Djokovic v Rafa.

[Paul Murphy]

Steve Tignor makes some good points in his assessment of their match-up on HC.

He wrote this after their AO epic in January:

“Nadal uses his high, heavy, lefty forehand to Federer’s one-handed backhand as his fail-safe backup. Djokovic uses his high, heavy, forehand to Nadal’s weaker backhand as his fail-safe backup.



Against Djokovic, Nadal, so sure of his game plan against Federer, appears to have little idea how to construct points or where to start. Rafa can’t identify a weak spot, because there isn’t one. In some ways, Djokovic, who is best on hard courts and whose shots move through the court much more easily, returns Nadal to his early days as a clay-court specialist.



Nobody can exploit Nadal's biggest weakness, his serve, like Djokovic, who owns the best return in the game. Rafa was so amazed by this shot that he burst out in praise of it tonight, without being asked. 'Is something unbelievable how he returns, no? His return is probably one of the best of history.'



When Federer plays Nadal, Federer’s fans ask, 'Why isn’t he more aggressive? Why doesn’t he do this, or that, or something else?' It looks like he should be winning. When Nadal plays Djokovic, Nadal’s fans ask the same exasperated questions. It’s not so easy. Djokovic hits with deceptive weight and accuracy, and he’s better than anyone at forcing Nadal to hit backhands. He’s always going to have the advantage when he does that.



When Nadal plays Federer, Rafa can play his game while his opponent must find a solution. When Nadal plays Djokovic, the roles are reversed. It's Nole's who's comfortable, and Rafa who's searching.”

Comments?

 

[Paul Murphy]

And here's his full take on the match:

http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/12/all-nighter/45732/

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Steve Tignor makes some good points in his assessment of their match-up on HC.

He wrote this after their AO epic in January:

“Nadal uses his high, heavy, lefty forehand to Federer’s one-handed backhand as his fail-safe backup. Djokovic uses his high, heavy, forehand to Nadal’s weaker backhand as his fail-safe backup.



Against Djokovic, Nadal, so sure of his game plan against Federer, appears to have little idea how to construct points or where to start. Rafa can’t identify a weak spot, because there isn’t one. In some ways, Djokovic, who is best on hard courts and whose shots move through the court much more easily, returns Nadal to his early days as a clay-court specialist.



Nobody can exploit Nadal's biggest weakness, his serve, like Djokovic, who owns the best return in the game. Rafa was so amazed by this shot that he burst out in praise of it tonight, without being asked. 'Is something unbelievable how he returns, no? His return is probably one of the best of history.'



When Federer plays Nadal, Federer’s fans ask, 'Why isn’t he more aggressive? Why doesn’t he do this, or that, or something else?' It looks like he should be winning. When Nadal plays Djokovic, Nadal’s fans ask the same exasperated questions. It’s not so easy. Djokovic hits with deceptive weight and accuracy, and he’s better than anyone at forcing Nadal to hit backhands. He’s always going to have the advantage when he does that.



When Nadal plays Federer, Rafa can play his game while his opponent must find a solution. When Nadal plays Djokovic, the roles are reversed. It's Nole's who's comfortable, and Rafa who's searching.”

Comments?

Can't argue against that. One word to describe all that is "match-up". That said, Nadal does have a good record against Djokovic. But again, that's because half their matches were on Clay (which is quite a bit considering only about a third of the tour is on that particular surface). I'd also like to add that while Djokovic does match-up well against Nadal, Nadal matches up much, much better against Federer.

 

[Mike Sams]

Djokovic is like elastic and is literally a wall. To get the ball past him is a challenge in itself.
He's probably around 10lbs lighter than Nadal. Djokovic's movements and ability to really stretch his body to return shots and to force his opponent to hit that one extra ball is frustrating to even the very best of shotmakers.
But it's also about matchups. Federer seems to have an ability to create solutions against Djokovic on hardcourts moreso than Nadal does. Federer's ace at point construction and is a great shotmaker whereas Nadal is more into grinding, being defensive and wearing the opponent out.

Djokovic is in his prime right now and looks like he's good to stay around for some years yet before he sees a decline. Nadal might be physically on the downside of his career and has already decided to move his game more to clay. That means Nadal won't be spending much time in the future trying to re-develop his game against Djokovic on hardcourts to find solutions. He's more interested in just maintaining his physical health and playing on the surface that's good for his body instead of challenging himself to improve his hardcourt game.

 

[Mike Sams]

Can't argue against that. One word to describe all that is "match-up". That said, Nadal does have a good record against Djokovic. But again, that's because half their matches were on Clay (which is quite a bit considering only about a third of the tour is on that particular surface). I'd also like to add that while Djokovic does match-up well against Nadal, Nadal matches up much, much better against Federer.

Unless all of Nadal/Federer matches are played indoors. :lol:

 

[DolgoSantoro]

Yep, he summed it all up fairly well. Nothing to add.

 

[Towser83]

Djokovic is like elastic and is literally a wall. To get the ball past him is a challenge in itself.
He's probably around 10lbs lighter than Nadal. Djokovic's movements and ability to really stretch his body to return shots and to force his opponent to hit that one extra ball is frustrating to even the very best of shotmakers.
But it's also about matchups. Federer seems to have an ability to create solutions against Djokovic on hardcourts moreso than Nadal does. Federer's ace at point construction and is a great shotmaker whereas Nadal is more into grinding, being defensive and wearing the opponent out.

