AgassiSuperSlam11
Hall of Fame
1. prime Nadal was from 2005-13 on clay. Ergo contender fed faced prime Nadal 5 times and contender djoko faced him 3 times. But since you are chosing to ignore that, that's your problem.
2. you actually missed mentioning Djokovic losing to Wawa in RG 15 while mentioning ~34 year old fed doing the same and now try to divert? Have some shame.
As far as Wilander goes, yes, AO was not the 4th best tournament in those years. The YEC was. That's a fact. Sorry that I exposed your ignorance and your narrow understanding of tennis based on 2010s doesn't work for the 80s.
3. lol, what? djoko had won AO in 08, faced off vs Nadal thrice in CC season 09 and lost to Kohly - much worse than losing to Kuerten. djoko also lost to melzer in RG 10. much worse than losing to Kuerten.
Fed wasn't a GS champion at the time of RG 03 in case that has to be specified.
4. talk is about RG
5. lol, what? prime Nadal on clay is from 2005-13. maybe you could argue RG 14 to be prime Nadal. its a joke to think Nadal in RG 20 or 21 or 22 or 15 is prime Nadal on clay
6. Djoko would have lost to Mathieu or even Hewitt in RG 06 if nadal wasn't there. not Ljubicic. Mathieu and Nadal were involved in a big battle for 4+ hours. Hewitt also took a set off Nadal. But then you'd actually have to follow tennis/know about it than just picking stuff off atpworldtour.com or wiki.
7. Djoko was 3-10 vs prime Nadal on clay from 08-13
fed was 2-12 vs prime Nadal from on clay 05-11.
Djoko was little more effective vs prime Nadal. that's about it.
the other 5 wins of Djoko are vs past prime Nadal.
1-Highest Peak and Prime are different things and this is already dicussed. Nadal won 14 RG titles in 17 years. He definitely was in bad form in 2015 and injured his wrist in 2016. He always will be near prime level in Bo5 clay compared to Bo3. As a result, minus the two aforementioned years any opponent would face a difficult challenge in RG against Nadal.
2-There is something called Issue Rule Application Conclusion (IRAC). I've mentioned the fact that Nole lost to Wawrinka several times. However, the premise and issue here is that Fed fans keep stating Clay Goat Nadal is what kept Fed from winning more than 1 RG. Fed owned Wawrinka and would end up 6-1 against Wawrinka in GS events. Moreover, had previous wins against Wawrinka in RG but still couldn't win the RG when Nadal was not in front of him. As far as ignorance goes you made an issue about Wilander and the AO when there were numerous other reasons why I specifically explained to a Djokovic fan that using most slams and weeks at #1 wasn't the most effective way to claim one player is better than the other. I cited Wilander having more slams and weeks at #1 than Becker but I thought Becker's edge in H2H, more singles titles, Bo5 Finals, YEC, and Davis Cup gave the German the advantage. However, what I didn't mention or trivialize were his GS wins. If those AO titles don't mean much I don't want to talk about Margaret Court and some of her draws. I know that many players skipped the AO due to travel and near Christmas but we also must consider who you actually play leading to your win. Many will say Vilas had a vulture win in the FO since there was no Borg or Connors that year. Once you say this then we also have to consider other RG events slams in which Evert and Connors didn't show up due to World Team Tennis. Moreover, we know many players also skipped the AO for many years. However, we also should consider that even recent slam winner didn't beat 1 top 10 or GS champion en route to their win. I think it's subjective to say since you played in a full draw and beat NO top 10's or GS champs that your title means more than someone who did beat quality opponents in a smaller draw. As the silly jab about 1980's AO any poster in the former players section has seen my numerous posts about the subject of the AO. I reluctantly use the word "straw man" here. I never stated the AO was the same as today. However, I did say that due to the quality of opponents Wilander faced the AO wins were much more than generic wins. Moreover, if you want to go deep into the 1980's we can also mention that Wilander did win the Lipton tournament when there were Bo5 matches prior to even the final. In fact, I think he won 21 sets in a win which means that the tournament was very close to slam level in both competition and longevity of play.
3-Fed was at/near top 5 when he lost in the 1R to a marginal play that never made much impact in the sport. I've mentioned the Melzer in the past. Fed has plenty more questionable losses, so it doesn't really advance any argument here. If the (issue) is Fed couldn't win more FO titles than start by taking at least 1 set from a Gustavo that had previous injuries and later would get neutralized by Nalbandian in the same tournament. BTW, he was a 2-time GS champion at the time.
4- Talk is about RG but you're implying that Nadal wasn't in prime level when he WON 5 RG titles in 6 years? How ignorant does that sound? I only mention his previous clay finals to show that his previous success warranted a better showing than losing in the first round to a relative unknown.
5-I guess learn a little reading comprehension with the difference between highest peak and prime level again. Nadal won 4 RG in a row and did beat some great players during that period. He wasn't peak level but was still in top level. How many players have won 4 RG in a row during Open Era? Borg did it once and Nadal did it three times including 2017-2020. Djokovic in 2022 was in great form until he got stopped by Nadal in 2022 RG QF. BTW, so yes stick to the OP topic it's "FO" not clay in general.
6-Actually many of your stats are taken from questionable sources if you think about it. The entire previous discussion about winning titles in straight sets had you implying that Borg never did it more than 3 times by citing Borg in 1979 and1980 when any competent Tennis fan knew that he likely achieved it years before. Immediately I stated Borg had it do it a few times and you stated he never went past 3 but it was in fact 7 times. Hypothetical draws only exist in fantasy. The fact is that Djokovic got deep into the RG draws and was stopped by Nadal twice in 2006 and 2007. Of course, in your contradictory logical reasoning you get punished for not facing players that don't appear in your draw but also get punished as Wilander for defeating top players you actually FACE. You can't have it both ways.
7-Cherry picking stats? The affirmative defense you state it "may go to 2014." Djokovic defeated Nadal in the 2014 Italian Open Final which "might" give him a fourth win vs "prime Nadal" using your flawed logic. BTW, as a proponent of Bo5 finals I actually think Nadal could've won that 2014 Final if it was Bo5 as he is 21-0 in Bo5 Clay Finals. Nonetheless, it was a quality win.
As far as the personal Ad Hominem nonsense about being "ignorant' and "narrow understanding" please exercise the "ignore" function at your discretion as I will with you. I make distinction between stans and impartial fans. When I heard a Djokovic fan denigrate Nadal's Gold medals claiming it was 250 level this clearly demonstrated they weren't worth any more discussions. This entire thread might get locked or deleted so please get your last word before it does.
