Djokovic or Nadal, who is the better US Open player?

[JoelSandwich]

Nadals 10 was a little bit better than 11 imo but Djokovic is still better overall just because he has a lot more quality runs

 

[BackhandDTL]

This Peter pilot guy is seriously arguing 2011 Nadal is better than 2010 Nadal?

2011 Nadal was looping backhands at the middle of the service line. His serve was WTA like in the big stages.

You can beat Roddick and pre 2012 Murray with just a forehand but not Djokovic.

 

[MichaelNadal]

How are yall still talking about this?

 

[Tshooter]

Djoker never had to go through Kandyman.

 

[DSH]

Overrated. No serve and got breadsticked by serveless Djokovic in the 4th.

If you want to overrated Hewitt, 35-year-old Agassi, Roddick, and first time finalist in Djokovic and Murray, be my guest.
That changes absolutely nothing.
Nadal of 2011 is superior to all of them.

 

[DSH]

Debatable. Agassi 2005 USO was on par.

But 2011 Nadal wasn't better than several other non-finalists of Federer from 2004 to 2008

Nadal, 25, is not on par with Agassi, 35. No. He is superior.

In addition, the American reached the limit physically, to that final. Even if he had won the third set, he would have lost the following sets decisively.
What ended up happening, losing in the fourth, 6 to 1.

And Nadal of 2011 is superior to Hewitt (double 6 0), Roddick, Djokovic, and especially Murray (one of the two worst GS finals that the Scots played was against Federer in 2008. Terrible).

 

[DSH]

nah. He had one good set in the final. Besides that, he was serveless and his shots weren't nearly as penetrating as they were in 2010. It would have been a very disappointing performance overall if not for that one set which suddenly makes everyone think that the whole match was good. I'd take Agassi 2005 over him tbh, even though he was past-prime and his movement had taken a hit.

Agassi was done, physically, reaching to that final.
It was a miracle, really.
Anyway, if Federer fans want to believe that the Open finalists in that span of time showed an extraordinary level, it is their perception.
It won't change anything.

 

[Third Serve]

Agassi was done, physically, reaching to that final.
It was a miracle, really.
Anyway, if Federer fans want to believe that the Open finalists in that span of time showed an extraordinary level, it is their perception.
It won't change anything.

Not saying it was an extraordinary level, but neither was Nadal's in that 2011 final. Just because his name is Rafael Nadal doesn't mean that he'll live up to that name all the time. Otherwise, he'd never have upsets. And he certainly disappointed in the 2011 final, save for the great third set.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Titles:
Nadal 4 - 3 Djokovic

USO H2H:
Nadal 2 - 1 Djokovic

 

[NatF]

If you want to overrated Hewitt, 35-year-old Agassi, Roddick, and first time finalist in Djokovic and Murray, be my guest.
That changes absolutely nothing.
Nadal of 2011 is superior to all of them.

Didn't say Hewitt or Murray, the 05-07 finalists were at similar level though.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal, 25, is not on par with Agassi, 35. No. He is superior.

In general yes, in that particular match no. Why did he win less games than 35 year old Agassi if he was so much better?

In addition, the American reached the limit physically, to that final. Even if he had won the third set, he would have lost the following sets decisively.
What ended up happening, losing in the fourth, 6 to 1.

Meanwhile 25 year old Nadal got breadsticked by a serveless Djokovic in the 4th set after barely escaping a straight sets loss.

And Nadal of 2011 is superior to Hewitt (double 6 0), Roddick, Djokovic, and especially Murray (one of the two worst GS finals that the Scots played was against Federer in 2008. Terrible).

He was superior to Roddick how? Roddick actually went toe to toe with one of the best versions of Federer in sets 2 and 3 in the 2006 final. Nadal only played one good set and was broken 11 times by Djokovic. Roddick was broken only 5 times by Fed.

Nadal was better than 2004 Hewitt and 2008 Murray. But not better than the other finalists. And certainly not better than several non-finalists like 2004 Agassi, 2005 Hewitt, 2007 Roddick, 2008 Djokovic, 2009 Soderling and 2009 Djokovic.

As expected, other than his name being Rafael Nadal, you have no valid arguments

 

[mike danny]

Agassi was done, physically, reaching to that final.
It was a miracle, really.
Anyway, if Federer fans want to believe that the Open finalists in that span of time showed an extraordinary level, it is their perception.
It won't change anything.