Djokovic is in his prime right now and looks like he's good to stay around for some years yet before he sees a decline. Nadal might be physically on the downside of his career and has already decided to move his game more to clay. That means Nadal won't be spending much time in the future trying to re-develop his game against Djokovic on hardcourts to find solutions. He's more interested in just maintaining his physical health and playing on the surface that's good for his body instead of challenging himself to improve his hardcourt game.

No he isn't :lol:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/literally

sorry to be a pedant, but the idea of him being a wall cracked me up

 

[tusharlovesrafa]

Despite such a glaring weakness in rafa's game against djoko,he still leads H2H 19-14..:shock:

 

[Mike Sams]

Despite such a glaring weakness in rafa's game against djoko,he still leads H2H 19-14..:shock:

Nadal ducked out in Miami, Toronto, Cincy and WTF this year to avoid Djokovic. He robbed Djoker of 4 chances on Djoker's top surface to close in on the H2H. He's going to do the same thing next year by avoiding Djoker on hardcourts in the Masters and Djoker is going to meet him in 3-4 straight clay matches. It's so funny how the *******s use the silly H2H to state their case when they have no other argument left.

 

[tusharlovesrafa]

Nadal ducked out in Miami, Toronto, Cincy and WTF this year to avoid Djokovic. He robbed Djoker of 4 chances on Djoker's top surface to close in on the H2H. He's going to do the same thing next year by avoiding Djoker on hardcourts in the Masters and Djoker is going to meet him in 3-4 straight clay matches. It's so funny how the *******s use the silly H2H to state their case when they have no other argument left.

Numbers don't lie.And nadal never ducked or tanked any match to save his h2h.TBH,I don;t think nadal is even bothered about his H2H with anyone.He has a simple and straight philosophy,go out and try you best,if some is better than you,then,so be it.And more often than not when you have such an attitude,you tend to beat your opponents more times than the other way around.

 

[cc0509]

Djokovic is in his prime right now and looks like he's good to stay around for some years yet before he sees a decline. Nadal might be physically on the downside of his career and has already decided to move his game more to clay. That means Nadal won't be spending much time in the future trying to re-develop his game against Djokovic on hardcourts to find solutions. He's more interested in just maintaining his physical health and playing on the surface that's good for his body instead of challenging himself to improve his hardcourt game.

How do you know this? Have you talked to Nadal? Nadal is still going to play in the biggest HC slams and tournaments isn't he? How do you know how he is going to do against Djokovic and whether he wants to challenge himself to improve his game on HC? Does Nadal look to you like the type of player who does not compete to his fullest? I would not write Nadal off yet off clay until we actually see him in action.

 

[DRII]

Does the writer realize that Nadal was ahead in the 5th set and inches away from winning?

Nadal has figured out Nole: instead of using his normal cross court play he has to hit down the line or through the middle more often to keep Nole off balance and away from using sharp angles.

That AO final was essentially the even point between the two players since Nole's rise and Nadal's slight decline of 2011...

 

[NatF]

Despite such a glaring weakness in rafa's game against djoko,he still leads H2H 19-14..:shock:

Whats the h2h on hardcourt? Rafa leads his head to heads with his rivals because of his clay dominance mostly. No one disputes that Rafa is the clay GOAT which is basically all his h2h with the likes of Novak suggests.

 

[DRII]

Whats the h2h on hardcourt? Rafa leads his head to heads with his rivals because of his clay dominance mostly. No one disputes that Rafa is the clay GOAT which is basically all his h2h with the likes of Novak suggests.

FYI; clay is an actual surface!

I'm sick of Nadal haters trying to pretend that clay should not count! BTW the majority of the tour is played on HC, so Nadal's major rivals have a built in advantage when it comes to h2h yet have not capitalized!

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Despite such a glaring weakness in rafa's game against djoko,he still leads H2H 19-14..:shock:

Nadal leads 12-2 on clay, 2-1 on grass, trails 5-11 on hard

 

[NatF]

FYI; clay is an actual surface!

I'm sick of Nadal haters trying to pretend that clay should not count! BTW the majority of the tour is played on HC, so Nadal's major rivals have a built in advantage when it comes to h2h yet have not capitalized!

I acknowledged that Rafa is the clay court GOAT. What you guys need to acknowledge is that the different surfaces play you know...differently. Simply quoting the overall h2h is misleading. Novak is clearly a better harcourt player than Nadal.

And lol at them not capitalizing on the amount of hardcourt tournaments. Who's been cleaning up the hardcourt tournaments for the last decade? It's not Rafa that's for sure! It's Federer, Djokovic and Murray who have been winning those titles espeically the last 2 seasons. You talk like Rafa's been making it deep for years and the rest of the tour hasn't made it to him. For the vast majority of the time it was the other way around. Like this year for example, Rafa plays half the year and his stronger half at that and his ******* followers get to praise his 3 straight clay wins against Djok and his high win percentage etc...

The H2H is a load of ******** without factoring in the surface. Nadal's very good on all surfaces and he's got good hardcourt and grass wins versus his rivals too. But no one matches Nadal on clay and when over half his encounters with his rivals are on that surface it's going to skew the h2h.

