but himself thought was humanly possible.

We do not know how it will end, but we can enjoy the ride.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
He had 2 Everests aka Federer and Nadal to climb, when he started winning as a pro. We look at Everest, we say OK and simply turn around and go away. He says OK and starts climbing. Many fail to see what is in plain sight - he still is.

I think it's a very common mistake people make - to project their own self onto others - to think he sees anything tennis the same way we see. That is why he already did what no one but himself thought was humanly possible.

We do not know how it will end, but we can enjoy the ride.
So, enjoy the ride!

:cool:
 
When you Nadal's record at Wimbledon especially. It hurts. I think he won 8 matches from wimbledon 2012 to Wimbledon 2017. Wimbledon is the most prestigious event of tennis many RR at YEC....
Yeah what a poor Wimbledon record. I wonder how many former players would trade everything for just 1 Wimbledon title, nevermind 2 titles or 5 finals. :rolleyes:
 
I can't really see the debate on "cherry picking".

Clay= Nadal
Anything but red clay: Fed and Novak

If you want to be as biased as @titoelcolombiano ( i respect his opinion and he's allowed to idolise Nadal), Nadal has never won the Hopman cup and he's only good on red clay. He couldn't win Madrid Masters 1000 on blue clay.:cool::cool: and Dustin Brown Steve Darcis Rosol Verdasco Fognini Pouille Kyrgios are GOAT worth.
Your hatred in blinding here. Theres having an opinion on things, and then theres you, who just rants about petty things which show hatred towards a certain player.

Big deal, the Darcis, Rosol, Brown matches happened. Its the past, no one really cares. The same as no one cares that istomin or Chung beat Djokovic. These guys aren't invincible every day of the year. Get over it.
 
He had 2 Everests aka Federer and Nadal to climb, when he started winning as a pro. We look at Everest, we say OK and simply turn around and go away. He says OK and starts climbing. Many fail to see what is in plain sight - he still is.

I think it's a very common mistake people make - to project their own self onto others - to think he sees anything tennis the same way we see. That is why he already did what no one but himself thought was humanly possible.

We do not know how it will end, but we can enjoy the ride.
The 2nd highest mountain K2, is actually harder to climb and more treacherous ,hence most avoid it.
I do hope Nole gets to the top of his Everest, but it is secondary to others- like standalone AO goat (already accomplished, but another would seal it), hardcourt goat status and the DCGS.
 
I can't really see the debate on "cherry picking".

Clay= Nadal
Anything but red clay: Fed and Novak

If you want to be as biased as @titoelcolombiano ( i respect his opinion and he's allowed to idolise Nadal), Nadal has never won the Hopman cup and he's only good on red clay. He couldn't win Madrid Masters 1000 on blue clay.:cool::cool: and Dustin Brown Steve Darcis Rosol Verdasco Fognini Pouille Kyrgios are GOAT worth.
Hey c'mon! Noone said anything about blue clay - Fed is the blue clay GOAT - everyone knows that ;)
 
I am fine with you repeating your findings, just like I cannot stop many to believe in things that live only to service their own reality.

I already pointed at the weaknesses in your approach, so I am satisfied that I had the chance to address them. Nothing changes just because you are choosing to ignore facts highly relevant to tennis knowledge.

:cool:
And when the weaknesses in your approach are pointed out, you move the goalposts ;)
 
"At the end of the year that they both turned 32 Federer and Nadal had won both won 17 slams and Rafa had 33 M1000 titles to Federer's 21."

Because Nadal is the king of clay: 11/17 of his GS and 24 of his 33 MS1000 have been won on clay.

I agree you can't cherry pick parts of someone's career. Nadal has won 8 matches at wimbledon from 2012 to 2017 and has lost to players he should have never lost to. At the YEC he's lost many times in the RR without even winning the tournament once. On the other hand Djokovic and Fed have won the tournament 5 and 6 times.
Without the homogenization of the surfaces Nadal wouldn't be in the discussion.
I just to re-iterate that my posts are not designed to bash Federer and Djoker, but to point out that some of the standards being applied to Rafa are a little unfair.

Rafa won 24 of his 33 M1000 on clay - 72%
Djoker won 24 of his 32 M1000 on hard - 75% (yet this is never mentioned)

Rafa won 11 of his 17 slams on clay - 64%
Djoker won 10 of his 15 slams on hard - 66% (yes this is never mentioned)

Yes, Rafa had a horror run at Wimby and has exited slams early on 12 occasions, but so has Federer and Djokovic has exited slams early on 10 occasions. They have both lost to guys they should never have lost too also. It is not just a Rafa thing.
 
I just to re-iterate that my posts are not designed to bash Federer and Djoker, but to point out that some of the standards being applied to Rafa are a little unfair.

