If Djokovic wins W 14, would you consider him better grass player than Nadal?

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Yes Nadal has two extra finals, but Nole beat him in W final.

Also Nole doesn't lose to journeymen on grass in his prime.

Also Nole did a lot better at Olympics on grass.


What do you guys think?
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
No, you rating two Wimbledon finals as its nothing special to achieve.
No, I didn't say that.

I was stacking Rafa's 2 finals vs
-Nole beating Rafa at W final.
-Nole doing a lot better at Olympics on grass
-Nole not losing to lesser players outside of top 100 consistently on grass.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Nadal would still be ahead because of the finals. There's nothing small about walking out of that tunnel on the final Sunday 5 times. Not to mention Nadal actually makes tactical adjustments and alters his return position on grass. Djokovic looks like he's on Rod Laver arena at Wimbledon :lol: Gumby-flex sliding and all.
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
Yes Nadal has two extra finals, but Nole beat him in W final.

Also Nole doesn't lose to journeymen on grass in his prime.

Also Nole did a lot better at Olympics on grass.


What do you guys think?
It's simple: 2 wins + 3 finals > 2 wins + 1 final, so Nadal > Nole

Whom you beat in the final is irrelevant - the trophy is still the same.

Also, Nadal losing to journeyman doesn't take away from his existing achievements, it merely prevents him from achieving more.

Nole did better at the Oympics on grass, but he got nothing to show for it (not even a bronze medal), so it has negligible value.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Nadal would still be ahead because of the finals. There's nothing small about walking out of that tunnel on the final Sunday 5 times. Not to mention Nadal actually makes tactical adjustments and alters his return position on grass. Djokovic looks like he's on Rod Laver arena at Wimbledon :lol: Gumby-flex sliding and all.
But it is a constant theme for some to say it does not matter if you lose 1R or finals. Tipsa comes to mind immediately.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
It's simple: 2 wins + 3 finals > 2 wins + 1 final, so Nadal > Nole

Whom you beat in the final is irrelevant - the trophy is still the same.

Also, Nadal losing to journeyman doesn't take away from his existing achievements, it merely prevents him from achieving more.

Nole did better at the Oympics on grass, but he got nothing to show for it (not even a bronze medal), so it has negligible value.
But isn't not losing to journeymen also an achievement?

Why is consistency not counted as an achievement?

Nole should be rewarded for that, isn't that fair?
 

90's Clay

Banned
It's simple: 2 wins + 3 finals > 2 wins + 1 final, so Nadal > Nole

Whom you beat in the final is irrelevant - the trophy is still the same.

Also, Nadal losing to journeyman doesn't take away from his existing achievements, it merely prevents him from achieving more.

Nole did better at the Oympics on grass, but he got nothing to show for it (not even a bronze medal), so it has negligible value.

Losing to very low ranked guys dating way back to 2012 is questionable when looking at the greatness of Nadal on grass. These last 3 years have been absolute mess for Nadal. If he was in his 30s at the tail end of his career I would understand. But the guy has been losing to 100-200 ranked guys since he was 25 on this surface.

Its weird.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Losing to very low ranked guys dating way back to 2012 is questionable when looking at the greatness of Nadal on grass. These last 3 years have been absolute mess for Nadal. If he was in his 30s at the tail end of his career I would understand. But the guy has been losing to 100-200 ranked guys since he was 25 on this surface.

Its weird.
Exactly. I'm not saying those losses take away from his grass wins. But shouldn't Nole be rewarded by not having those kind of losses?

I say that Nole not losing to guys like that on grass should count as an achievement for Nole.
 

ibbi

Legend
I mean how do you determine such a thing? Looking purely at game Djokovic is already, obviously a more natural, comfortable grass court player.

As for those stats you asked about, Novak is 38-8 at Wimbledon (83%) while Nadal is 39-8 (also 83%). On grass overall Rafa is 53-15 (78%) while Novak is also... wait for it... 53-15! He's won 1 out of 15 grass court events, while Rafa has won 3 out of 18. Their head to head on the surface is 2-1 to Rafa. 1 and 1 at Wimbledon.
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
Losing to very low ranked guys dating way back to 2012 is questionable when looking at the greatness of Nadal on grass. These last 3 years have been absolute mess for Nadal. If he was in his 30s at the tail end of his career I would understand. But the guy has been losing to 100-200 ranked guys since he was 25 on this surface.

