Fascinating article on Fedal Slam Race and Djokovic

zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
sportsfan1 said:
Nadal's period of peak/dominance coincided with several downsides. He started off as a predominantly clay court player who took some time to start winning slams on other surfaces, was more injury prone than Fed (and if people want to credit Fed's game and genetics in this case, then so be it), and also had to contend with a rising and then very dominant Djokovic. Fed during his peak only had Nadal as his nemesis.
Click to expand...

Novak beat Nadal 4 times in slams compared to 9 times for Fed. Neither Djokovic nor Fed are the reason Nadal didn't have an extended period of dominance. That's down to his inconsistency against the field off clay (if you want to credit Nadal's injures for that, then so be it), he doesn't even make it to those two on HC/grass unless he's zoning and playing way above his average level.

As for downsides, Fed had the one of having to face off against two 5 year younger ATGs in the 2nd half of his career, Nadal had faced zero resistance from the younger players and just recently got a YE#1 against a 36 year old player incapable of playing a full schedule and won a USO title without facing a top 25 player.

Also, Fed and Novak are two of the greatest HC players of all time which cut into both of their winnings on the surface. Nadal didn't have to face an ATG who has clay as his favourite surface (of course, the same goes for Fed on grass).
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
abmk said:
Fed was 4-1 vs Djokovic at his prime from 07-09 in slams and only loss in AO 08, he was affected by mono.

While Nadal was busy getting thrashed on every surface in his peak period of 2011-early 12, fed was the one competitive vs Djokovic. he beat him in one slam and djokovic barely escaped by an inch in another slam.

federer dominated agassi in 04-05, dominated djokovic in 06-10, dominated nadal from mid-2006 to end of 2007 (was 5-2 from Wim 06 to TMC 2007), dominated Nadal in 2017

oh and greatest era includes 2010 ? 2014-16 ? bwaha ha ha ha ha

giphy.gif



2004, 05 and 07 were considerably stronger than 2010 and 2014-2016.

oh and at his prime , fed kept down other excellent players Hewitt,Roddick, , Safin,Nalby,Davydenko etc. in a way your beloved djoker never could - losing 5 times in slams to murray/stan combined. heck, past his prime federer dealt better with prime Murray/Stan than prime Djoker in slams.
20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12

go deal with it. :D

your sad excuse of posting with a former tennis player's name/picture won't work, Spencer Bore !
Click to expand...

Wonder who's next, Newcombe? Kramer?

I still firmly believe he started following tennis in 2008.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
zagor said:
Novak beat Nadal 4 times in slams compared to 9 times for Fed. Neither Djokovic nor Fed are the reason Nadal didn't have an extended period of dominance. That's down to his inconsistency against the field off clay (if you want to credit Nadal's injures for that, then so be it), he doesn't even make it to those two on HC/grass unless he's zoning and playing way above his average level.

As for downsides, Fed had the one of having to face off against two 5 year younger ATGs in the 2nd half of his career, Nadal had faced zero resistance from the younger players and just recently got a YE#1 against a 36 year old player incapable of playing a full schedule and won a USO title without facing a top 25 player.

Also, Fed and Novak are two of the greatest HC players of all time which cut into both of their winnings on the surface. Nadal didn't have to face an ATG who has clay as his favourite surface (of course, the same goes for Fed on grass).
Click to expand...
It's much harder to win on HC than on clay and grass anyway even without an ATG on the surface. The majority of the players plays well on HC since it's the most spread surface. Anybody can catch fire on HC anytime.
 
Q

qindarka

Rookie
Wait, is Lew the same as Spencer Gore? I don't think Spencer got banned so why not carry on using that account in that case?
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
mike danny said:
By the way, I noticed a new trend among some posters: at first it was "since 2008" and now it is joined by "before 2017".
Click to expand...

Meh, it's just usual cherrypicking periods that suit their agenda, nothing new.

It's been discussed before. The field has been week since 2017 (except AO which still had several in-form top players) but that's really a consequence of two failed (relatively speaking) generations of young players which were supposed to challenge Djokodal.

A field this old being injury ridden is just par for the course, not really surprising for anyone who has followed the game for a longer period. People were so adamant in shouting that 30 is the new 25 (especially during Fed's slam drought), well they got what they've asked for.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
zagor said:
Meh, it's just usual cherrypicking periods that suit their agenda, nothing new.