 

[Steve0904]

Nadal leads 12-2 on clay, 2-1 on grass, trails 5-11 on hard

See this right here is what I need. Thanks Flash!

What this tells me, (if we throw out the grass results considering only 3 matches have been played on it) is that Djokovic is not as dominant on HC as Nadal is on clay given that they've actually played more matches on HC than on clay. And I give him credit for dominating clay to that extent, but it does not tell me that Nadal is flat out better than Djokovic on only a H2H basis which it seems is what some like to imply. You have to also factor in that Djokovic is likely to cut this gap upon Nadal's return if Nadal makes it to Djokovic on a HC. Assuming of course (with much more certainty) that Djokovic can make it to Nadal as well.

As it pertains to Fed-Nadal it's the same basic logic with a few more parameters. An 18-10 H2H does not make Nadal greater than Federer (especially not on a historical scale), and it really is the only argument of any consequence anybody pro Nadal has. To be fair, I don't see anybody who's made this claim outright, but sometimes it seems that way. Other than that Federer beats Nadal (at least for now) in a large majority of the most important categories. I can't speak for everyone, but personally I acknowledge that Federer has a matchup issue with Nadal, and that it has morphed into a bit of a mental block, sometimes enhanced by the surface. I acknowledge that Nadal leads 8-2 in slams and 18-10 overall. I know Nadal is a great player, and I know that most times Federer plays Nadal on a surface that suits Nadal, and sometimes when it doesn't as much (i.e not clay) he will lose. But none of that makes Nadal greater than Federer, and I'm pretty sure most reasonable Nadal fans would agree with that. Just the same as saying that even if Djokovic overtook Nadal H2H he wouldn't automatically be greater than Nadal on this basis alone.

 

[DRII]

H2H is not totally irrelevant no, however it is not as big a deal as Nadal fans or "*******s" make it out to be for obvious reasons since tennis is not a 2 man sport only, and it has more to do with matchups and large number of matches on one surface. So answer this question for me: Do you think Nadal would lead the H2H if 14 matches were indoors and only 4 were on clay? The YEC also happens to conveniently not be a GS, (but an exho apparently) but as an educated guess I would say if it was, the results would still be decidedly in Federer's favour considering the matches they've had there.

It depends on the surface being played on indoors...

Either way the point is Nadal is more than competitive on all surfaces, he has more hard-court slams than Federer has clay-court slams (and had to beat top HC players in those finals unlike Federer did) and is utterly dominant on clay. Of course surface makes a difference, but that in no way takes away from Nadal's great achievement of being the only player to have a winning record vs all of the other elite players.

Its an amazing stat and Nadal should be given more credit for it!

 

[kragster]

I'm both a ******* and ******** so I believe I can be fairly unbiased on this.

I think Djoker's game is definitely not a good matchup for Nadal but it comes down to two factors beyond that:

1) How much is Djoker willing to fight/grind it out because Nadal is always up for the fight

2) How willing/confident is Nadal to use his BH down the line

In the past, Nadal was simply the superior athlete so any time it got down to the wire, Nadal came out on top. This can be seen in the fact that Djoker's wins over Nadal were usually quick 2 setters while many of Nadal's wins were 3 setters.

In the past Nadal's BH was also a much better shot. It was never an amazing BH like Djoker but it was potent enough to at least change the pattern of play that Nole uses on Nadal.

Post 2011, Nole;s willingness to fight it out has been the best on the tour. And Nadal's BH DTL has started to suck. Those 2 factors mean major advantage Djokovic. Nadal has to be willing to unload on his BH wing and especially down the line or I don't see him countering the usual Djoker plan.

The H2H is what it is and right now Nadal leads it. You can't pick out specific parts of it like Djoker 2.0 vs Nadal on hard court. That being said, I expect Nole to reverse more of the H2H in the next 2 years. It should be pretty close to even by the time they are done.

 

[kragster]

I know Nadal is a great player, and I know that most times Federer plays Nadal on a surface that suits Nadal, and sometimes when it doesn't as much (i.e not clay) he will lose]. But none of that makes Nadal greater than Federer, and I'm pretty sure most reasonable Nadal fans would agree with that. Just the same as saying that even if Djokovic overtook Nadal H2H he wouldn't automatically be greater than Nadal on this basis alone.

I totally agree with you on the fact the H2H in no way makes Nadal a better player. He is 6 slams behind and many many weeks behind in no 1 - the two most important criteria in my opinion.

I think most Nadal fans (reasonable or unreasonable) take objection to people completely dismissing the H2H. It would be like saying Nicolas Mahut's true ranking would be better if there was more grass. The surfaces are what they are and the results are what they are. Back in the day the US open was played on clay. Imagine what Rafa's resume would look like if that still happened!Or at some point 3 slams were played on grass. Imagine what Fed or Sampras's career would look like!

Ultimately here's how I see it. From 05-07 , Rafa was not good enough to make the finals of many HC tournaments. This likely benefitted him in the H2H department, but hurt him in a titles department. Let's say Rafa WAS good enough to meet Fed. That by definition would mean that this hypothetical Rafa is a better HC player than he is today, meaning he would have more hard court titles. Who's to say this hypothetical Rafa wouldn't have stolen a few HC titles from Fed.