You talk as if Nadal wasn't done physically in his final

 

[RS]

In general yes, in that particular match no. Why did he win less games than 35 year old Agassi if he was so much better?


Meanwhile 25 year old Nadal got breadsticked by a serveless Djokovic in the 4th set after barely escaping a straight sets loss.


He was superior to Roddick how? Roddick actually went toe to toe with one of the best versions of Federer in sets 2 and 3 in the 2006 final. Nadal only played one good set and was broken 11 times by Djokovic. Roddick was broken only 5 times by Fed.

Nadal was better than 2004 Hewitt and 2008 Murray. But not better than the other finalists. And certainly not better than several non-finalists like 2004 Agassi, 2005 Hewitt, 2007 Roddick, 2008 Djokovic, 2009 Soderling and 2009 Djokovic.

As expected, other than his name being Rafael Nadal, you have no valid arguments

Not saying Nadal of the USO 11 final was better than all those finalists but you ignore ground-game and defending were Nadal scores over many of those opponents you list.

 

[mike danny]

Not saying Nadal of the USO 11 final was better than all those finalists but you ignore ground-game and defending were Nadal scores over many of those opponents you list.

Mostly because he couldn't serve his way out of trouble.

Roddick being able to win many points easily with his serve shouldn't be held against him.

 

[RS]

Mostly because he couldn't serve his way out of trouble.

Roddick being able to win many points easily with his serve shouldn't be held against him.

Ground play is still significant I think even taking that into account with Roddick serving way better and being more attacking. Federer returning negates Roddick serve quite a bit too and then the ground comes into play somewhat.

 

[mike danny]

Ground play is still significant I think even taking that into account with Roddick serving way better and being more attacking. Federer returning negates Roddick serve quite a bit too and then the ground comes into play somewhat.

Yes, Nadal is better at defending than those guys but those guys still doing well shows that defending is not everything.

Roddick managed to hold his own better than Nadal somewhat despite Fed being better than him in every facet of the game.

 

[RS]

Yes, Nadal is better at defending than those guys but those guys still doing well shows that defending is not everything.

Roddick managed to hold his own better than Nadal somewhat despite Fed being better than him in every facet of the game.

Yeah it’s not everything but you underrate that Nadal imo.

I didn’t say Nadal was even better but he has some advantages in the debate too. I don’t agree Roddick held his own better but that’s another issue.

 

[DSH]

In general yes, in that particular match no. Why did he win less games than 35 year old Agassi if he was so much better?


Meanwhile 25 year old Nadal got breadsticked by a serveless Djokovic in the 4th set after barely escaping a straight sets loss.


He was superior to Roddick how? Roddick actually went toe to toe with one of the best versions of Federer in sets 2 and 3 in the 2006 final. Nadal only played one good set and was broken 11 times by Djokovic. Roddick was broken only 5 times by Fed.

Nadal was better than 2004 Hewitt and 2008 Murray. But not better than the other finalists. And certainly not better than several non-finalists like 2004 Agassi, 2005 Hewitt, 2007 Roddick, 2008 Djokovic, 2009 Soderling and 2009 Djokovic.

As expected, other than his name being Rafael Nadal, you have no valid arguments

First of all, don't be dismissive.


So I was just talking about the period from 2004 to 2008 but it doesn't matter.
Let's see by name:
Agassi from 2004 was playing very well but that version is inferior to the one from 2001, the one he lost against Sampras.
Nadal in 5 sets too (The Spaniard is one of the best to play in bad weather conditions).

Hewitt from 2005 was great, but Nadal match-up well with the Australian. Everything 'Rusty' can throw at Bull, the Spaniard can do better.
Nadal in 4 or 5 sets but he would beat the Australian anyway.

Roddick from 2007 would have been more difficult for Nadal than the Australian, but the Spaniard is mentally stronger than the American.
Nadal in 5 sets. He clearly is the bigger match player of the two in these crunch confrontations.

Against Soderling of 2009, it would be the same as against the American: the Spaniard would find a way to defeat the big 'hitter' in a best-of-five-sets match, on hard court. Bull's consistency is superior to that of his rival.
Nadal in 4 or 5 sets.

And against Djokovic, well, those versions were great but inferior to 2011, his peak.
The inexperience of those years is a point against him, so even if you think that those Joker performances could beat Nadal, I think the Spaniard would also have the same chance of defeating 'them'.