It's been discussed before. The field has been week since 2017 (except AO which still had several in-form top players) but that's really a consequence of two failed (relatively speaking) generations of young players which were supposed to challenge Djokodal.

A field this old being injury ridden is just par for the course, not really surprising for anyone who has followed the game for a longer period. People were so adamant in shouting that 30 is the new 25 (especially during Fed's slam drought), well they got what they've asked for.
Click to expand...
Also people have been saying for years that Fed feasted on a weak era. Well, they got what they deserved and 10 years later they are finally right and they are witnessing Fed feasting on a true weak era in 2017-2018 :p
 
D

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Mainad said:
Well, they are both hardcourts aren't they but if you want to differentiate between them that only makes Nadal's achievement in winning them all the greater.
Click to expand...
It doesn't because Fedovic have also won a slam on every surface. On the other hand, when we separate Aus Open and US Open, we see that Nadal too has won the AO 'only' once just as Fedovic have won the RG only once and removes the distinction created by the 'multiple slams on each surface' stat.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Dolgopolov85 said:
It doesn't because Fedovic have also won a slam on every surface. On the other hand, when we separate Aus Open and US Open, we see that Nadal too has won the AO 'only' once just as Fedovic have won the RG only once and removes the distinction created by the 'multiple slams on each surface' stat.
Click to expand...

Well, why should we separate the AO and USO? They are both hardcourts, end of.
 
Im(moral) Winner

Im(moral) Winner

G.O.A.T.
mike danny said:
Different types of HC. Like Miami and Cincy. Just ask Djokovic. He has bern dominant at the AO, but sub par at the USO.
Click to expand...
My Post from the first page. ;)
Im(moral) Winner said:
Yeah, some like to group the HC majors the same when it suits their agenda even though players like Djokovic, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Courier, Rafter and del Potro were much more successful at the other HC major compared to the other one.
Click to expand...
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Tennisanity said:
If you don't defend it means you probably got lucky that year with an easy draw. When you defend them, the variation in draw luck gets evened out.
Click to expand...
Oversimplification.


Fed is a one-trick pony on grass.
No wait, Fed is a one-trick pony on hard.
Ah. Fed is a two-trick pony.

So how many slams on a surface does one have to win to not be a pony? Two just means a lucky draw, twice. Three?
(Too many variables in a complex world. Oversimplification.)
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Mainad said:
Well, why should we separate the AO and USO? They are both hardcourts, end of.
Click to expand...

Both HC's but distinct conditions. Multiple slams on every surface is a nice trivia stat but masks the reality that Nadal has just one win at his weakest slam like Federer and Djokovic. I guess you've never partaken in discussions about the greatest AO or USO player? We should instead simply discuss the best HC player of all time ;)
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
I don't even wanna read Federer fans anymore, they all write the same things.

I will just keep posting numbers.
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Shank Volley said:
Well it doesn't, actually. Objectively. It goes from 'only player to have won multiple slams on all three surfaces' to 'one of three active players to have at least two each at three of the slams, and one at the other.' In what universe does that sound more impressive?
Click to expand...

Mainad said:
It still sounds pretty impressive for a supposed one-trick pony.
Click to expand...

When you are a Muzza fan, even RaoMug resume will look impressive
 
7

73west

Semi-Pro
Lew said:
Djokovic fan and I Think Nadal is GOAT (with others).

26 wins and 9 losses against fab4 at slams and olympics. Absolute beast.
Click to expand...

But greatness is not just defined by how you do against the best of the best. If you lose in Round 3 to some schlub, it goes as 0-0 against the ATGs, and that is not beter than beating that schlub and going to the SF and losing to Raonic or Cilic or Tsonga or whomever.

The goal of tennis is to win matches and win tournaments. Then getting that high ranking.
Federer has been the best and most consistent on all of those metrics.
 
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Mainad said:
Yes, but he's still won multiple titles at both.
Click to expand...
Just trying to showcase the difference in Djokovic's performance at both slams. Dominant at AO, but below par at the USO relative to his AO success.

Proof that you can't just put 2 different HC's into one.
 
