Is Djokovic More Talented Than Nadal?

[NamRanger]

Why not giving your own opinion rather than hiding behind some "Federer Fans"?

Attempt to troll me? Explain to me how Federer has lost to the same one dimensional strategy that Nadal supposedly uses 13 times, across all surfaces. You'd think that an intelligent and talented player like Federer would have come across a solution by now don't you?



Truth : Nadal is better than Federer at the moment. Period.

 

[OddJack]

Attempt to troll me? Explain to me how Federer has lost to the same one dimensional strategy that Nadal supposedly uses 13 times, across all surfaces. You'd think that an intelligent and talented player like Federer would have come across a solution by now don't you?



Truth : Nadal is better than Federer at the moment. Period.

H2H Results are not everything. If it's everything for you then you can have him.

If consistency, longevity, variety, over all achievements, etc etc... mean anything to you then have patience, look farther than "the moment" because it's very short lived. When you look back at the history of the game do you look at the moments or do you look at the achievements and records?
And it's not over yet.
If you ask me stupid as s/he is, the freak has got into your heads somehow.

 

[NamRanger]

H2H Results are not everything. If it's everything for you then you can have him.

If consistency, longevity, variety, over all achievements, etc etc... mean anything to you then have patience, look farther than "the moment" because it's very short lived. When you look back at the history of the game do you look at the moments or do you look at the achievements and records?
And it's not over yet.
If you ask me stupid as s/he is, the freak has got into your heads somehow.

You're performing a Nadal_Freak by attempting to avoid my counter argument. Basically, you conceded and admit defeat. Thank you.

 

[OddJack]

You're performing a Nadal_Freak by attempting to avoid my counter argument. Basically, you conceded and admit defeat. Thank you.

I admit defeat only because I just realized I was talking to an empty space.

You have no argument, people like you see no further than your nose which is as short as the moment.

 

[Blank]

Talents remain as talents unless they get worked on.

Guys who perfected all their 5 talents, will beat those with 10 but only perfected 3.

 

[P_Agony]

Why not giving your own opinion rather than hiding behind some "Federer Fans"?

Because he wants to start a flame war, what else there is to it?

 

[koalakoala]

Nadal+Uncle Toni are really the best thinker(s) at this moment. Hope Federer+Cahill can top them.

Federer, listen and get some help.

 

[koalakoala]

Oh, I forgot about Murray. He is up there as well.

 

[swedechris]

Nole is way better talented than Nadal in doing 3 things:
1.Imitating other players styles
2.Telling jokes and being funny in interviews in English
3. The one we all know already.. at faking injury.

in the area of stalling they are a draw IMO.

the rest Rafa is better at.. aka playing tennis and winning matches.

 

[abmk]

Talent is mental too. The way you think the game is talent.

Nadal is the best thinker in tennis by far.

Hmm, then care to explain why the nadal-monfils match in doha played out the way it did or for that matter his scheduling ??

 

[bolo]

Hmm, then care to explain why the nadal-monfils match in doha played out the way it did or for that matter his scheduling ??

Nothing to explain, it's just one loss. Did you notice who won the australian open?

Nothing all that wrong with his scheduling either, he played more matches last year, got better on all surfaces and took no. 1. What more do you want from the guy?

 

[tacou]

Yes I did. I was backing your post up, not contradicting it.

oh, splendid.

LurkingGod, nice post.

I do think "natural talent" plays a part in athletics, to some degree; look at Richard Gasquet's backhand-- that shot is beautiful and cannot have been designed, it simply always 'was'. Still, talent is an objective term while results are not. Argue all you want about the aesthetics of Nadal's game or how his "determination to chase down every ball and great stamina" are the only reasons he's #1, but that's the fact-- he is #1.

Nadal's achievements currently dwarf Novak's. Djokovic is a good player, one of the best on tour, but in no way is he more talented than Nadal, no matter how you define that term.

 

[martini1]

Nadal: Fights for every point in every match.