PS: Murray's performance in the 2008 final is the second worst Grand Slam final that the Scotish have played in his career.
His level in the final of Australia in 2011 takes all the honors.
Nadal from 2011 would have demolished him, as Federer did that time.

 

[NatF]

Not saying Nadal of the USO 11 final was better than all those finalists but you ignore ground-game and defending were Nadal scores over many of those opponents you list.

Different match dynamics. Nadal in 2011 (and both finalists in 2013 for that matter) hit a lot of neutral balls, but they're obviously great movers who were capable of great shotmaking and defence to offence on the run. Where as in say 2005 I would say the quality of ballstriking was at a clearly higher level, enough for Agassi to give a superb mover like Fed a tough ride - it would be enough to give Djokodal a lot of pain as well. In the end Agassi played three good/great sets before he ran out gas, where as say 2011 Nadal played a couple of mediocre/bad sets and one supremely physical set which took him out of the rest of the match. I think the intensity Nadal showed in that 3rd set was on another level to what Agassi with his diminished movement could keep up with and presumably Nadal would have more in the tank if he was playing Agassi because of that. But for the first two sets comparing both matches Agassi was clearly the better player. So I think it's fair to call them similar.

In 2006 Roddick obviously served from another planet compared to 2011 Nadal, he also attacked neutral balls and came in frequently rather than the more patient ground game of Djokodal - obviously both guys in 2006 had a lot of free points on serve so there were less neutral rallies. Roddick did actually move well and hang tough in some longer rallies as well against the best of Federer so behind his serve I think he can definitely keep up with 2011 Nadal, plus despite being a weaker returner than the Big 3 Nadal's serve in 2011 was very attackable and Roddick would get plenty of looks. Problem with 2006 Roddick is that he started the match flat footed and lost all belief in the 4th, I don't think he loses belief against Nadal in the same way but obviously a slow start isn't great. He was able to build momentum at the end of the first against a well playing Federer though, I don't think Nadal returns his serve nearly as well as Federer did - so it's not a gimme. Obviously the intensity and movement and hitting that Nadal had in the 3rd set again gives him an edge over Roddick in the rallies but considering the Roddick serve it's hard to know how much that's a factor and he was able to go 5-7 with Federer in the third who I think was definitely playing better than either of the 2011 finalists. Again calling them similar is enough. Both are four set matches, I do think Federer was the better winner which should be factored in as well but obviously Nadal is Nadal and he's a better big match player.

 

[tennis_pro]

At this moment it's Nadal.

Sure, he got some easier draws, but Djokovic also got 2014, 2016 and 2020 and failed to convert them. Imagine the backlash if Nadal was the one who got them.

Yes we know Nadal goes super sayan mode when he gets a powderpuff draw. Then after he beats Berrettini Nadal fans claim this is the best form he's ever been in and that no-one would take him down

 

[mike danny]

Yeah it’s not everything but you underrate that Nadal imo.

I didn’t say Nadal was even better but he has some advantages in the debate too. I don’t agree Roddick held his own better but that’s another issue.

Roddick, IMO, held his own better for 2 sets than Nadal. And didn't get breadsticked by a serveless Fed.

 

[mike danny]

First of all, don't be dismissive.


So I was just talking about the period from 2004 to 2008 but it doesn't matter.
Let's see by name:
Agassi from 2004 was playing very well but that version is inferior to the one from 2001, the one he lost against Sampras.
Nadal in 5 sets too (The Spaniard is one of the best to play in bad weather conditions).

Hewitt from 2005 was great, but Nadal match-up well with the Australian. Everything 'Rusty' can throw at Bull, the Spaniard can do better.
Nadal in 4 or 5 sets but he would beat the Australian anyway.

Roddick from 2007 would have been more difficult for Nadal than the Australian, but the Spaniard is mentally stronger than the American.
Nadal in 5 sets. He clearly is the bigger match player of the two in these crunch confrontations.

Against Soderling of 2009, it would be the same as against the American: the Spaniard would find a way to defeat the big 'hitter' in a best-of-five-sets match, on hard court. Bull's consistency is superior to that of his rival.
Nadal in 4 or 5 sets.

And against Djokovic, well, those versions were great but inferior to 2011, his peak.
The inexperience of those years is a point against him, so even if you think that those Joker performances could beat Nadal, I think the Spaniard would also have the same chance of defeating 'them'.