So in a sense, Rafa's lack of HC skill in the early days has kept him away from many additional titles and left room for Fed fans to talk about that weakness in his resume. So it works both ways (good H2H = bad title count and vice versa).

 

[zagor]

I think most Nadal fans (reasonable or unreasonable) take objection to people completely dismissing the H2H. It would be like saying Nicolas Mahut's true ranking would be better if there was more grass. The surfaces are what they are and the results are what they are. resume

Well if Nadal fans take objection to people dismissing the H2H then maybe they shouldn't dismiss large chunks of other player's careers.

I mean on one hand H2H record should be taken at face value, surfaces, player's form etc. being irrelevant but on other hand Fed's slam record & time spent as #1 for example should of course be put in a certain context (weak era, luck, Rafa's injuries etc.).

Either every stat is open to interpretation of we just take them as they are.

 

[kragster]

Well if Nadal fans take objection to people dismissing the H2H then maybe they shouldn't dismiss large chunks of other player's careers.

I mean on one hand H2H record should be taken at face value, surfaces, player's form etc. being irrelevant but on other hand Fed's slam record & time spent as #1 for example should of course be put in a certain context (weak era, luck, Rafa's injuries etc.).

Either every stat is open to interpretation of we just take them as they are.

I completely agree. And if you catch me being a hypocrite on this when it comes to Fed, please feel free to call me out.

 

[Steve0904]

I totally agree with you on the fact the H2H in no way makes Nadal a better player. He is 6 slams behind and many many weeks behind in no 1 - the two most important criteria in my opinion.

I think most Nadal fans (reasonable or unreasonable) take objection to people completely dismissing the H2H. It would be like saying Nicolas Mahut's true ranking would be better if there was more grass. The surfaces are what they are and the results are what they are. Back in the day the US open was played on clay. Imagine what Rafa's resume would look like if that still happened!Or at some point 3 slams were played on grass. Imagine what Fed or Sampras's career would look like!

Ultimately here's how I see it. From 05-07 , Rafa was not good enough to make the finals of many HC tournaments. This likely benefitted him in the H2H department, but hurt him in a titles department. Let's say Rafa WAS good enough to meet Fed. That by definition would mean that this hypothetical Rafa is a better HC player than he is today, meaning he would have more hard court titles. Who's to say this hypothetical Rafa wouldn't have stolen a few HC titles from Fed.

So in a sense, Rafa's lack of HC skill in the early days has kept him away from many additional titles and left room for Fed fans to talk about that weakness in his resume. So it works both ways (good H2H = bad title count and vice versa).

Very well put. Again I can only talk for myself, but this is partly what I was saying, that H2H is not to be totally dismissed, but it is given far too much credence by anyone that argues in favour of Nadal. The problem arises when these people put more value on H2H than titles by saying so and so only got lucky because player kryptonite didn't make the final. To be fair, Fed fans do some form of this, but as zagor said, either every stat is open to interpretation or we take them all as they are. And I may be a little biased, but I feel as if Nadal fans are in a state of denial in some ways when it comes to this, but I think they would say the same about Fed fans. To be clear, what follows is not meant to degrade any true Nadal fans. What I mean is that they don't want to hear the legitimate reasons why Federer has a losing H2H against Nadal. They tell Fed fans to take it as it is, meanwhile they are the first to make an injury excuse when Nadal has an injury or something else. And the legitimate reason for this is because of his style and/or his foot problem (face value), but they still make the excuse while they know deep down that Fed (or any other players) fans are right that Nadal has nobody but himself to blame for his injuries. I know this is part of being a fan in a sense, but come on.

Meanwhile, Federer was beating up on the guys that beat Nadal. So that tells me that you are correct in that he was not a very good HC player before say 2008. That doesn't take away from Federer's accomplishments because contrary to "weak era theorists" belief, Federer's competition IMO was very solid in all of his HC slam wins. It's just that today, these people forget (or conveniently ignore) how great Gonzo and Baghdatis played in their AO runs for example.

The truth is that Fed had no equal in his prime (or peak from 04-07 depending on what term you use and if they have different meanings in your mind,) but most people don't like to believe that a guy can be THAT good. Nadal was closest and only then on clay. And he was losing to guys like Youzhny, Blake, Gonzo, and Ferrer in HC slams. Even then, those were upsets. That's the key here IMO. It's not that he wasn't good to beat those guys at the time of those matches, he just wasn't consistent enough to win 7 HC best of 5 set matches.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I totally agree with you on the fact the H2H in no way makes Nadal a better player. He is 6 slams behind and many many weeks behind in no 1 - the two most important criteria in my opinion.

I think most Nadal fans (reasonable or unreasonable) take objection to people completely dismissing the H2H. It would be like saying Nicolas Mahut's true ranking would be better if there was more grass. The surfaces are what they are and the results are what they are. Back in the day the US open was played on clay. Imagine what Rafa's resume would look like if that still happened!Or at some point 3 slams were played on grass. Imagine what Fed or Sampras's career would look like!

Ultimately here's how I see it. From 05-07 , Rafa was not good enough to make the finals of many HC tournaments. This likely benefitted him in the H2H department, but hurt him in a titles department. Let's say Rafa WAS good enough to meet Fed. That by definition would mean that this hypothetical Rafa is a better HC player than he is today, meaning he would have more hard court titles. Who's to say this hypothetical Rafa wouldn't have stolen a few HC titles from Fed.