Rafa won 24 of his 33 M1000 on clay - 72%
Djoker won 24 of his 32 M1000 on hard - 75% (yet this is never mentioned)

Rafa won 11 of his 17 slams on clay - 64%
Djoker won 10 of his 15 slams on hard - 66% (yes this is never mentioned)

Yes, Rafa had a horror run at Wimby and has exited slams early on 12 occasions, but so has Federer and Djokovic has exited slams early on 10 occasions. They have both lost to guys they should never have lost too also. It is not just a Rafa thing.
Clay is a specialist surface just like grass. Playing from the back with heavy top spin and putting the ball back in play will get you far on that surface.

On the other hand every style of play can be played on hard court. Especially the courts are really slow nowadays. Even grass doesn't pay as fast as it used to. Fed and Novak are more versatile players. They are just as good on every surface. Even on Clay they mostly lost to the king of clay. That's why they were able to achieve consecutive finals and semi finals on multiple years avoiding early exits. Fed played 18 GS finals out of 19 GS 23 consecutive semi finals.

In 2005 2006 and 2015 they won 94% of their matches.

Hard courts at the Us open and at the AO don't play the same. They are two different surfaces. Something that's not mentioned Fed was able to win on every hard courts.

Us open 2004 when the courts were green and from 2005 when they are blue inside the lines.
Australian Open in 2004 2006 2007 when the courts were green and 2010 207 2018 the were blue.
 
Last edited:
Hey c'mon! Noone said anything about blue clay - Fed is the blue clay GOAT - everyone knows that ;)
Your hatred in blinding here. Theres having an opinion on things, and then theres you, who just rants about petty things which show hatred towards a certain player.

Big deal, the Darcis, Rosol, Brown matches happened. Its the past, no one really cares. The same as no one cares that istomin or Chung beat Djokovic. These guys aren't invincible every day of the year. Get over it.
There's no hatred.

Everyone knows that Djokovic was out of form in 2017 2018 and lost to players he didn't used to like Istomin Chung Ceccinato Kyrgios Berdych Thiem Klizan and even Nadal to some extent (Madrid 2017 and Roma 2018).

https://www.atptour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/novak-djokovic-vs-rafael-nadal/D643/N409

Last time Nadal has won a set against Novak on hard courts was in the Us open 2013.
Last time Nadal had beaten Novak before Madrid 2017 was in the FO final 2014.

There's no hatred against Nadal. But i do find it unfair to compare him to Novak and Fed who are in a league of their own.

Still Nadal has had an amazing career and is an incredible player. 11 FO 11 MC 11 Barcelona 8 Roma 2 Wimbledon's 3 Us open's 1 AO 81 winning streak on clay 50 consecutive sets on clay in 2017 and 2018.
 
Last edited:
yes, that horror run is included in his 12 early exists from slams
Fed and Novak have dominated the tour playing for example 18 GS finals out of 19 23 consecutive semi finals winning 94% of their matches in 2005 2006 2015 having played all slams finals on the same year etc etc. Nadal lost many times in the early rounds who didn't even show up due to injuries because of his lack of tennis skills compared to Novak and Fed.

Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world. 8 matches won from 2012 to 2017 is really bad and shows how much Nadal is the guy of one surface compared to Novak and Fed.

Novak was out of form in 2017 and 2018 at the FO and still reached the quarter finals.
Fed was playing bad in 2013 and he still reached the quarters of the FO in 2013 and the 3rd round in 2014 winning 7 matches.

On the other hand Nadal won 8 matches in 5 participations at Wimbledon.....
 
Last edited:
Well, leaving aside that it is about two of maximun legends of tennis, from the numbers and statistics I think Novak is already above Rafa. 2 Grand Slam and 1 Masters 1000 of difference in favor of Nadal is not enough advantage when we see that Nole has 5 ATP Finals against none of the Spanish. the Serbian also marked Nadal in h2h, and also in weeks and years as No. 1. And another thing that some may not have noticed: Nole is right now a one single Slam away to win the big four in a row for the second time, which would be a feat in the modern tennis since the only one to achieve such a thing was Rod Laver in the 60s. That level of dominance in all majors was almost not seen in the open era (well, Federer did it in his best years of course, but Nadal overshadowed him in RG, Borg acumulates Wimbly and RG in piles, but almost didnt play AO and lost every USO final that he played, Mcenroe... he was in something else, Lendl was a simply regular player in grass, and Sampras was an simply regular player on clay)

If anyone rush me, I'd say it's much closer to Fed than many people think. Now if it only serves count the Slams, it is a matter of each one.
 
Last edited:
There's no hatred against Nadal. But i do find it unfair to compare him to Novak and Fed who are in a league of their own.
They really aren't though when Rafa is second in slams, 1st in M1000 and only one YE # 1 behind both Federer and Djokovic.