Tennisanity

Tennisanity

Legend
hoodjem said:
Oversimplification.


Fed is a one-trick pony on grass.
No wait, Fed is a one-trick pony on hard.
Ah. Fed is a two-trick pony.

So how many slams on a surface does one have to win to not be a pony? Two just means a lucky draw, twice. Three?
(Too many variables in a complex world. Oversimplification.)
Click to expand...

You have to defend at least ONE, count it ONE off-clay title in your entire bloody career!!! Even a 250 for godsakes! He can't even do that.

Also, the expression two-trick pony isn't really used.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
mike danny said:
Just trying to showcase the difference in Djokovic's performance at both slams. Dominant at AO, but below par at the USO relative to his AO success.

Proof that you can't just put 2 different HC's into one.
Click to expand...

But is performance at one event vis a vis another necessarily determined by the surface?
 
7

73west

Semi-Pro
Mainad said:
But is performance at one event vis a vis another necessarily determined by the surface?
Click to expand...

1 players, 2 tournaments, I'd say no
The greatest example ever may be the wild old days of the US Open. They could play that on any surface, and the biggest problem Borg would have, the biggest advantage that Connors or McEnroe would have is NYC and the atmosphere.

In other cases, the schedule/timing, the weather ... there's a lot more than just court surface that affects how someone does, over their career, at one particular tournament.
 
7

73west

Semi-Pro
NatF said:
Both HC's but distinct conditions. Multiple slams on every surface is a nice trivia stat but masks the reality that Nadal has just one win at his weakest slam like Federer and Djokovic. I guess you've never partaken in discussions about the greatest AO or USO player? We should instead simply discuss the best HC player of all time ;)
Click to expand...

All of these are trivia stats.
The double career grand slam is trivia
Never defending a title outside clay is trivia
Winning multiple majors on each surface is trivia

These are not things you should be considering, pro or con, when placing Nadal in the ATG list. These are fun facts you toss around after having done that (or when you're not doing that). As in:
"I think Nadal is the 3rd best player of my lifetime. By the way, did you know he never defended a title outside of clay? That's bizarre! Anyway ..." Yes!
"I thought Nadal was the 3rd best player of my lifetime, but then I realized he'd never defended a title outside of clay, so I moved him down to 5th" No!
 
S

sportsfan1

Legend
Tennisanity said:
That's your opinion he's not. Mine is that he is. That he can't defend one title off clay over 13 years implies he fluked a lot of them with easy draws. Why do you think he could not even defend one??? Not even a non-slam?
Click to expand...

As far as slams, it's fairly easy to see. 2011 to 2016 was the Djokovic dominance period. Oz open was a complete lockdown, Djokovic won each one from 2011-2016 except for 214 when incredibly Wawrinka took him down. Similar story at the USO, Djokovic again made almost all of the finals during the same 6 year period, denied once each by Murray, Wawrinka, and yes Nadal. 2011 USO was the closest Nadal came to defending his non-clay title, but ran into Djokovic who was starting his incredible run. Grass is Nadal's least favorite surface, leaves him susceptible to injuries and upsets against big servers, much as clay often does to Federer.


zagor said:
Novak beat Nadal 4 times in slams compared to 9 times for Fed. Neither Djokovic nor Fed are the reason Nadal didn't have an extended period of dominance. That's down to his inconsistency against the field off clay (if you want to credit Nadal's injures for that, then so be it), he doesn't even make it to those two on HC/grass unless he's zoning and playing way above his average level.

As for downsides, Fed had the one of having to face off against two 5 year younger ATGs in the 2nd half of his career, Nadal had faced zero resistance from the younger players and just recently got a YE#1 against a 36 year old player incapable of playing a full schedule and won a USO title without facing a top 25 player.

Also, Fed and Novak are two of the greatest HC players of all time which cut into both of their winnings on the surface. Nadal didn't have to face an ATG who has clay as his favourite surface (of course, the same goes for Fed on grass).
Click to expand...


The OP said "The difference between Federer and Nadal lies in the greater ability of the Swiss to capitalize on the phase in which he dominated the circuit", so this conversation should only apply to their respective peak periods. which for Federer was well before Djokovic started dominating. Except for the oz 2010, Djokovic was not a factor towards reducing Fed's slam count during his peak.
But for Nadal there's a significant overlap of peak periods, at least 2011-2013, and in fact he's only about a year older than Djokovic.
 