So in a sense, Rafa's lack of HC skill in the early days has kept him away from many additional titles and left room for Fed fans to talk about that weakness in his resume. So it works both ways (good H2H = bad title count and vice versa).

Very interesting point of view. That is true with Djokovic too. Nole won 26 hard courts tournament to Nadal's 11. Had Nadal reached more finals, he would have more hard court, but a "weaker" H2H.

But one important thing regarding H2H and titles count when comparing Nadal, Djokovic and Federer's career is that it don't work in the same manner both way. Fed lost 6 slam finals and 6 master 1000 finals to Nadal. Without Nadal, his titles number would be...somehow impressive (1 or 2 calendar slam, all the master 1000...). Thus, his H2H with Nadal is already taken into account when we count his titles.
But Nadal lost only twice against Fed in slams, and 3-4 time in master 1000. Without Fed, Nadal palmares wouldn't be very affected (well, 2 Wimbledon is good, but don't compare with 6 slams).

 

[zagor]

I completely agree. And if you catch me being a hypocrite on this when it comes to Fed, please feel free to call me out.

Wouldn't do that (call you a hypocrite) regardless, cause I know you aren't one.

If you were acting like one on occasion I'd chalk it down to a bad day in the office, posting while drunk, some Fed fanatic pi$$ing you off (the most likely reason by far) etc.

 

[kragster]

Very interesting point of view. That is true with Djokovic too. Nole won 26 hard courts tournament to Nadal's 11. Had Nadal reached more finals, he would have more hard court, but a "weaker" H2H.

But one important thing regarding H2H and titles count when comparing Nadal, Djokovic and Federer's career is that it don't work in the same manner both way. Fed lost 6 slam finals and 6 master 1000 finals to Nadal. Without Nadal, his titles number would be...somehow impressive (1 or 2 calendar slam, all the master 1000...). Thus, his H2H with Nadal is already taken into account when we count his titles.
But Nadal lost only twice against Fed in slams, and 3-4 time in master 1000. Without Fed, Nadal palmares wouldn't be very affected (well, 2 Wimbledon is good, but don't compare with 6 slams).

Good point but you are forgetting one big thing Fed has denied Nadal since 05. Year end no 1. Without Fed, Nadal would have been YE no 1 straight from 05-10! That would have been huge for Nadal's resume!

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Good point but you are forgetting one big thing Fed has denied Nadal since 05. Year end no 1. Without Fed, Nadal would have been YE no 1 straight from 05-10! That would have been huge for Nadal's resume!

You are right, even if it possible that someone else could have had it (Hewitt in 2005?). He would as well have 2-3 WTF, and Nadal's fan would consider it a very important tournament.

 

[Mike Sams]

I'm both a ******* and ******** so I believe I can be fairly unbiased on this.

I think Djoker's game is definitely not a good matchup for Nadal but it comes down to two factors beyond that:

1) How much is Djoker willing to fight/grind it out because Nadal is always up for the fight

2) How willing/confident is Nadal to use his BH down the line

In the past, Nadal was simply the superior athlete so any time it got down to the wire, Nadal came out on top. This can be seen in the fact that Djoker's wins over Nadal were usually quick 2 setters while many of Nadal's wins were 3 setters.

In the past Nadal's BH was also a much better shot. It was never an amazing BH like Djoker but it was potent enough to at least change the pattern of play that Nole uses on Nadal.

Post 2011, Nole;s willingness to fight it out has been the best on the tour. And Nadal's BH DTL has started to suck. Those 2 factors mean major advantage Djokovic. Nadal has to be willing to unload on his BH wing and especially down the line or I don't see him countering the usual Djoker plan.

The H2H is what it is and right now Nadal leads it. You can't pick out specific parts of it like Djoker 2.0 vs Nadal on hard court. That being said, I expect Nole to reverse more of the H2H in the next 2 years. It should be pretty close to even by the time they are done.

Nadal lacks confidence against Djokovic. Did you see how quickly Djokovic suckered Nadal out of his aggressive play simply by defending Nadal's best shots in the first set of Wimbledon? When Nadal saw his big serves being hit right back at his feet, the last thing he was even thinking about was hitting BHs down the line. He was getting nervous at Djokovic's relentless play. We saw a lot of this happening even on clay this year, including the 3rd set of RG where Djokovic had Nadal scrambling all over the court, completely in a defensive position.

 

[Towser83]

Nadal ducked out in Miami, Toronto, Cincy and WTF this year to avoid Djokovic. He robbed Djoker of 4 chances on Djoker's top surface to close in on the H2H. He's going to do the same thing next year by avoiding Djoker on hardcourts in the Masters and Djoker is going to meet him in 3-4 straight clay matches. It's so funny how the *******s use the silly H2H to state their case when they have no other argument left.

He ducked him on his favourite surface? Unlike the Fed vs Nadal H2H, Nadal is actually at a dissadvantage with the surface distribution. They've met 16 times on Novak's favourite surface and 14 times on clay. Even adding grass to the clay meetings it's only 17-16 in terms of Nadal's better surfaces vs Novak's. People are so used to talking about the clay bias they still carry on when it doesn't exist.

Does the writer realize that Nadal was ahead in the 5th set and inches away from winning?