PS: Murray's performance in the 2008 final is the second worst Grand Slam final that the Scotish have played in his career.
His level in the final of Australia in 2011 takes all the honors.
Nadal from 2011 would have demolished him, as Federer did that time.

I appreciate you taking the time to do this analysis and I apologize for sounding so dismissive.

But whether Nadal would win against all these other players or not isn't really relevant to this discussion. The point is that he wasn't any better than those lesser players against a peaking ATG in the final and that's all that matters. That's why his 2011 iteration is mostly in their tier as far as USO performances go.

However, 2004 Agassi was the best of the lot.

 

[RS]

Roddick, IMO, held his own better for 2 sets than Nadal. And didn't get breadsticked by a serveless Fed.

Yeah agree to disagree. And Roddick did get 6-2ed and 6-1ed.

 

[NatF]

I appreciate you taking the time to do this analysis and I apologize for sounding so dismissive.

But whether Nadal would win against all these other players or not isn't really relevant to this discussion. The point is that he wasn't any better than those lesser players against a peaking ATG in the final and that's all that matters. That's why his 2011 iteration is mostly in their tier as far as USO performances go.

However, 2004 Agassi was the best of the lot.

It's enough to say that 2011 Nadal who was playing considerably worse than 04-07 Fed has a clearly more difficult time beating those guys than Fed did. They're comparable enough.

 

[mike danny]

Different match dynamics. Nadal in 2011 (and both finalists in 2013 for that matter) hit a lot of neutral balls, but they're obviously great movers who were capable of great shotmaking and defence to offence on the run. Where as in say 2005 I would say the quality of ballstriking was at a clearly higher level, enough for Agassi to give a superb mover like Fed a tough ride - it would be enough to give Djokodal a lot of pain as well. In the end Agassi played three good/great sets before he ran out gas, where as say 2011 Nadal played a couple of mediocre/bad sets and one supremely physical set which took him out of the rest of the match. I think the intensity Nadal showed in that 3rd set was on another level to what Agassi with his diminished movement could keep up with and presumably Nadal would have more in the tank if he was playing Agassi because of that. But for the first two sets comparing both matches Agassi was clearly the better player. So I think it's fair to call them similar.

In 2006 Roddick obviously served from another planet compared to 2011 Nadal, he also attacked neutral balls and came in frequently rather than the more patient ground game of Djokodal - obviously both guys in 2006 had a lot of free points on serve so there were less neutral rallies. Roddick did actually move well and hang tough in some longer rallies as well against the best of Federer so behind his serve I think he can definitely keep up with 2011 Nadal, plus despite being a weaker returner than the Big 3 Nadal's serve in 2011 was very attackable and Roddick would get plenty of looks. Problem with 2006 Roddick is that he started the match flat footed and lost all belief in the 4th, I don't think he loses belief against Nadal in the same way but obviously a slow start isn't great. He was able to build momentum at the end of the first against a well playing Federer though, I don't think Nadal returns his serve nearly as well as Federer did - so it's not a gimme. Obviously the intensity and movement and hitting that Nadal had in the 3rd set again gives him an edge over Roddick in the rallies but considering the Roddick serve it's hard to know how much that's a factor and he was able to go 5-7 with Federer in the third who I think was definitely playing better than either of the 2011 finalists. Again calling them similar is enough. Both are four set matches, I do think Federer was the better winner which should be factored in as well but obviously Nadal is Nadal and he's a better big match player.

Great post. Each of 2011 Nadal, 2005 Agassi, 2006 Roddick and 2013 Djokovic have their strengths and weaknesses and played similar matches against a peaking ATG.

What makes them similar, IMO, is that all would give a fight to a peak ATG, but wouldn't have enough in them to make it tighter than a comfortable 4 setter.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah agree to disagree. And Roddick did get 6-2ed and 6-1ed.

Well, since Nadal got 6-2ed and 6-1ed too, I call it an even playing field.

 

[RS]

Different match dynamics. Nadal in 2011 (and both finalists in 2013 for that matter) hit a lot of neutral balls, but they're obviously great movers who were capable of great shotmaking and defence to offence on the run. Where as in say 2005 I would say the quality of ballstriking was at a clearly higher level, enough for Agassi to give a superb mover like Fed a tough ride - it would be enough to give Djokodal a lot of pain as well. In the end Agassi played three good/great sets before he ran out gas, where as say 2011 Nadal played a couple of mediocre/bad sets and one supremely physical set which took him out of the rest of the match. I think the intensity Nadal showed in that 3rd set was on another level to what Agassi with his diminished movement could keep up with and presumably Nadal would have more in the tank if he was playing Agassi because of that. But for the first two sets comparing both matches Agassi was clearly the better player. So I think it's fair to call them similar.

