Djokovic resume too skewed on Hard courts.

[veroniquem]

You do realise you have just made Djokovic half the player of Nadal don't you. Djokovic is a hard court specialist by your logic yet cannot even have a better win ratio on his best surface than Nadal despite double the opportunity.

Perhaps you care to revise your post.

???? What it means is that his wins are more spread out on all slams whereas 66.7% of Nadal’s titles are at 1 slam. It means Nadal is more specialized.
Djoko: AO = 46.7%, W = 26.6%, USO = 20%, RG = 6.7%
Nadal: RG = 66.7%, USO = 16.7%, W = 11.1%, AO = 5.5%
So, Nadal has a much higher % in his best slam than Djoko and a lower % in the other 3.

 

[ForehandRF]

@Sport Clay is less phrone to upsets than grass don't you think ?

 

[Lew II]

Federer was there in 2012-2015 as well, he was just not good enough to stop Djokovic at Wimbledon (2014, 2015) or Nadal at the Australian Open (2012, 2014).

A 33 years old Federer did not stop Djokovic in the Wimbledon 2014 final. A 33 years old Nadal stopped Thiem in the RG final. It basically refutes the age argument: if you are clearly better than another player, you should still defeat him at age 33.

Thiem is extremelly good on clay, he would have already won 3 RG titles and become an all-time great on clay if not for Nadal. In effect, Thiem would have won RG 2017, 2018 and 2019 if not for Nadal and would be in the Kuerten/Lendl tier on clay. If Nadal keeps stopping Thiem the next 3-4 years at RG, Thiem would have won 6 RG without Nadal, and would be disputing Borg the second place in the clay GOAT list if not for Nadal.

P. S.: I am not comparing Djokovic overall with Thiem, I am comparing Thiem on clay with Djokovic on grass. If not for Nadal, Thiem on clay could tie or even surpass Djokovic's grass achievements, but Nadal will stop him. On the other hand, Federer did not stop Djokovic at Wimbledon, and he should have, as he is the King of grass.

Why are you so sure Thiem wins every RG without Nadal?

Would have had to beat Wawrinka in 2017, Del Potro in 2018, Federer in 2019.

 

[Lleytonstation]

@Sport Clay is less phrone to upsets than grass don't you think ?

With less resume's to look at, less film, and less h2h, players know less about each other's games on grass. Some only play one or zero lead up tournaments to Wimbledon so they have less time to prepare and find their form or confidence. This in my opinion leads to more upsets.

 

[van_Loederen]

specialisation is a function of quality, not quantity.

well, there can be fluke or luck, but Nadal's results (and H2Hs with Fedovic) at Wimbly and the HC Slams clearly rule that out.

 

[van_Loederen]

speaking of luck, winning RG without defeating Nadal comes to mind.

 

[Pantera]

???? What it means is that his wins are more spread out on all slams whereas 66.7% of Nadal’s titles are at 1 slam. It means Nadal is more specialized.
Djoko: AO = 46.7%, W = 26.6%, USO = 20%, RG = 6.7%
Nadal: RG = 66.7%, USO = 16.7%, W = 11.1%, AO = 5.5%
So, Nadal has a much higher % in his best slam than Djoko and a lower % in the other 3.

No....Djokovic is maore of a hard court specialist than nadal is clay lol. More of his Majors are on hard percentage wise than nadal on clay, simples

 

[veroniquem]

No....Djokovic is maore of a hard court specialist than nadal is clay lol. More of his Majors are on hard percentage wise than nadal on clay, simples

OK, so I understand maths is not your forte but there are 2 slams on hard and 1 slam on clay. What you are claiming is that 50% = 25% . The result is an invalid syllogism

 

[NoleLegend2019]

Do you idiots not realize that there are different types of "hard court?" The AO and USO surfaces are nothing alike.

Whereas all clay is pretty much the same (although Madrid's plays different with the altitude), HC surfaces differ dramatically.

People lumping "HC" together should be taken out back and shot.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

The discussions going on in this thread gives me the feeling of loosing brain cells.

 

[The_Order]

Not to mention the fact that Nadal had to deal with 38 year old Federer on RG, an ombeleebebly difficult opponent

Federer's age is irrelevant when it comes to playing Nadal at RG...

 

[Gary Duane]

Using Federer fan logic Djokovic is not a complete player as 0.666 of his Majors are on Hard Court, the same as Nadal on clay.