Its weird.
Yes, but as I've said, losses (no matter how bad) don't take away from your existing achievements. At the end of the day, no matter how many bad losses Nadal has, he still has his 2 wins and 3 finals, and until these are matched, then Nole is not as accomplished as Nadal on grass.

But isn't not losing to journeymen also an achievement?

Why is consistency not counted as an achievement?

Nole should be rewarded for that, isn't that fair?
Exactly. I'm not saying those losses take away from his grass wins. But shouldn't Nole be rewarded by not having those kind of losses?

I say that Nole not losing to guys like that on grass should count as an achievement for Nole.
Nole is already rewarded for not having those losses - by not having those losses, he progresses through the tournament, and has a chance for more finals/wins.

So to then count not having those losses as another achievement in itself would be double counting.
 
Last edited:

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Yes, but as I've said, losses (no matter how bad) don't take away from your existing achievements. At the end of the day, no matter how many bad losses Nadal has, he still has his 2 wins and 3 finals, and until these are matched, then Nole is not as accomplished as Nadal on grass.





Nole is already rewarded for not having those losses - by not having those losses, he progresses through the tournament, and has a chance for more finals/wins.

So to then count not having those losses as another achievement in itself would be double counting.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Logic;8535991 Nole is already rewarded for not having those losses - by not having those losses said:
Please change your username. It is so glaringly incongruent.

:):)
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Yes, but as I've said, losses (no matter how bad) don't take away from your existing achievements. At the end of the day, no matter how many bad losses Nadal has, he still has his 2 wins and 3 finals, and until these are matched, then Nole is not as accomplished as Nadal on grass.





Nole is already rewarded for not having those losses - by not having those losses, he progresses through the tournament, and has a chance for more finals/wins.

So to then count not having those losses as another achievement in itself would be double counting.
Well aren't Rafa's extra 2 finals double counted as well then? By making those finals he had more chances to win as well.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
No. Just because Nadal has been terrible on grass in last few years, you can't take away his earlier exploits on this surface. The guy played 5 finals and would have won at least three times if not for peak Federer. When Djokovic has as many finals or 3 Wimby titles, I'd consider him greater grass court player than Nadal.
 

Le Master

Professional
About even. Nadal's peak was greater (08-10), but anything outside of that Nole edges him
I would include '06 and '07 in Nadal's peak. He may not have won those two years, but his level was at its highest (much like Federer's clay peak started well before he won his first FO).
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
Please change your username. It is so glaringly incongruent.

:):)
If you think my point is illogical, why not pose a counter-argument instead of resorting to an ad-hominem?

Well aren't Rafa's extra 2 finals double counted as well then? By making those finals he had more chances to win as well.
OK, I should have said "2 wins and 3 runner-ups", not "2 wins and 3 finals".

What I'm counting is the "runner-up", not the achievement of reaching a "final" (which, as you point out, gives you the opportunity to win). If I were to count both, that would be double counting, but I am only counting one.

Note, "runner-up" is an achievement in and of itself - you get a trophy for it.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Yes Nadal has two extra finals, but Nole beat him in W final.

Also Nole doesn't lose to journeymen on grass in his prime.

Also Nole did a lot better at Olympics on grass.


What do you guys think?
Moot point - Nadal didn't even compete at the 2012 Olympics.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
Well aren't Rafa's extra 2 finals double counted as well then? By making those finals he had more chances to win as well.
No. You can count whatever positive achievements you choose to. By convention, most people count at least slam titles and slam finals. However, it's not uncommon to count semifinals and quarterfinals as well, particularly when the numbers involved become very large (e.g., Federer, Connors). If you were so inclined, you could count and reward how many second rounds players make, in which case any first-round losses would simply prevent players from adding to their glorious second-round stats. There would still be no reason to separately "deduct" the first-round losses from any of the positive achievements.
 

Rafaisdabest

Hall of Fame
Rafa is better because he has been around longer and he is a great player on grass he just seems to play poor at Wimbledon in recent yrs for some reason don't know if it's because of the pressure of having to win a slam straight after he has just won a slam and is expected to win Wimbledon then on top of that and the pressures too much but there probably is a reason why!
 