In 2006 Roddick obviously served from another planet compared to 2011 Nadal, he also attacked neutral balls and came in frequently rather than the more patient ground game of Djokodal - obviously both guys in 2006 had a lot of free points on serve so there were less neutral rallies. Roddick did actually move well and hang tough in some longer rallies as well against the best of Federer so behind his serve I think he can definitely keep up with 2011 Nadal, plus despite being a weaker returner than the Big 3 Nadal's serve in 2011 was very attackable and Roddick would get plenty of looks. Problem with 2006 Roddick is that he started the match flat footed and lost all belief in the 4th, I don't think he loses belief against Nadal in the same way but obviously a slow start isn't great. He was able to build momentum at the end of the first against a well playing Federer though, I don't think Nadal returns his serve nearly as well as Federer did - so it's not a gimme. Obviously the intensity and movement and hitting that Nadal had in the 3rd set again gives him an edge over Roddick in the rallies but considering the Roddick serve it's hard to know how much that's a factor and he was able to go 5-7 with Federer in the third who I think was definitely playing better than either of the 2011 finalists. Again calling them similar is enough. Both are four set matches, I do think Federer was the better winner which should be factored in as well but obviously Nadal is Nadal and he's a better big match player.

Similar level yes that is fine but he was pumping those finalists which makes them look way better then not giving enough USO 11 Djokovic who was playing at a very high level in the final which was my only point not to say he was way better or anything like that. I agree about the ground-game and the serve stuff and much of the rest.

I do not want to comment to much on the Roddick vs Nadal who would win at the USO stuff or some of the other hypothicals (to a lesser extent) which has been covered way too much in this site and i am sure you have a idea what my view is on that.

 

[RS]

Well, since Nadal got 6-2ed and 6-1ed too, I call it an even playing field.

Fine.

 

[NatF]

Similar level yes that is fine but he was pumping those finalists which makes them look way better then not giving enough USO 11 Djokovic who was playing at a very high level in the final which was my only point not to say he was way better or anything like that. I agree about the ground-game and the serve stuff and much of the rest.

I do not want to comment to much on the Roddick vs Nadal who would win at the USO stuff or some of the other hypothicals (to a lesser extent) which has been covered way too much in this site and i am sure you have a idea what my view is on that.

Fair enough, I think Djokovic was good in 2011 final - very good off the ground. I do think the fact that his serve wasn't great (and was downright poor in the 4th) diminishes it somewhat though.

Pretty sure it was a Nadal fan saying 2011'Dal was clearly better than any finalist Fed faced that started this BTW.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Nadal of 2011 is better is better than any of the finalists Federer faced between 2004 and 2008 at the Open.

No

 

[RS]

Fair enough, I think Djokovic was good in 2011 final - very good off the ground. I do think the fact that his serve wasn't great (and was downright poor in the 4th) diminishes it somewhat though.

Pretty sure it was a Nadal fan saying 2011'Dal was clearly better than any finalist Fed faced that started this BTW.

I did not follow the whole thing it was only the climax stage i saw. Anyways i agreed a similar level was more than fine.

 

[Beckerserve]

Nadal. More titles, better H2H. Defeated Novak in 2 finals.

This one should be a no-brainer, but Djokovic fans have always been in denial about it.

I have never understood why Djokovic fans have refused to concede this point. Nadal won the USO race to date and likely forever now. But most think Nadal committed fraud with the draws and stole the titles.

 

[octogon]

I have never understood why Djokovic fans have refused to concede this point. Nadal won the USO race to date and likely forever now. But most think Nadal committed fraud with the draws and stole the titles.

Because they think Djokovic is the "Hardcourt GOAT" and Nadal shouldn't be able to have a better hardcourt record anywhere, let alone at a Major. Reality doesn't compute that Djokovic is nowhere as dominant on hardcourts as Nadal is on clay, so he can be a bit weaker on different hardcourts. One of his weaker hardcourts happens to be the US Open.

 

[DSH]

I have never understood why Djokovic fans have refused to concede this point. Nadal won the USO race to date and likely forever now. But most think Nadal committed fraud with the draws and stole the titles.