I hope you know the correct answer is .667

 

[veroniquem]

I hope you know the correct answer is .667

I doubt it given that he doesn't know 50% > 25%

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Slam is a slam - 2000 points. Surface is irrelevant as it has been throughout tennis history.

 

[falstaff78]

Federer was there in 2012-2015 as well, he was just not good enough to stop Djokovic at Wimbledon (2014, 2015) or Nadal at the Australian Open (2012, 2014).

A 33 years old Federer did not stop Djokovic in the Wimbledon 2014 final. A 33 years old Nadal stopped Thiem in the RG final. It basically refutes the age argument: if you are clearly better than another player, you should still defeat him at age 33.

Thiem is extremelly good on clay, he would have already won 3 RG titles and become an all-time great on clay if not for Nadal. In effect, Thiem would have won RG 2017, 2018 and 2019 if not for Nadal and would be in the Kuerten/Lendl tier on clay. If Nadal keeps stopping Thiem the next 3-4 years at RG, Thiem would have won 6 RG without Nadal, and would be disputing Borg the second place in the clay GOAT list if not for Nadal.

P. S.: I am not comparing Djokovic overall with Thiem, I am comparing Thiem on clay with Djokovic on grass. If not for Nadal, Thiem on clay could tie or even surpass Djokovic's grass achievements, but Nadal will stop him. On the other hand, Federer did not stop Djokovic at Wimbledon, and he should have, as he is the King of grass.

How are you not comparing Thiem and Djokovic. That's literally what you are doing.

 

[Pantera]

I doubt it given that he doesn't know 50% > 25%

Nadal has a better spread of Majors than Djokovic, I explained the math to you.

 

[Pantera]

Slam is a slam - 2000 points. Surface is irrelevant as it has been throughout tennis history.

I am loving the meltdown of Federer fans now Nadal has utterly destroyed any chance of Federer being GOAT. Sit back and enjoy the meltdown.

 

[Pantera]

OP's posts too skewed towards stupidity and cluelessness.

10/15 majors on HC way too skewed...using Federer fan logic lmao. Loving the meltdown of Federer fans, that Nadal win at FO probably the most satisfying really

 

[Pantera]

I hope you know the correct answer is .667

10/15 = 0.66666666

 

[abmk]

10/15 majors on HC way too skewed...using Federer fan logic lmao. Loving the meltdown of Federer fans, that Nadal win at FO probably the most satisfying really

again, you don't even understand elementary things, do you ?
There are 2 slams on HC.
12/18 at one slam = 66.7% at one slam
Djokovic's highest is 7 at the AO...7/15 (46.67%)

its disappointment, not meltdown....unlike your permanent meltdown into absolutely pathetic cluelessness.

 

[Gary Duane]

again, you don't even understand elementary things, do you ?
There are 2 slams on HC.
12/18 at one slam = 66.7% at one slam
Djokovic's highest is 7 at the AO...7/15 (46.67%)

its disappointment, not meltdown....unlike your permanent meltdown into absolutely pathetic cluelessness.

I'm not going to try to explain the rules of rounding numbers to an adult.

2/3=0.7=0.67=0.667 etc.

or 0.6...

rules for repeating decimals, also the way calculators work...

 

[Third Serve]

10/15 = 0.66666666

I didn't know they stopped teaching kids how to round at school.

 

[abmk]

I'm not going to try to explain the rules of rounding numbers to an adult.

2/3=0.7=0.67=0.667 etc.

or 0.6...

rules for repeating decimals, also the way calculators work...

Should be 66.67 if you round to 2 decimal places. But anyways I wasn't fussed about that.
Was mainly talking about keeping the 2 HC slams seperate.

 

[Pantera]

again, you don't even understand elementary things, do you ?
There are 2 slams on HC.
12/18 at one slam = 66.7% at one slam
Djokovic's highest is 7 at the AO...7/15 (46.67%)

its disappointment, not meltdown....unlike your permanent meltdown into absolutely pathetic cluelessness.

Deary me lol. Ok, lets spell it out. Djokovic has 15 Majors. 10 of which are on the same surface. so, 10/15 is the same as 12/18. According to Federer fan logic that makes Djokovic a one trick pony...

 

[Pantera]

again, you don't even understand elementary things, do you ?
There are 2 slams on HC.
12/18 at one slam = 66.7% at one slam
Djokovic's highest is 7 at the AO...7/15 (46.67%)

its disappointment, not meltdown....unlike your permanent meltdown into absolutely pathetic cluelessness.

