How good will Nadal/Djokovic be a 30

beard

Hall of Fame
The players didn’t change, the conditions did. Average rally length of each slam by year:



The trend towards homogenization is obvious, 3 slams had equal rally length in 2011 and the range has been ~1 stroke since. It’s only logical that if surfaces are made to be more similar, certain play styles will gain an advantage and be more consistently successful. The ITF and ATP kept making surface changes to result in lower ball speeds and higher bounce heights without studying poly strings, and defensive baseliners gained a competitive advantage as a result. They admitted as much when they lamented not extensively researching poly strings and allowing them to proliferate the professional ranks without any regulations.

It’s nothing to support one player or try and diminish the achievements of another. Look at Djokovic in the 2007 USO final against Fed, he was an aggressive baseliner and was attacking and hitting winners all over the court. He saw the changes that were taking place and adapted, evolving into the best defender/returner/neutralizer to ever play the game.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nice, this must mean Federer have same number of slams at W and RG... Wait its 8:1...

Wait,lets see Nadal, he must have about same no of titles at W and RG... But wait, its 12:2...

But, but, but rallies length about the same, it must of be same to play on it... I heard some term of homogenisation and wanted to use it, but something doesn't work...



:unsure::oops::-D
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
He was certainly getting there by that final, and the way he beat Fed confirms it. And as if it was ever easy for Nadal to beat Djokovic on HC..... here he did it in a slam final, over 2 years after Novak was a slam champ and 3.5 years after the first time Novak beat him on HC

He lasted for 2.5 sets. Getting there is no prime.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Yes. Djokovic lost in 3 sets against Federer at the USO 2009. At the USO 2010 he beat Federer in 5, the same result than in his match against Federer at the USO 2011, proving he alrrqdy peaked the last months of 2010.
Dude you weren't watching tennis in 2010 I'm 100% sure. Djokovic played extremely well for his 2010 standards for one match and one match only against an older Fed who tanked two sets and still need to save match points. He returned to his crapola level after the US Open, Fed beat him in Shanghai and murdered him at the WTF.

The only tournament where he reached that 2011 level was in the DC final but that was in December.

Saying that Nadal beat peak Djokovic is like saying that Roddick beat peak Federer in Canada in 2003 or that Nalbandian beat peak Federer at the 2003 US Open.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Dude you weren't watching tennis in 2010 I'm 100% sure. Djokovic played extremely well for his 2010 standards for one match and one match only against an older Fed who tanked two sets and still need to save match points. He returned to his crapola level after the US Open, Fed beat him in Shanghai and murdered him at the WTF.

The only tournament where he reached that 2011 level was in the DC final but that was in December.

Saying that Nadal beat peak Djokovic is like saying that Roddick beat peak Federer in Canada in 2003 or that Nalbandian beat peak Federer at the 2003 US Open.
No one else would have beaten Djokovic in the 2010 USO final bro, it's ok :D LOL at how you try to come for EVERY Nadal victory off clay. We're very sorry Federer has lost from 40-15 3 times to Djokovic.

 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
No one else would have beaten Djokovic in the 2010 USO final bro, it's ok :D LOL at how you try to come for EVERY Nadal victory off clay. We're very sorry Federer has lost from 40-15 3 times to Djokovic.

Some GOAT if he consistently requires flukes to beat Senilerer.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
Yeah, 26 years old Federer is no competition at Wimbledon.
You didn't get my point.The thing is some Rafanatics like beast of mallorca bash Fed because he didn't won USO since 2008 and I used the same argument in Rafa's case at Wimbledon to point out how stupid his argument was.
 

Sport

Legend
You didn't get my point.The thing is some Rafanatics like beast of mallorca bash Fed because he didn't won USO since 2008 and I used the same argument in Rafa's case at Wimbledon to point out how stupid his argument was.
He did not start bashing Federer. He replied to Fednatic tennis_pro, who asserted in a previous comment that Nadal only wins the USO because of his draw. Hence, the proportional reply of beast of mallorca "then why hasn't Federer won the USO since 2008?", implying he doesn't win it anymore because of the draw. Yet, I didn't see you criticize tennis_pro.

If both fanbases try to be nice to each other, this little war could be easily avoided.
 

ForehandRF

Hall of Fame
He did not start bashing Federer. He replied to Fednatic tennis_pro, who asserted in a previous comment that Nadal only wins the USO because of his draw. Hence, the proportional reply of beast of mallorca "then why hasn't Federer won the USO since 2008?", implying he doesn't win it anymore because of the draw. Yet, I didn't see you criticize tennis_pro.

If both fanbases try to be nice to each other, this little war could be easily avoided.
He didn't replied to tennis_pro though.I agree with the bolded.
 

DSH

Legend
2004-2007 was before the ITF and ATP mandated homogenization of surfaces, and there was such a thing as surface specialists. All stats comparing an era of surface specialization and diversity to an era of surface homogenization with slower speeds and higher bounce heights are inherently flawed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ferrero was the first Spaniard to reach the final of the US Open on hardcourts!
8-B
 

Sport

Legend
well we dont know how good or bad they are because the nextgen and lost gen absolutrly suck
So we don't know good was Federer at the AO 2018 because the Next Gen sucks? Or does your logic only apply to Nadovic?
 
Last edited:

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
But he hasn't won another AO after that, which is the main point.
Nadal, Murray and Federer altogether have 0 wins over Djokovic since 2008 at the Australian. There's the difference. I don't see how that's something special to gloat about from any fan other than Djokovic'

Arguments like these go nowhere.
 