Nadal, who is ahead of Djokovic at the US Open, the most prestigious hard court tournament in the world, would have won one and even two more titles of this tournament if the Spaniard had played those editions that he missed (2012, 2014 and 2020).

 

[metsman]

Different match dynamics. Nadal in 2011 (and both finalists in 2013 for that matter) hit a lot of neutral balls, but they're obviously great movers who were capable of great shotmaking and defence to offence on the run. Where as in say 2005 I would say the quality of ballstriking was at a clearly higher level, enough for Agassi to give a superb mover like Fed a tough ride - it would be enough to give Djokodal a lot of pain as well. In the end Agassi played three good/great sets before he ran out gas, where as say 2011 Nadal played a couple of mediocre/bad sets and one supremely physical set which took him out of the rest of the match. I think the intensity Nadal showed in that 3rd set was on another level to what Agassi with his diminished movement could keep up with and presumably Nadal would have more in the tank if he was playing Agassi because of that. But for the first two sets comparing both matches Agassi was clearly the better player. So I think it's fair to call them similar.

In 2006 Roddick obviously served from another planet compared to 2011 Nadal, he also attacked neutral balls and came in frequently rather than the more patient ground game of Djokodal - obviously both guys in 2006 had a lot of free points on serve so there were less neutral rallies. Roddick did actually move well and hang tough in some longer rallies as well against the best of Federer so behind his serve I think he can definitely keep up with 2011 Nadal, plus despite being a weaker returner than the Big 3 Nadal's serve in 2011 was very attackable and Roddick would get plenty of looks. Problem with 2006 Roddick is that he started the match flat footed and lost all belief in the 4th, I don't think he loses belief against Nadal in the same way but obviously a slow start isn't great. He was able to build momentum at the end of the first against a well playing Federer though, I don't think Nadal returns his serve nearly as well as Federer did - so it's not a gimme. Obviously the intensity and movement and hitting that Nadal had in the 3rd set again gives him an edge over Roddick in the rallies but considering the Roddick serve it's hard to know how much that's a factor and he was able to go 5-7 with Federer in the third who I think was definitely playing better than either of the 2011 finalists. Again calling them similar is enough. Both are four set matches, I do think Federer was the better winner which should be factored in as well but obviously Nadal is Nadal and he's a better big match player.

Nadal's 3rd set would have still seen him probably get routined if Djokovic had a serve. It's not a better set than Agassi or Roddick 2nd sets which were basically perfect sets for them (and overall).

 

[Winner]

Djoker never had to go through Kandyman.

Nishikori was already too much.

 

[NatF]

Nadal's 3rd set would have still seen him probably get routined if Djokovic had a serve. It's not a better set than Agassi or Roddick 2nd sets which were basically perfect sets for them (and overall).

Think Roddick served at 72% in the second set, tough for anyone to get a look in there.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Nadal, who is ahead of Djokovic at the US Open, the most prestigious hard court tournament in the world, would have won one and even two more titles of this tournament if the Spaniard had played those editions that he missed (2012, 2014 and 2020).

Wrong.

 

[Beckerserve]

Nadal, who is ahead of Djokovic at the US Open, the most prestigious hard court tournament in the world, would have won one and even two more titles of this tournament if the Spaniard had played those editions that he missed (2012, 2014 and 2020).

And 2018 but for injury. I am sure he would have done to djokovic in the 2018 final what he did at RG2020 or at least straight sets.

 

[Beckerserve]

Because they think Djokovic is the "Hardcourt GOAT" and Nadal shouldn't be able to have a better hardcourt record anywhere, let alone at a Major. Reality doesn't compute that Djokovic is nowhere as dominant on hardcourts as Nadal is on clay, so he can be a bit weaker on different hardcourts. One of his weaker hardcourts happens to be the US Open.

Djokovic is not that good on decoturf actually. Laykold and greenset and plexi he is a master of course but on decoturf by comparison he is not that good at ATG level

 

[DSH]

Djokovic is not that good on decoturf actually. Laykold and greenset and plexi he is a master of course but on decoturf by comparison he is not that good at ATG level

Interestingly, Djokovic, who has won several Miami Masters 1000s on the surface that this year embraced the US Open, was disqualified from the American GS under truly dire circumstances just as the switch from Decoturf to Laykold was made.