Really, Federer fans seem very salty. As bad as USO 2017, perhaps even more salty.

 

[veroniquem]

Nadal has a better spread of Majors than Djokovic, I explained the math to you.

Actually, I explained the math to you and you pretended not to understand

 

[Standaa]

That's the great part about this. Djokovic fanboys, as annoying as they are, actually have an argument sometimes. Nadal fanboys are like children. You can just brush them off

"Awww you poor thing. "

Nadal fanbase has the strangest people (dare I say caricatures) on TTW, no offense.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Nadal fanbase has the strangest people (dare I say caricatures) on TTW, no offense.

I will give it to them though, they truly believe what they are saying is true. That is talent... well not talent, but it is something.

 

[veroniquem]

I will give it to them though, they truly believe what they are saying is true. That is talent... well not talent, but it is something.

I don't believe that though. The guy is trolling.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

10/15 = 0.66666666

Let's go to M1000 level too:
Fed
Hard: 22/28 (78.5%)
Clay: 6/28 (21.5%)

Djoker
Hard: 24/33 (72.7%)
Clay: 9/33 (27.3%)

Rafa
Hard 9/34 (26.4%)
Clay 25/34 (73.5%)

Hard skewed?

 

[Pantera]

Let's go to M1000 level too:
Fed
Hard: 22/28 (78.5%)
Clay: 6/28 (21.5%)

Djoker
Hard: 24/33 (72.7%)
Clay: 9/33 (27.3%)

Rafa
Hard 9/34 (26.4%)
Clay 25/34 (73.5%)

Hard skewed?

As I say on any level Nadal's resume is the most evenly spread. We Nadal fans keep posting statistical evidence.

 

[BHud]

Thank you for admitting Nadal is at a disadvantage yet still has most Masters 1000's and more Majors than Federer at same age...I think that locks GOAT argument in Nadal's favour no?

Nah...Nads will always be the red-headed step-child...always in the passenger seat, never the driver.

 

[Pantera]

Nah...Nads will always be the red-headed step-child...always in the passenger seat, never the driver.

Every expert from Agassi to Brad Gilbert and Laver now has Nadal as GOAT, Djokovic himself says so, as does Thiem and Murray, need I go on? All after FO12 so clearly beating Court was a massive thing.

 

[Marfrilau]

Let's go to M1000 level too:
Fed
Hard: 22/28 (78.5%)
Clay: 6/28 (21.5%)

Djoker
Hard: 24/33 (72.7%)
Clay: 9/33 (27.3%)

Rafa
Hard 9/34 (26.4%)
Clay 25/34 (73.5%)

Hard skewed?

Yes Federer is skewed toward hardcourt. But not nearly as much as Nadal is towards clay. Thanks for posting the numbers proving that.

 

[Pantera]

Yes Federer is skewed toward hardcourt. But not nearly as much as Nadal is towards clay. Thanks for posting the numbers proving that.

In the GOATrace era (2008 onwards when all 3 peak at same time), Federer is indoor skewed as has won very little outdoors compared to his nemesis's Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[Marfrilau]

In the GOATrace era (2008 onwards when all 3 peak at same time), Federer is indoor skewed as has won very little outdoors compared to his nemesis's Nadal and Djokovic.

Numbers or it didn't happen...

 

[veroniquem]

You cannot do 50% = 25% but what you could do for slams is natural surfaces (clay/grass) vs synthetic (hard) because that's 50% vs 50%.
So, Nadal = Natural: 77.8% vs Synthetic: 22.2%
Djoko = Natural: 33.3% vs Synthetic: 66.7%
Fed = Natural: 45% vs Synthetic: 55%
When it comes to slams, Fed's titles are the most evenly spread, Nadal the least.

If you do the stats (= titles won) for all tier 1, you find that Djoko is the most "surface neutral" of the 3:
outdoor hard (50% of all tier 1): D 56.6%- F 61.1%- N 23.1%
clay (28.6% of all tier 1): D 18.9% - F 13%- N 71.2%
indoor hard (14.3% of all tier 1): D 17%- F 11.1%- N 1.9%
grass (7.1% of all tier 1): D 7.5%- F 14.8%- N 3.8%

Bold black is for % of titles won closest to % of tier 1 played : Djokovic in all cases.
Bold red is for % of titles won farthest from % of tier 1 played: Nadal in 3 cases, Fed in 1
The farthest stat from events played % is Nadal on clay (= highest specialization)

If you apply the same system to slams, you have 50% on outdoor hard, 25% on clay, 25% on grass
50% hard: D 66.7% - N 22.2% - F 55%
25% clay: D 6.7% - N 66.7% - F 5%
25% grass: D 26.7% - N 11.1% - F 40%

Same conclusions apply: Djoko = most surface neutral and Nadal least.