The areas that he trails are: WTF and weeks at # 1. Whilst I acknowledge the WTF as our 5th biggest tournament, it doesn't get a category all of it's own when all slams are lumped into one and all M1000 are lumped into one. Having said that, he is behind though but there must come a tipping point very soon that his lack of WTF gets offset by his M1000 lead over Fed. Currently at 6 but you would imagine will continue to grow at least for a couple of seasons.

The weeks at # differential to Djokovic was about 25 - 30 weeks at the end of last season, that is literally the difference between Rafa having hung on to # 1 and not. Not really a gaping difference.

Now that I've acknowledged Rafa's holes, let's have a look at the obvious ones for the other two that are in a 'league of their own'. Djoker 15 slams is the big one for him and currently not the M1000 leader despite all of his suposed dominance in this area over the years. Also he has won 66% of his slams and 75% of his M1000 on hard courts which is ok because a title is a title, but it is more concentrated than Rafa's numbers that he is slated for all the time 64% of slams and 72% of M1000 on clay.

Fed M1000 title are a major concern as Djokodal close in on the slam record. As Djokodal keep adding to their legacy in the coming years than the slam recored itself and other previously assumed unobtainable key stats such as weeks at # 1 will look vulnerable.

I genuinely think all three of these guys are as good as each other. It is disingenuous to say that Djokerer are in a league of their own.
 
Clay is a specialist surface just like grass. Playing from the back with heavy top spin and putting the ball back in play will get you far on that surface.

On the other hand every style of play can be played on hard court. Especially the courts are really slow nowadays. Even grass doesn't pay as fast as it used to. Fed and Novak are more versatile players. They are just as good on every surface. Even on Clay they mostly lost to the king of clay. That's why they were able to achieve consecutive finals and semi finals on multiple years avoiding early exits. Fed played 18 GS finals out of 19 GS 23 consecutive semi finals.

In 2005 2006 and 2015 they won 94% of their matches.

Hard courts at the Us open and at the AO don't play the same. They are two different surfaces. Something that's not mentioned Fed was able to win on every hard courts.

Us open 2004 when the courts were green and from 2005 when they are blue inside the lines.
Australian Open in 2004 2006 2007 when the courts were green and 2010 207 2018 the were blue.
Fed & Djoker are more versitile yet haven't won multiple slams on all surfaces.
Fed & Djoker are more versitile yet they haven't won the channel slam (opposing specialist surfaces like you say) twice
Fed & Djoker are more versitile yet Rafa has won 6 titles on hard and grass and Djokerer have combined for two on clay
On clay they mostly lost to the king of clay? No, they've lost to him 5 times but that leaves the 11 times Fed has lost to someone else and the 7 times Djoker lost to someone else.
Fed & Djoker are just as good on every surface? The stats don't really back this up. Their performances are all showing a steadily high level with Fed & Rafa standing out at Wimby & RG respectively.
  • AO finals:
    • Fed 6
    • Djoker 7
    • Rafa 5
  • RG finals:
    • Fed 5
    • Djoker 4
    • Rafa 11
  • WIM finals
    • Fed 11
    • Djoker 6
    • Rafa 5
  • USO finals
    • Fed 7
    • Djoker 5
    • Rafa 4
Re: the supposed dominance of Fed & Djoker, it is pretty clear that Rafa has had an injury punctuated career. The fact that he is on 17 slams, 33 M1000, 80 career titles and still at the top of the game adds to his legacy rather than detracts from it. And despite the perception of far greater dominance by Djokerer, they are still only one YE # 1 ahead of Rafa.... that's it. Not really a gaping hole. Federer utterly dominated his generation like the champion he is, but the winning significantly slowed once Djoker & Rafa matured.

In terms of hard court speeds, sure, I understand that, but Madrid plays differently to RG. Wimby at the start of Fed's career plays differently to now. Laver won the grand slam when three of the four slams were played on grass. This is why distribution has never mattered historically and doesn't matter now. A slam is a slam and a title is a title. But if we are going to slate Rafa for winning 64% of slams and 66% of M1000 on clay then Djoker must be put under the spotlight for winning 66% of slams and 75% of M1000 on hard.
 
They really aren't though when Rafa is second in slams, 1st in M1000 and only one YE # 1 behind both Federer and Djokovic.

The areas that he trails are: WTF and weeks at # 1. Whilst I acknowledge the WTF as our 5th biggest tournament, it doesn't get a category all of it's own when all slams are lumped into one and all M1000 are lumped into one. Having said that, he is behind though but there must come a tipping point very soon that his lack of WTF gets offset by his M1000 lead over Fed. Currently at 6 but you would imagine will continue to grow at least for a couple of seasons.