Nadal has figured out Nole: instead of using his normal cross court play he has to hit down the line or through the middle more often to keep Nole off balance and away from using sharp angles.

That AO final was essentially the even point between the two players since Nole's rise and Nadal's slight decline of 2011...

I wish people would stop insisting someone has "figured someone out" just cos they went on a run of success. So what happened, Djokovic figured out Nadal in 2011, and then Nadal figured Djokovic out in 2012? Actually you would never say Djokovic figured out Nadal, no it was nadal playing terribly. But in 2012 it's Nadal "figuring out" Djokovic? No, put simply when Djokovic won, he played better, when Nadal won, HE played better.

Also on clay Nadal was ropey in 2011, but on HC from 2011 to 2012 he improved. There is NO way that without improving he could give the improved Djokovic such a hard time on HC when from 2007-2009 a lesser Djokovic won most matches vs Nadal in straight sets. But Certain Nadal fans would have everyone believe he sunk below his usual HC form and somehow did better against Djokovic than before even though Djokovic was better. Sorry that makes zero sense.

FYI; clay is an actual surface!

I'm sick of Nadal haters trying to pretend that clay should not count! BTW the majority of the tour is played on HC, so Nadal's major rivals have a built in advantage when it comes to h2h yet have not capitalized!

Yeah it is a surface. People get confused and present a stupid arguement. The real valid argument is not that clay doesn't count, it's just when it's over represented in the H2H. When you play far more on a surface that favours one player, than a surface that favours the other player or is neutral, the H2H will be slightly skewed. Doesn't mean Nadal still wouldn't lead the H2H vs Federer, but having played so many matches on clay where he is nearly unbeatable, it will tip it further towards Nadal. If Nadal had played Federer 20 times on indoor hard and lost 18, and only played Federer 5 times on clay and won every one, their H2H would be massively skewed towards Federer. But inddor hard would still be a valid surface.

Funnily enough in the Nadal Djokovic H2h more matches have been on HC than clay.

It depends on the surface being played on indoors...

Either way the point is Nadal is more than competitive on all surfaces, he has more hard-court slams than Federer has clay-court slams (and had to beat top HC players in those finals unlike Federer did) and is utterly dominant on clay. Of course surface makes a difference, but that in no way takes away from Nadal's great achievement of being the only player to have a winning record vs all of the other elite players.

Its an amazing stat and Nadal should be given more credit for it!

I agree, though Nadal fans are quick to point out how there are 2 slams on HC and only one on clay and this is unfair to Nadal, so it must also be said that it is more likely for a player to win more than one slam on HC than it is clay. Both the AO and the USO have been won by Nadal only once but they happen to both be HC.

Good point but you are forgetting one big thing Fed has denied Nadal since 05. Year end no 1. Without Fed, Nadal would have been YE no 1 straight from 05-10! That would have been huge for Nadal's resume!

Not only that but without federer around the slam total to beat is 14, Nadal would be on 12 or 13 already and very close to GOAT status.

 

[sunof tennis]

He ducked him on his favourite surface? Unlike the Fed vs Nadal H2H, Nadal is actually at a dissadvantage with the surface distribution. They've met 16 times on Novak's favourite surface and 14 times on clay. Even adding grass to the clay meetings it's only 17-16 in terms of Nadal's better surfaces vs Novak's. People are so used to talking about the clay bias they still carry on when it doesn't exist.


Yeah it is a surface. People get confused and present a stupid arguement. The real valid argument is not that clay doesn't count, it's just when it's over represented in the H2H. When you play far more on a surface that favours one player, than a surface that favours the other player or is neutral, the H2H will be slightly skewed. Doesn't mean Nadal still wouldn't lead the H2H vs Federer, but having played so many matches on clay where he is nearly unbeatable, it will tip it further towards Nadal. If Nadal had played Federer 20 times on indoor hard and lost 18, and only played Federer 5 times on clay and won every one, their H2H would be massively skewed towards Federer. But inddor hard would still be a valid surface.

Funnily enough in the Nadal Djokovic H2h more matches have been on HC than clay.



I agree, though Nadal fans are quick to point out how there are 2 slams on HC and only one on clay and this is unfair to Nadal, so it must also be said that it is more likely for a player to win more than one slam on HC than it is clay. Both the AO and the USO have been won by Nadal only once but they happen to both be HC.



Not only that but without federer around the slam total to beat is 14, Nadal would be on 12 or 13 already and very close to GOAT status.

Good points. Nice to see a reasonable post.

 

[Towser83]

Good points. Nice to see a reasonable post.

Thanks. There is much bias on both sides. It's actually funny to dissagree with fans of both players in a single post (and i am myself a fan of Djokovic, but for instance like I said, at this point there is no clay bias in his H2H with nadal, just the fact Nadal has been more dominant on clay than novak has on Hard)

 

[Huanita99]

Rafa sucks big dick anywhere. how this clown even is allowed to play tennis is very strange (picking his butt, wasting time, not respecting any rule in tennis, etc. he should be returned to India where he came from, a little brown butt picking peasant. His IQ is so low, he shouldn't be even able to address (well, he can not anyway as he has no brain and his uncle who is also stupid has to think for him) Royalties like Nole or Fed.

 

[Crisstti]

Nadal leads 12-2 on clay, 2-1 on grass, trails 5-11 on hard

So, that proves Nadal does NOT lead the h2h because they've played most matches on clay.