Tennisanity

Tennisanity

Legend
sportsfan1 said:
As far as slams, it's fairly easy to see. 2011 to 2016 was the Djokovic dominance period. Oz open was a complete lockdown, Djokovic won each one from 2011-2016 except for 214 when incredibly Wawrinka took him down. Similar story at the USO, Djokovic again made almost all of the finals during the same 6 year period, denied once each by Murray, Wawrinka, and yes Nadal. 2011 USO was the closest Nadal came to defending his non-clay title, but ran into Djokovic who was starting his incredible run. Grass is Nadal's least favorite surface, leaves him susceptible to injuries and upsets against big servers, much as clay often does to Federer.
Click to expand...
What about 500s and 250s????????
 
titoelcolombiano

titoelcolombiano

Legend
Tennisanity said:
It explains why Nadal's H2H are inflated.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you are bringing Federer into this. Probably just to troll but ok:

H2H:
Hard: 11 - 9 to Fed, hardly a disgrace against the current all time slam leader and equal open era slam leader at AO & USO
Grass: 2 - 1 to Fed, hardly a disgrace against the current all time slam leader and slam leader at Wimbledon

Stop trolling, Nadal is clearly an all time great regardless of the surface. Then the icing on the cake to his great hard and grass achievements is his EXTRAORDINARY record on clay, which, I'm sorry to tell you counts because it is the second most prolific surface on the tour.
 
Tennisanity

Tennisanity

Legend
titoelcolombiano said:
I don't know why you are bringing Federer into this. Probably just to troll but ok:

H2H:
Hard: 11 - 9 to Fed, hardly a disgrace against the current all time slam leader and equal open era slam leader at AO & USO
Grass: 2 - 1 to Fed, hardly a disgrace against the current all time slam leader and slam leader at Wimbledon

Stop trolling, Nadal is clearly an all time great regardless of the surface. Then the icing on the cake to his great hard and grass achievements is his EXTRAORDINARY record on clay, which, I'm sorry to tell you counts because it is the second most prolific surface on the tour.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring Fed into it, you did. I said his H2Hs are inflated, no mention of Fed. Think before you respond.
 
zagor

zagor

Bionic Poster
sportsfan1 said:
The OP said "The difference between Federer and Nadal lies in the greater ability of the Swiss to capitalize on the phase in which he dominated the circuit", so this conversation should only apply to their respective peak periods. which for Federer was well before Djokovic started dominating. Except for the oz 2010, Djokovic was not a factor towards reducing Fed's slam count during his peak.
But for Nadal there's a significant overlap of peak periods, at least 2011-2013, and in fact he's only about a year older than Djokovic.
Click to expand...

First we have to define Nadal's peak period, or the phase in which he dominated the circuit. I've yet to see anyone do so on this forum, it's this hypothetical period where Nadal is fit and playing great tennis ona all surfaces but no one can point it out. Then we can see whether Novak or other factors/players reduced Nadal's potential slam count more.

Otherwise it's just throwing around a bunch of arguments without supstance, not examining concrete situations. In Nadal's career best 3 years for example, 2008, 2010 and 2017 he barely even faced Novak.

In that 2011-2013 period you mention, Nadal also suffered slam losses to Ferrer, Rosol and Darcis in addition to skipping two slams because of injuries. Doesn't exactly sound like Fed's 2004-2007 now does it?
 
clayqueen

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Tennisanity said:
If you don't defend it means you probably got lucky that year with an easy draw.

Just like Fed got lucky at RG in 2009 and Djoker got lucky at RG in 2016 when Rafa pulled out with a wrist injury.

When you defend them, the variation in draw luck gets evened out.
Click to expand...
Or you were injured the following year and didn't play.
 
Rafa Aficionado

Rafa Aficionado

Rookie
Tennisanity said:
If you don't defend it means you probably got lucky that year with an easy draw. When you defend them, the variation in draw luck gets evened out.
Click to expand...

Lmfao.

Djokovic got really lucky with those 2 US Open's didnt he.

Murray and Wawrinka got lucky with every slam they won, by the way.

One cannot be this dumb, surely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top