Rafaisdabest

Hall of Fame
maybe it's because of his recent loses to not very well known players that has put him in a hole and he can't seem to get out of that hole but i'm just playing a guessing game here
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
No. You can count whatever positive achievements you choose to. By convention, most people count at least slam titles and slam finals. However, it's not uncommon to count semifinals and quarterfinals as well, particularly when the numbers involved become very large (e.g., Federer, Connors). If you were so inclined, you could count and reward how many second rounds players make, in which case any first-round losses would simply prevent players from adding to their glorious second-round stats. There would still be no reason to separately "deduct" the first-round losses from any of the positive achievements.
I'm not deducting from Rafa, I'm only adding to Nole. Why would people consider Rafa better if both win 2 W, just because Rafa has 2 finals?

I mean Nole makes up for those 2 finals by not losing to journeymen. That's why they both have the same win %.

Also Nole Rafa did nothing at Olympics. I know Nole didn't win a medal, but going deep is still better achievement than doing nothing.

Also their only final Nole won. Isn't this also an achievement?
 

Valdez737

Rookie
Nole Needs 3 Wimbledons or 2 Wimbledons and 3 finals to match or surpass Nadal. So not by a mile Nadal is still a level above him. Nadal had to beat the greatest player on his best surface in his prime to earn his Wimbledon championship. Nole is not gona win W14 anyways Roger gots him beat.
 
Last edited:

Logic

Semi-Pro
I'm not deducting from Rafa, I'm only adding to Nole. Why would people consider Rafa better if both win 2 W, just because Rafa has 2 finals?

I mean Nole makes up for those 2 finals by not losing to journeymen. That's why they both have the same win %.
Not losing to journeyman isn't an achievement - it doesn't matter to whom you lose, just to what round you get. This is what we need to compare.

Rafa: 2W, 3 RU, 1 R16, 1 R32, 2 R64, 1 R128
Nole (if he wins tomorrow): 2W, 1 RU, 3 SF, 1QF, 1 R64, 1 R32, 1 R64

Personally, I think that Rafa's 2 additional RU are worth more than Nole's additional 3 SF + 1 QF - because you actually get a trophy for each RU.

Also Nole Rafa did nothing at Olympics. I know Nole didn't win a medal, but going deep is still better achievement than doing nothing.

Also their only final Nole won. Isn't this also an achievement?
Nole's Olympic SF is worth something, but I would say not that much (maybe worth equivalent to another Wimbledon SF at most), and for me this doesn't make enough of a contribution.

Also, Nole beating Nadal in the final in 2011 has no more value than Nole beating anyone else in the final. The trophy is still the same.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Not losing to journeyman isn't an achievement - it doesn't matter to whom you lose, just to what round you get. This is what we need to compare.

Rafa: 2W, 3 RU, 1 R16, 1 R32, 2 R64, 1 R128
Nole (if he wins tomorrow): 2W, 1 RU, 3 SF, 1QF, 1 R64, 1 R32, 1 R64

Personally, I think that Rafa's 2 additional RU are worth more than Nole's additional 3 SF + 1 QF - because you actually get a trophy for each RU.



Nole's Olympic SF is worth something, but I would say not that much (maybe worth equivalent to another Wimbledon SF at most), and for me this doesn't make enough of a contribution.

Also, Nole beating Nadal in the final in 2011 has no more value than Nole beating anyone else in the final. The trophy is still the same.
Nadal's beaten Djokovic twice on grass anyway.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
I'm not deducting from Rafa, I'm only adding to Nole. Why would people consider Rafa better if both win 2 W, just because Rafa has 2 finals?
Yes. That's exactly it. Being a slam runner-up is the second-best thing a player can do in tennis. It's better than winning an M1000 tournament. It's a significant accomplishment.

I mean Nole makes up for those 2 finals by not losing to journeymen.
No. Great players are measured by great achievements. Bad losses are irrelevant in the long term. Second, Nadal's age-related decrepitude on grass has simply arrived earlier for him than on other surfaces. Age-related decrepitude is never a valid reason for discounting earlier achievements.