And, for someone with such a disadvantage against Djokovic it is remarkable that he leads the h2h overall, and by that much on clay for that matter. The match up disadvantage should still happen on clay, shouldn't it?.

 

[cc0509]

So, that proves Nadal does NOT lead the h2h because they've played most matches on clay.

And, for someone with such a disadvantage against Djokovic it is remarkable that he leads the h2h overall, and by that much on clay for that matter. The match up disadvantage should still happen on clay, shouldn't it?.

Huh??

How does it prove that? It proves that Nadal has won most of his matches against Djokovic on clay. Take clay out and Nadal would have a losing h2h record of 7-12 against Djokovic.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Nadal vs Djokovic is one of my most favourite rivalries of all time. Nadal leads 19-14, winning their last 3 encounters, so Nadal clearly has the mental edge again. They've taken part in the longest grand slam final in world history (AustralianOpen2012) and the longest 3-tiebreak-set match in world history (Madrid2009, which Nadal WON). And they're the only pair to reach 4 consecutive grand slam finals. AND they took part in the most historic grand slam final of all time, RolandGarros2012, in which Nadal won his record 7th Roland Garros title, and tied Borg/Sampras/federer for most consecutive years of winning 1 grand slam title per year. (And Nadal has the golden opportunity to break this tie in 2013.) And they're only one win away from tying the Sampras-Agassi H2H (20-14).

 

[Feather]

I completely agree. And if you catch me being a hypocrite on this when it comes to Fed, please feel free to call me out.

No one can call you a hypocrite as you are far from that. :wink:

 

[Feather]

Nadal vs Djokovic is one of my most favourite rivalries of all time. Nadal leads 19-14, winning their last 3 encounters, so Nadal clearly has the mental edge again. They've taken part in the longest grand slam final in world history (AustralianOpen2012) and the longest 3-tiebreak-set match in world history (Madrid2009, which Nadal WON). And they're the only pair to reach 4 consecutive grand slam finals. AND they took part in the most historic grand slam final of all time, RolandGarros2012, in which Nadal won his record 7th Roland Garros title, and tied Borg/Sampras/federer for most consecutive years of winning 1 grand slam title per year. (And Nadal has the golden opportunity to break this tie in 2013.) And they're only one win away from tying the Sampras-Agassi H2H (20-14).

Once upon a time there was a poster. He used to talk about Nadal-Djokovic H2H, which was 16-14 at that point of time, becoming similar to Sampras_Agassi (20-14). It's almost close now, 19-14. Sadly, that poster is sorely missed. I appreciate your humble effort to make sure that none of us will miss that poster and the H2H statistic also :wink:

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Once upon a time there was a poster. He used to talk about Nadal-Djokovic H2H, which was 16-14 at that point of time, becoming similar to Sampras_Agassi (20-14). It's almost close now, 19-14. Sadly, that poster is sorely missed. I appreciate your humble effort to make sure that none of us will miss that poster and the H2H statistic also :wink:

I don't know who or what you're talking about, sorry.

 

[Mike Sams]

Does the writer realize that Nadal was ahead in the 5th set and inches away from winning?

Nadal has figured out Nole: instead of using his normal cross court play he has to hit down the line or through the middle more often to keep Nole off balance and away from using sharp angles.

That AO final was essentially the even point between the two players since Nole's rise and Nadal's slight decline of 2011...

Not really. Nadal got trounced pretty badly in sets 2 and 3 in that AO final against Djokovic. He was down 3 BPs at 3-4 in the 4th set. If Djokovic had converted on any of those several BPs, there never would've been a 5th set. It was Nada's fight, tenacity, determination and will to win that earned him a 5th set that night...and he STILL lost. And Djokovic wasn't exactly in 2.0 mode. He was already fairly tired from the Murray war while Nadal had 2 days off.

 

[Mike Sams]

Nadal vs Djokovic is one of my most favourite rivalries of all time. Nadal leads 19-14, winning their last 3 encounters, so Nadal clearly has the mental edge again. They've taken part in the longest grand slam final in world history (AustralianOpen2012) and the longest 3-tiebreak-set match in world history (Madrid2009, which Nadal WON). And they're the only pair to reach 4 consecutive grand slam finals. AND they took part in the most historic grand slam final of all time, RolandGarros2012, in which Nadal won his record 7th Roland Garros title, and tied Borg/Sampras/federer for most consecutive years of winning 1 grand slam title per year. (And Nadal has the golden opportunity to break this tie in 2013.) And they're only one win away from tying the Sampras-Agassi H2H (20-14).

Federer thought he had developed a mental edge over Djokovic too after he served Djoker a bagel in Cincinnatti. Fat lot of difference that made in the WTF finals though eh? :lol:

 

[RAFA2005RG]

Nadal completely owned Djokovic in 2012 at Monte Carlo, Rome and Roland Garros. The first 2 of those matches were straight sets, and the Roland Garros final was 4 sets.

Djokovic has done nothing against Nadal on clay, ever, except for Madrid 2011 and Rome 2011. Whereas at the hardcourt slams, they've played 3 times-

2010 US Open Final: Nadal in 4
2011 US Open Final: Djokovic in 4
2012 Australian Open: Djokovic in 5 (6 hours, 7-5 fifth set)

And outside of the hardcourt slams, Djokovic has done better vs Nadal on hardcourts, but Nadal beat Djokovic in the 2008 Olympics (hardcourt) and 2010 World Tour Finals (in straight sets).