Although winning 3 times the same Major has been achieved by very few in history, if we compare his success rate with the other GS tournament that is played on a hard court, despite the fact that in both events the Serbian has played the same amount of finals thus far (8), his record in NY pales with the tremendous achievement he has accomplished in Melbourne.

8 titles in 8 finals in Australia. 100% effective there.
Instead, he won 3 titles in 8 finals at the US Open. 37.5% effective there.
This difference in results is surprising.

 

[BGod]

I mean, 8 Finals to 5 with 1 title difference. And then you look at the draws.....

 

[DSH]

I mean, 8 Finals to 5 with 1 title difference. And then you look at the draws.....

I know!

 

[Third Serve]

I know!

This moment gets memed a lot, but I can’t help but wince whenever I see the GIF.

 

[BGod]

It's called the Andy Murray defense. Apparently you can consider Murray an ATG because he lost so many slam finals to Djokovic and Federer. LOL!

Lost finals mean nothing compared to actual titles. If Ivan Lendl had a better slam final conversion rate, he'd be in the GOAT debate. But he didn't and isn't. If Andy Roddick didn't lose so many slam finals to Federer, he might be an ATG. But he did lose them and he isn't.

4>3

Extra lost finals might be a tiebreaker metric if they have the same amount of titles, but no more.

Ignoring how draws figure into this. Putting too much stock into SFs is one thing, not nearly the same with Finals. For one, a Top 4 player in theory shouldn't have much trouble winning their quarter, if they are truly a Top 4 and not a bubble rank. Finals are about two halfs of the draw. One player benefiting greatly from a weaker SF opponent cannot be underscored. This is why in other sports you hear the old saying that "Conference Final was true Championship" because due to the gap between 2-3 especially in the Big 3 era is quite significant. Novak often times had to face Federer and Nadal to win titles.

 

[6august]

I think this is a good way to access this issue:

We all know the Champion is given 2,000 pts and the runner-up is given 1,200 pts. Just accumulate Djodal's total points from their finals and we'll know who's the better.

Djker: 3 wins = 6,000 pts. 5 losses = 6,000 pts. Total: 12,000 pts.
Nedl: 4 wins = 8,000 pts. 1 loss = 1,200 pts. Total: 9,200 pts.

The gap is 2,800 pts. More than a victory can bring.

Cheers.

 

[Deleted member 775898]

I think this is a good way to access this issue:

We all know the Champion is given 2,000 pts and the runner-up is given 1,200 pts. Just accumulate Djodal's total points from their finals and we'll know who's the better.

Djker: 3 wins = 6,000 pts. 5 losses = 6,000 pts. Total: 12,000 pts.
Nedl: 4 wins = 8,000 pts. 1 loss = 1,200 pts. Total: 9,200 pts.

The gap is 2,800 pts. More than a victory can bring.

Cheers.

By your logic, 2 Masters = 1 Slam.

 

[Beckerserve]

Interestingly, Djokovic, who has won several Miami Masters 1000s on the surface that this year embraced the US Open, was disqualified from the American GS under truly dire circumstances just as the switch from Decoturf to Laykold was made.

Although winning 3 times the same Major has been achieved by very few in history, if we compare their success rate with the other GS tournament that is played on a hard court, despite the fact that in both events the Serbian has played the same amount From finals thus far (8), his record in NY pales with the tremendous achievement he has accomplished in Melbourne.

8 titles in 8 finals in Australia. 100% effective there.
Instead, he won 3 titles in 8 finals at the US Open. 37.5% effective there.
This difference in results is surprising.

Djokovic for sure lacks the aura in NY. Matches that proved that were not losses to Nadal which are expected of nadal zones. It is Murray and wawrinka losses that show he is very beatable

 

[Third Serve]

Djokovic for sure lacks the aura in NY. Matches that proved that were not losses to Nadal which are expected of nadal zones. It is Murray and wawrinka losses that show he is very beatable

USO ain't a Nadal zone. He has the most titles there this decade, but it's not really his zone. It's the most wide-open of all the four Slams, clearly. No one's really dominated it since Fed won five in a row back in 2004-2008. When people have won multiple titles there, they've been spaced out quite a lot.

 

[Beckerserve]

USO ain't a Nadal zone. He has the most titles there this decade, but it's not really his zone. It's the most wide-open of all the four Slams, clearly. No one's really dominated it since Fed won five in a row back in 2004-2008. When people have won multiple titles there, they've been spaced out quite a lot.

4 in a 8 attempts is a zone.