Djokovic: Pulls out for a sore throat.

Djokovic is probably more naturally gifted than Nadal. Hasn't worked out that way on the court.

:LOL: Especially in AO he got those soccer chanting fans.

 

[abmk]

Nothing to explain, it's just one loss. Did you notice who won the australian open?

Its not about it being one loss, its about the manner of the loss, monfils never allowed him to get into rhythm and nadal could do nothing about it , he was very disturbed by monfils strategy ...

Nothing all that wrong with his scheduling either, he played more matches last year, got better on all surfaces and took no. 1. What more do you want from the guy?

Right like playing rotterdam this year which was a week after AO. Like playing doubles in paris masters near year-end in 2008 and then retiring in singles due to injury. Missing TMC and Davis Cup final due to injury. But there is nothing wrong with his scheduling .

I didn't question nadal's accomplishments , he is a great great player , I was only questioning the statement that nadal is the best thinker in tennis by far ....

 

[LurkingGod]

Its not about it being one loss, its about the manner of the loss, monfils never allowed him to get into rhythm and nadal could do nothing about it , he was very disturbed by monfils strategy ...
....

Rafa always looked annoyed when he lost a point, let alone a match. I agree with bolo it's just a match that his opponent outplayed him on that day. And it's Monfils not an unname qualifier. When Pete Sampras had a losing record against Wayne Ferreira I didn't see people giving too much thought on the manner of Pete's losses nor did they hail Wayne's strategy as a textbook to beat him...

I didn't question nadal's accomplishments , he is a great great player, I was only questioning the statement that nadal is the best thinker in tennis by far

We're talking about the 'thinking' that happened on court. He didn't plan his own schedule all by himself. And his injury at the end of the year was the result of playing too many matches, the price he had to pay for reaching the semis or final on most of the tournaments he'd played.

 

[LurkingGod]

LurkingGod, nice post.

I do think "natural talent" plays a part in athletics, to some degree; look at Richard Gasquet's backhand-- that shot is beautiful and cannot have been designed, it simply always 'was'. Still, talent is an objective term while results are not. Argue all you want about the aesthetics of Nadal's game or how his "determination to chase down every ball and great stamina" are the only reasons he's #1, but that's the fact-- he is #1.

Nadal's achievements currently dwarf Novak's. Djokovic is a good player, one of the best on tour, but in no way is he more talented than Nadal, no matter how you define that term.

Thanks.

Of course talent alone doesn't make anyone a great player. Talent presents the potential but players with great potential still need skills, strategies and fitness to win a match. I don't know why people seems to underrate Nadal's talent. I thought he's something special the first time I saw him play Lleyton Hewitt in AO and he didn't even come close to win that match.

 

[bolo]

Rafa always looked annoyed when he lost a point, let alone a match. I agree with bolo it's just a match that his opponent outplayed him on that day. And it's Monfils not an unname qualifier. When Pete Sampras had a losing record against Wayne Ferreira I didn't see people giving too much thought on the manner of Pete's losses nor did they hail Wayne's strategy as a textbook to beat him...



We're talking about the 'thinking' that happened on court. He didn't plan his own schedule all by himself. And his injury at the end of the year was the result of playing too many matches, the price he had to pay for reaching the semis or final on most of the tournaments he'd played.

If there is really a pattern to monfil's victory against nadal, I expect that nadal will make an adjustment in the next match. I can imagine that monfils is the type of player that bothers nadal now (like simon,murray, although from what I read nadal made an adjustment to simon in the AO match) but let's see monfils do it a couple of more times before we draw any conclusions.

I don't think there is all that much to defend with his scheduling. Broadly nadal played more matches last year than the year before, won more, and took the no. 1. If his knees gave out at the end, you have to believe that nadal thinks that what he had to gain was worth it. He is a smart guy, and as you said the pain at the end was the price he was willing to pay for his results.

 

[MrBen]

More talented, but not as consistent