Point is, when you look at their rivalry, Nadal is very close to Djokovic on hardcourts. While Djokovic has achieved very little in claycourt meetings with Nadal.

So if Nadal has all these tactical problems vs Djokovic, they sure aren't reflected in the head2head. Take away 10 months of their rivalry (March 2011 - January 2012) and its actually Nadal who's comfortable, and Djokovic who's searching.

 

[Gonzo_style]

Point is, when you look at their rivalry, Nadal is very close to Djokovic on hardcourts. While Djokovic has achieved very little in claycourt meetings with Nadal.

We"ll see what H2H between Nole and Rafa on HC will be in the future! If I was you, I would not be so optimistic...

 

[Mike Sams]

Djokovic has given more trouble to Nadal on clay than anybody else. Djokovic played a poor clay season for his standard this year and was lucky to make the RG final and even still he was breaking Nadal's serve almost at will. Imagine what happens if Djokovic 2.0 got a hold of Nadal? :shock:

 

[RAFA2005RG]

We"ll see what H2H between Nole and Rafa on HC will be in the future! If I was you, I would not be so optimistic...

Well, the 2012 Australian Open final was played on Djokovic's best slam surface, yet he needed 6 hours to beat Nadal. And they are 1-1 at the US Open, and after watching Djokovic lose 6-2 in the fifth set to Murray at 2012 US Open, I'd like Nadal's chances, because that match was a shockingly low level. So the future is looking very bright for Nadal on hardcourts vs Djokovic.

 

[Mike Sams]

Well, the 2012 Australian Open final was played on Djokovic's best slam surface, yet he needed 6 hours to beat Nadal. And they are 1-1 at the US Open, and after watching Djokovic lose 6-2 in the fifth set to Murray at 2012 US Open, I'd like Nadal's chances, because that match was a shockingly low level. So the future is looking very bright for Nadal on hardcourts vs Djokovic.

Madrid was played on clay and Nadal needed 4 hours+ and faced several MPs before he finally beat Djokovic...on Nadal's BEST SURFACE!!!! :lol: :lol: Djokovic smashed Nadal twice on Nadal's BEST SURFACE in Rome and Madrid in 2011. He broke Nadal's serve 8 times while playing some of his worst tennis in the RG final. Yup, Djokovic's future is looking very bright against Nadal on clay in the coming months!

 

[RAFA2005RG]

Madrid was played on clay and Nadal needed 4 hours+ and faced several MPs before he finally beat Djokovic...on Nadal's BEST SURFACE!!!! :lol: :lol: Djokovic smashed Nadal twice on Nadal's BEST SURFACE in Rome and Madrid in 2011. He broke Nadal's serve 8 times while playing some of his worst tennis in the RG final. Yup, Djokovic's future is looking very bright against Nadal on clay in the coming months!

I already mentioned Rome and Madrid. Note that those are the only wins Djokovic has ever had over Nadal on clay? And note that one of those was at Madrid, an event Nadal has only won ONCE. So that leaves Rome as the only real surprise. Nadal has always struggled at Madrid, and has also lost to Federer there.

 

[beckstennis]

Who will make me laugh as much as you when you eventually vanish ?

Well, the 2012 Australian Open final was played on Djokovic's best slam surface, yet he needed 6 hours to beat Nadal. And they are 1-1 at the US Open, and after watching Djokovic lose 6-2 in the fifth set to Murray at 2012 US Open, I'd like Nadal's chances, because that match was a shockingly low level. So the future is looking very bright for Nadal on hardcourts vs Djokovic.

 

[Gonzo_style]

Well, the 2012 Australian Open final was played on Djokovic's best slam surface, yet he needed 6 hours to beat Nadal. And they are 1-1 at the US Open, and after watching Djokovic lose 6-2 in the fifth set to Murray at 2012 US Open, I'd like Nadal's chances, because that match was a shockingly low level. So the future is looking very bright for Nadal on hardcourts vs Djokovic.

Obviously trolling! Djokovic was tired after that long SF vs Murray and Nadal still didn't beat him.

I see that you mention fifth set between Murray and Djokovic at USO but what can you tell me about fourth set in USO 2011 final?

 

[Mike Sams]

2013 is the season when the H2H begins to close. Djokovic will take the H2H lead against Nadal by 2014. Nadal can't rely on Djokovic's grandfather dying again right before a final.

 

[Mike Sams]

I already mentioned Rome and Madrid. Note that those are the only wins Djokovic has ever had over Nadal on clay? And note that one of those was at Madrid, an event Nadal has only won ONCE. So that leaves Rome as the only real surprise. Nadal has always struggled at Madrid, and has also lost to Federer there.

Nadal also struggled against Djokovic in Monte Carlo in 2009, losing a set. And that was against a Djokovic with major breathing problems and poor fitness. Nadal needed Djokovic's Grandfather to die right before their Monte Carlo match this year. Djokovic put up no fight and would've lost to anybody that day. Nadal also beat Djokovici at WTF 2010 when Djokovic couldn't even see out of one eye because of a poor contact lense.