The weeks at # differential to Djokovic was about 25 - 30 weeks at the end of last season, that is literally the difference between Rafa having hung on to # 1 and not. Not really a gaping difference.

Now that I've acknowledged Rafa's holes, let's have a look at the obvious ones for the other two that are in a 'league of their own'. Djoker 15 slams is the big one for him and currently not the M1000 leader despite all of his suposed dominance in this area over the years. Also he has won 66% of his slams and 75% of his M1000 on hard courts which is ok because a title is a title, but it is more concentrated than Rafa's numbers that he is slated for all the time 64% of slams and 72% of M1000 on clay.

Fed M1000 title are a major concern as Djokodal close in on the slam record. As Djokodal keep adding to their legacy in the coming years than the slam recored itself and other previously assumed unobtainable key stats such as weeks at # 1 will look vulnerable.

I genuinely think all three of these guys are as good as each other. It is disingenuous to say that Djokerer are in a league of their own.

:cool::cool:

Nadal only dominates 1 surface. That's his main weakness compared to Novak and Fed.

Masters 1000 are warm up events for GS and WTF. 3 MS 1000 on clay 0 on grass.

The weeks at number 1 is only going to increase. Djokovic has got a huge lead. He hasn't won a single game last year until Queens. He's going to overtake Fed soon. The differential is going to be huge soon.

Clay court is a specialist surface. Hard court is the most fair surface. Any style of play can be played on a hard court. Nadal is king of clay but clearly behind on any other surfaces.

One of Nadal's biggest achievement is to have won MC Hamburg FO Queens Wimbledon Canada open and the in 2008. That was pretty amazing and impressive as winning 11 MC 11 Barcelona 8 roma 5 Madrid and 11 FO of course. But that's not enough to be in the discussion with Novak and Fed who are clearly above the rest of the field. They are just as good on any surfaces only losing to the king of clay on clay.
 
Fed and Novak have dominated the tour playing for example 18 GS finals out of 19 23 consecutive semi finals winning 94% of their matches in 2005 2006 2015 having played all slams finals on the same year etc etc. Nadal lost many times in the early rounds who didn't even show up due to injuries because of his lack of tennis skills compared to Novak and Fed.

Wimbledon is the most prestigious tennis tournament in the world. 8 matches won from 2012 to 2017 is really bad and shows how much Nadal is the guy of one surface compared to Novak and Fed.

Novak was out of form in 2017 and 2018 at the FO and still reached the quarter finals.
Fed was playing bad in 2013 and he still reached the quarters of the FO in 2013 and the 3rd round in 2014 winning 7 matches.

On the other hand Nadal won 8 matches in 5 participations at Wimbledon.....
Let's examine the early exits in slams stat again:

Federer 12
Nadal 12
Djokovic 10
 
Fed & Djoker are more versitile yet haven't won multiple slams on all surfaces.
Fed & Djoker are more versitile yet they haven't won the channel slam (opposing specialist surfaces like you say) twice
Fed & Djoker are more versitile yet Rafa has won 6 titles on hard and grass and Djokerer have combined for two on clay
On clay they mostly lost to the king of clay? No, they've lost to him 5 times but that leaves the 11 times Fed has lost to someone else and the 7 times Djoker lost to someone else.
Fed & Djoker are just as good on every surface? The stats don't really back this up. Their performances are all showing a steadily high level with Fed & Rafa standing out at Wimby & RG respectively.
  • AO finals:
    • Fed 6
    • Djoker 7
    • Rafa 5
  • RG finals:
    • Fed 5
    • Djoker 4
    • Rafa 11
  • WIM finals
    • Fed 11
    • Djoker 6
    • Rafa 5
  • USO finals
    • Fed 7
    • Djoker 5
    • Rafa 4
Re: the supposed dominance of Fed & Djoker, it is pretty clear that Rafa has had an injury punctuated career. The fact that he is on 17 slams, 33 M1000, 80 career titles and still at the top of the game adds to his legacy rather than detracts from it. And despite the perception of far greater dominance by Djokerer, they are still only one YE # 1 ahead of Rafa.... that's it. Not really a gaping hole. Federer utterly dominated his generation like the champion he is, but the winning significantly slowed once Djoker & Rafa matured.

In terms of hard court speeds, sure, I understand that, but Madrid plays differently to RG. Wimby at the start of Fed's career plays differently to now. Laver won the grand slam when three of the four slams were played on grass. This is why distribution has never mattered historically and doesn't matter now. A slam is a slam and a title is a title. But if we are going to slate Rafa for winning 64% of slams and 66% of M1000 on clay then Djoker must be put under the spotlight for winning 66% of slams and 75% of M1000 on hard.
"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
 
Last edited:
"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
Your so biased against Nadal. It is unreal.
 
Top