Also their only final Nole won. Isn't this also an achievement?
Don't mix achievement-based analysis with head-to-head analysis.
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
Yes. That's exactly it. Being a slam runner-up is the second-best thing a player can do in tennis. It's better than winning an M1000 tournament. It's a significant accomplishment.
I almost agree with this, just one minor edit:

Major Win > WTF Win > Major Runner Up > Masters 1000 Win

(So that a Major Runner-Up is the third-best thing one can achieve).
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
I'm not deducting from Rafa, I'm only adding to Nole. Why would people consider Rafa better if both win 2 W, just because Rafa has 2 finals?

I mean Nole makes up for those 2 finals by not losing to journeymen. That's why they both have the same win %.

Also Nole Rafa did nothing at Olympics. I know Nole didn't win a medal, but going deep is still better achievement than doing nothing.

Also their only final Nole won. Isn't this also an achievement?
Nole did not win their only final.

Nadal defeated Nole at Queens, in the final, in 08.

which was of much higher quality than their 2011 Wimby final; FYI...
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
@many Nadal fans, what about level of competition since you believe it's the most important criteria ?

Never mind about more W final, if Nole had superior competition then I fully expect you to accept Nole is a greater grass court player if he win his 2nd Wimbledon.
 

Chico

Banned
Djokovic is already better grass player than someone who exited Wimbledon in 2nd, 1st and 4th rounds in the last three years.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
@many Nadal fans, what about level of competition since you believe it's the most important criteria ?

Never mind about more W final, if Nole had superior competition then I fully expect you to accept Nole is a greater grass court player if he win his 2nd Wimbledon.
of course…

but how has the competition been that different :confused:

please explain.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic is already better grass player than someone who exited Wimbledon in 2nd, 1st and 4th rounds in the last three years.
But the $65,000 question is who had a superior field when they won.

That determines the tie-breaker, isn't it ?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
of course…

but how has the competition been that different :confused:

please explain.
You tell me.

Since 2003 to present, Nadal/Roger compete against the same field, yet Nadal fanatics including yourself claim Fed had a weak field but Nadal had a strong field. If that's true, then it has to hold true for Nadal and Nole.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Not losing to journeyman isn't an achievement - it doesn't matter to whom you lose, just to what round you get. This is what we need to compare.

Rafa: 2W, 3 RU, 1 R16, 1 R32, 2 R64, 1 R128
Nole (if he wins tomorrow): 2W, 1 RU, 3 SF, 1QF, 1 R64, 1 R32, 1 R64

Personally, I think that Rafa's 2 additional RU are worth more than Nole's additional 3 SF + 1 QF - because you actually get a trophy for each RU.



Nole's Olympic SF is worth something, but I would say not that much (maybe worth equivalent to another Wimbledon SF at most), and for me this doesn't make enough of a contribution.

Also, Nole beating Nadal in the final in 2011 has no more value than Nole beating anyone else in the final. The trophy is still the same.
Not losing to lesser player is an achievement. That makes Nole more consistent than Rafa, while Rafa was more dominant with 2 extra finals.
So it evens out and they should be equals.
 

Logic

Semi-Pro
Not losing to lesser player is an achievement. That makes Nole more consistent than Rafa, while Rafa was more dominant with 2 extra finals.
So it evens out and they should be equals.
No - it doesn't matter to whom you lose, just how far you get in the tournament.

If you think they should be equals, what you're actually saying (as I explained in my previous post) is that:

2 RU = 3 SF + 1 QF

Fine, you're entitled to that opinion. I personally disagree.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
No - it doesn't matter to whom you lose, just how far you get in the tournament.

If you think they should be equals, what you're actually saying (as I explained in my previous post) is that:

2 RU = 3 SF + 1 QF

Fine, you're entitled to that opinion. I personally disagree.
Yeah, Nadal was more dominant, Djokovic was more consistent. Of course if Nole wins W 2014. That was the premise.

Even if you put Rafa ahead, it's still by very small margins. You are acting like Rafa is light years ahead. 2 finals vs 3 SF + 1qf is micro difference.

What about subjective stuff? Like Nole comfortably beating Nadal in their only final. I mean it's a final the most important match. Doesn't that count for something? It's not that Nole beat him, but it was a destruction and not like Rafa was past his prime.
 
Top