 

[abmk]

In the GOATrace era (2008 onwards when all 3 peak at same time), Federer is indoor skewed as has won very little outdoors compared to his nemesis's Nadal and Djokovic.

Federer has won 8 slams from 2008 onwards.
Oh and Nadal has won clearly lesser # of slams where there is actual competition (grass and HC) = 6 slams.
oh and Nadal won only 6 slams in their mutual peak -- 2005 to 2009
Federer won 11 slams.

 

[abmk]

Let's go to M1000 level too:
Fed
Hard: 22/28 (78.5%)
Clay: 6/28 (21.5%)

Djoker
Hard: 24/33 (72.7%)
Clay: 9/33 (27.3%)

Rafa
Hard 9/34 (26.4%)
Clay 25/34 (73.5%)

Hard skewed?

there are 6 HC masters and 3 clay masters, genius !
So for a perfectly even distribution, it should be 66.67% HC, 33.33% clay
fed's extra% on HC ~ 12%
djoko's extra% on HC ~ 6%
nadal's extra% on clay ~ 40%

 

[MeatTornado]

Every expert from Agassi to Brad Gilbert and Laver now has Nadal as GOAT, Djokovic himself says so, as does Thiem and Murray, need I go on? All after FO12 so clearly beating Court was a massive thing.

Can I get a source on Laver saying Nadal is GOAT?

 

[abmk]

Can I get a source on Laver saying Nadal is GOAT?

Laver only said Nadal was clay GOAT.
But Pantera is so deluded that he manages to convince himself that that meant Laver said Nadal is overall GOAT

 

[BHud]

As I say on any level Nadal's resume is the most evenly spread. We Nadal fans keep posting statistical evidence.

Let me repeat, "if you torture the number long enough, they will confess to anything". You are simply soiling yourself at this point...

 

[MeatTornado]

Laver only said Nadal was clay GOAT.
But Pantera is so deluded that he manages to convince himself that that meant Laver said Nadal is overall GOAT

I knew there was no way Rocket actually said that, which is why I asked for a source I knew he couldn't cite.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Federer was there in 2012-2015 as well, he was just not good enough to stop Djokovic at Wimbledon (2014, 2015) or Nadal at the Australian Open (2012, 2014).

A 33 years old Federer did not stop Djokovic in the Wimbledon 2014 final. A 33 years old Nadal stopped Thiem in the RG final. It basically refutes the age argument: if you are clearly better than another player, you should still defeat him at age 33.

Thiem is extremelly good on clay, he would have already won 3 RG titles and become an all-time great on clay if not for Nadal. In effect, Thiem would have won RG 2017, 2018 and 2019 if not for Nadal and would be in the Kuerten/Lendl tier on clay. If Nadal keeps stopping Thiem the next 3-4 years at RG, Thiem would have won 6 RG without Nadal, and would be disputing Borg the second place in the clay GOAT list if not for Nadal.

P. S.: I am not comparing Djokovic overall with Thiem, I am comparing Thiem on clay with Djokovic on grass. If not for Nadal, Thiem on clay could tie or even surpass Djokovic's grass achievements, but Nadal will stop him. On the other hand, Federer did not stop Djokovic at Wimbledon, and he should have, as he is the King of grass.

This is way too simplistic.

 

[Pantera]

Federer has won 8 slams from 2008 onwards.
Oh and Nadal has won clearly lesser # of slams where there is actual competition (grass and HC) = 6 slams.
oh and Nadal won only 6 slams in their mutual peak -- 2005 to 2009
Federer won 11 slams.

From end of 2008, Federer has 1 lucky FO, 3 W, 3 AO ....that's 7 Majors not 8..

Nadal in same period has 1 AO, 8 FO, 2 W and 3 USO = 14 Majors. 14 is greater than 7.

That is being kind to Federer as it removes 2008 on basis that Federer fans claim Federer had Mono all year. If we add in 2008 then it is Nadal 16 Federer 8, so either way Nadal has double the Majors of Federer, as does Djokovic almost.