DSH

Legend
Nadal, Murray and Federer altogether have 0 wins over Djokovic since 2008 at the Australian. There's the difference. I don't see how that's something special to gloat about from any fan other than Djokovic'
Well, 2009, 2010, 2017 and 2018 versions of Djokovic were there for the taking.
 

arvind13

Professional
So we don't know good was Federer at the AO 2018 because the Next Gen sucks? Or does your logic only apply to Nadovic?
It applies to all three. in the case of federer, ppl forget he belongs to a different generation from nadal and djokovic. so he's playing competitively at age 38 against djokovic and nadal who are 5 to 6 years younger than him. but as far as AO 2018 goes, yes it applies to federer too. he was lucky the next gen suck. Its easy to rack up slams when competition sucks and there's no playing style variety and no surface specialists. I would put sampras' 14 slams ahead of the big three's slam achievements. Because sampras won in an era of real surface variety and style variety, where he had to adjust to different playing conditions and surface specialists as well as some great all round players
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Ok, if you think it's a joke, tell me which title run Nadal had at the US Open where Fed would've beat him:

2010? Unlikely
2013? No chance
2017? Not as unlikely as 2010 but still unlikely
2019? Nope
Just to clarify, do you mean that Nadal would have sent prime Federer (the one who won five USO titles in a row) packing in any of those tournaments, or do you mean the version of Federer who competed in those same tournaments (2010 Federer, 2013 Federer, etc.)? If it's the latter, I misunderstood your original comment.
 

aldeayeah

Hall of Fame
I would put sampras' 14 slams ahead of the big three's slam achievements. Because sampras won in an era of real surface variety and style variety, where he had to adjust to different playing conditions and surface specialists as well as some great all round players
Yes, he adjusted really well, his clay resume is a testament to that.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Just to clarify, do you mean that Nadal would have sent prime Federer (the one who won five USO titles in a row) packing in any of those tournaments, or do you mean the version of Federer who competed in those same tournaments (2010 Federer, 2013 Federer, etc.)? If it's the latter, I misunderstood your original comment.
Yes, I meant the latter.
 
Nice, this must mean Federer have same number of slams at W and RG... Wait its 8:1...

Wait,lets see Nadal, he must have about same no of titles at W and RG... But wait, its 12:2...

But, but, but rallies length about the same, it must of be same to play on it... I heard some term of homogenisation and wanted to use it, but something doesn't work...



:unsure::oops::-D
You might have an almost relevant point if I was over here arguing that Fed is the ultra GOAT and was robbed of slams, but I’m not lol. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say, it’s been documented from a myriad of credible sources that it was a conscious decision to slow surfaces and raise bounce heights.

If you’re drawing those conclusion from that chart then maybe you’d be more comfortable with a chart like this:


My point was that it’s inherently biased to make comparisons between eras using metrics that reward consistency, as conditions become more similar over time. To call 03-07 a ‘weak era’ because of lower scoring consistency based metric is a fundamentally flawed argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

beard

Hall of Fame
You might have an almost relevant point if I was over here arguing that Fed is the ultra GOAT and was robbed of slams, but I’m not lol. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say, it’s been documented from a myriad of credible sources that it was a conscious decision to slow surfaces and raise bounce heights.

If you’re drawing those conclusion from that chart then maybe you’d be more comfortable with a chart like this:


My point was that it’s inherently biased to make comparisons between eras using metrics that reward consistency, as conditions become more similar over time. To call 03-07 a ‘weak era’ because of lower scoring consistency based metric is a fundamentally flawed argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And, my point was that conditions haven't become so similar over time as you say, which is proved by enormous difference in accomplishments of different players on different surfaces.
 

Sport

Legend
You might have an almost relevant point if I was over here arguing that Fed is the ultra GOAT and was robbed of slams, but I’m not lol. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say, it’s been documented from a myriad of credible sources that it was a conscious decision to slow surfaces and raise bounce heights.

If you’re drawing those conclusion from that chart then maybe you’d be more comfortable with a chart like this:


My point was that it’s inherently biased to make comparisons between eras using metrics that reward consistency, as conditions become more similar over time. To call 03-07 a ‘weak era’ because of lower scoring consistency based metric is a fundamentally flawed argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fallacy of false dilemma, which consists in incorrectly presenting a false dichotomy in which there are supposedly only 2 avalaible options, when in reality there are more options.

You are presenting the following false dilemma:

First option: If someone posts an argument about GOAT comparisons that doesn't agree with your ideas, it is "inherently biased" or "flawed".

Second option: If someone posts an argument about GOAT comparisons that agrees with your ideas, it is valid.

But you are forgetting there is a third option: you can be wrong.

Your suggestion that we cannot make historical comparisons is debatable, rather than a dogmatic and axiomatic truth. As other posters have said, conditions are still pretty different as evidenced by the abismal difference in the resume of players among different courts (Nadal 12 RG, 2 WB; Federer 1 RG; 8 WB, Djokovic 7 AO, 1RG). If conditions are supposedly similar, why do we see this giant difference in the resume of players among different surfaces? Also, no one called 2003-2007 relatively weaker because of "lower scoring consistency" but because of the fact that Federer won 8 Slams without facing Nadal or Djokovic, against players that were obviously worse than Nadal or Djokovic.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
Ok, if you think it's a joke, tell me which title run Nadal had at the US Open where Fed would've beat him:

2010? Unlikely
2013? No chance
2017? Not as unlikely as 2010 but still unlikely
2019? Nope
Fed had a back injury and didn't even practice on the USTA grounds in 2017. He could barely move in the Canadian final against Zverev.

A healthy Fed would have been prohibitively favored in a 2017 USO final against Nadal. He beat him like a drum all year, including 7 weeks after the USO in Shanghai. Anyone saying it would be "unlikely" that Federer wouldn't have beaten Nadal in 2017 wasn't watching tennis in 2017.
 
Top