Only Federer fans could be so delusional to argue Federer is even close to Nadal and Djokovic in the GOAT debate, he is clearly 3rd.

 

[abmk]

From end of 2008, Federer has 1 lucky FO, 3 W, 3 AO ....that's 7 Majors not 8..

Nadal in same period has 1 AO, 8 FO, 2 W and 3 USO = 14 Majors. 14 is greater than 7.

That is being kind to Federer as it removes 2008 on basis that Federer fans claim Federer had Mono all year. If we add in 2008 then it is Nadal 16 Federer 8, so either way Nadal has double the Majors of Federer, as does Djokovic almost.

Only Federer fans could be so delusional to argue Federer is even close to Nadal and Djokovic in the GOAT debate, he is clearly 3rd.

I'm counting from 2008 onwards, genius. Since 2008 is one of Nadal's peak years.
and like I said, peak to peak, 2005-2009....
Federer = 11 slams, Nadal only 6 slams

oh and :
Nadal has won clearly lesser # of slams where there is actual competition (grass and HC) = 6 slams.
Federer has 19 slams where there is actual competition.

as far as bold part goes....ha ha ha ...that sort of a statement can only from someone who has his head so far up Nadal's you know where/zero clue about tennis before 2008.

Federer, Laver, Gonzales, Tilden are still above nadal in the GOAT debate. Nadal is 5th. Djokovic is 6th.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Only Federer fans could be so delusional to argue Federer is even close to Nadal and Djokovic in the GOAT debate, he is clearly 3rd.

 

[Pantera]

I'm counting from 2008 onwards, genius. Since 2008 is one of Nadal's peak years.
and like I said, peak to peak, 2005-2009....
Federer = 11 slams, Nadal only 6 slams

oh and :
Nadal has won clearly lesser # of slams where there is actual competition (grass and HC) = 6 slams.
Federer has 19 slams where there is actual competition.

as far as bold part goes....ha ha ha ...that sort of a statement can only from someone who has his head so far up Nadal's you know where/zero clue about tennis before 2008.

Federer, Laver, Gonzales, Tilden are still above nadal in the GOAT debate. Nadal is 5th. Djokovic is 6th.

Thank you, Nadal 16-8 Federer...Djokovic 15-8 Federer.

That is confirmation indeed that Nadal and Djokovic are the two best players of the Open Era.

As for Laver, I respect him hugely but he has less majors no? Did he ever win 3 Majors on 3 surfaces? again, do you see your own contradiction?

 

[abmk]

Thank you, Nadal 16-8 Federer...Djokovic 15-8 Federer.

That is confirmation indeed that Nadal and Djokovic are the two best players of the Open Era.

As for Laver, I respect him hugely but he has less majors no? Did he ever win 3 Majors on 3 surfaces? again, do you see your own contradiction?

thank you for accepting that Nadal sucks on indoor HC and has been very lucky at the USO.
that he'd have won only 1-2 slams outside clay in any other non-homogenised era.
Hence confirming Nadal is not even top 10 in the open era.
thank you for confirming that djokovic has only got past 6-7 slams due to homogenised era and Federer being past his prime.

As far is Nadal is concerned, I respect him hugely, but he has only 1 indoor title, no? Did he ever make 4 slam finals in a year ? do you see your own cluelessness.

Oh and here's a clue ...A major chunk of Laver's career was in the pro tour.
He also won the major HC events in 69, when he completed the GS.

 

[Pantera]

thank you for accepting that Nadal sucks on indoor HC and has been very lucky at the USO.
that he'd have won only 1-2 slams outside clay in any other non-homogenised era.
Hence confirming Nadal is not even top 10 in the open era.
thank you for confirming that djokovic has only got past 6-7 slams due to homogenised era and Federer being past his prime.

As far is Nadal is concerned, I respect him hugely, but he has only 1 indoor title, no? Did he ever make 4 slam finals in a year ? do you see your own cluelessness.

Oh and here's a clue ...A major chunk of Laver's career was in the pro tour.
He also won the major HC events in 69, when he completed the GS.

Dude, so now you saying clay hard and grass are the same?

And there are no indoor hard courts, I did suggest you contact Greenset manufacturers.

Are you saying Nadal was lucky at USO as he had Federer and Djokovic in the draw rather than Sampras and Connors?