Is Djokovic the favorite for the French Open?

[Mustard]

Nadal once had 14-4 and 16-7 leads on Djokovic because Nadal always won the epic matches or best of 5 sets matches. Djokovic before 2011 could only beat Nadal in 2 straight sets on hardcourts, and that was by hitting hard, flat shots, where people like Youzhny, Blake and Berdych gave Nadal problems on hardcourt. So, before 2011 started, Nadal had the edge in the intangibles against Djokovic and could outlast him, even if Djokovic went toe-to-toe with Nadal for the whole match.

Since 2011, Djokovic has been beating Nadal by out-Nadalling Nadal, using his amazing stamina to be in position a lot more often and can dictate the rallies against Nadal with authority. Basically, the intangible edges that Nadal had over Djokovic before 2011 have turned over to Djokovic's favour.

 

[veroniquem]

Djokovic still has Fed in his way.
I'd call it even, but would take Djokovic over Nadal in the final.

Nadal could always beat someone with high percentage long rallies but this won't work with Djokovic.
Nadal could always fall back on fitness, again this definitely won't work with Djokovic.
Djokovic has to be taken out early.

I think Nadal is still the favorite at RG. I also think there is a high probability Rafa will beat Djoko on clay before RG. People take it for granted that Rafa will never beat Novak again on clay. I think people are wrong. Nadal wasn't in great shape during the clay season last year (almost lost to Isner even- of all people!!) People shouldn't assume that Rafa cannot play better than last year. I'm convinced he can.

 

[Towser83]

Nadal is the favourite at the moment, but depends on the clay lead up

 

[bluetrain4]

Right now, I'd have Nadal as the favorite, despite Novak winning those clay matches against Nadal and winning 4 of the last 5 Slams. Nadal is defending and six-time champion.

BUT, if Djokovic repeats last year's pre-French Open clay performance and beats Nadal a couple times (or even a single time if they only play once) on clay leading up the French, I'd have him as he favorite.

 

[Steve_Fox]

Nadal wont make it to the final

 

[veroniquem]

Nadal wont make it to the final

And who's gonna beat him before the final? Federer? :twisted:

 

[MichaelNadal]

Right now, I'd have Nadal as the favorite, despite Novak winning those clay matches against Nadal and winning 4 of the last 5 Slams. Nadal is defending and six-time champion.

BUT, if Djokovic repeats last year's pre-French Open clay performance and beats Nadal a couple times (or even a single time if they only play once) on clay leading up the French, I'd have him as he favorite.

This. The next 3 months are the most important months in the career of Rafael Nadal so far. He's either going to overcome this and be able to beat Novak on clay, or if he gets beaten again in the lead-ups, he can kiss RG goodbye, and Novak is going to go to Federer-level dominance.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Nadal once had 14-4 and 16-7 leads on Djokovic because Nadal always won the epic matches or best of 5 sets matches. Djokovic before 2011 could only beat Nadal in 2 straight sets on hardcourts, and that was by hitting hard, flat shots, where people like Youzhny, Blake and Berdych gave Nadal problems on hardcourt. So, before 2011 started, Nadal had the edge in the intangibles against Djokovic and could outlast him, even if Djokovic went toe-to-toe with Nadal for the whole match.

Since 2011, Djokovic has been beating Nadal by out-Nadalling Nadal, using his amazing stamina to be in position a lot more often and can dictate the rallies against Nadal with authority. Basically, the intangible edges that Nadal had over Djokovic before 2011 have turned over to Djokovic's favour.

It would be fair to say that this is great news.

 

[veroniquem]

This. The next 3 months are the most important months in the career of Rafael Nadal so far. He's either going to overcome this and be able to beat Novak on clay, or if he gets beaten again in the lead-ups, he can kiss RG goodbye, and Novak is going to go to Federer-level dominance.

Djoko is already at Fed level dominance. If he takes clay on top, he will be way beyond what Fed's level of dominance ever was because Fed could never dominate clay (even before Rafa's era, before 2005).

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Nadal once had 14-4 and 16-7 leads on Djokovic because Nadal always won the epic matches or best of 5 sets matches. Djokovic before 2011 could only beat Nadal in 2 straight sets on hardcourts, and that was by hitting hard, flat shots, where people like Youzhny, Blake and Berdych gave Nadal problems on hardcourt. So, before 2011 started, Nadal had the edge in the intangibles against Djokovic and could outlast him, even if Djokovic went toe-to-toe with Nadal for the whole match.

Since 2011, Djokovic has been beating Nadal by out-Nadalling Nadal, using his amazing stamina to be in position a lot more often and can dictate the rallies against Nadal with authority. Basically, the intangible edges that Nadal had over Djokovic before 2011 have turned over to Djokovic's favour.

So then Djokovic didn't always have the matchup advantage against Nadal. If anything, Djokovic's newfound stamina is a new weapon in his arsenal and poses problems for everyone. Federer was a victim to it. Murray was a victim to it. So I fail to see how this is a proposed matchup advantage.

You don't go up 14-4 on a talented rival that has a matchup advantage against you. This notion that Nadal has a matchup disadvantage against Djokovic is absurd, and reeks of the misguided belief that Nadal can only lose if he has a bad matchup.

He has very poor confidence against Djokovic right now, because Djokovic has stripped away any sense of invincibility he might have had, and makes him question whether he can ever beat him again, but that's part of the mental aspect of the game. That's not part of the matchup (dis)advantage.

 

[OddJack]

Aye, Djoker is the favorite

 

[devila]

EITHER WAY, DJOKER & RAFA deserve the praise.

 

[TheTruth]

I don't see Djokovic's dominance over Nadal being a foregone conclusion. That AO could have gone either way. Nadal started the match under the "mental edge," seemed surprised Djoker wasn't playing to his usual standard and made the mistake of not hitting the gas. In the second and third set, imo, he let Novak be Novak, but in the 4th he took that set away from Nole. The biggest mistake Nadal made in that match wasn't the obvious mistake to go up 5-2, but in letting up off the gas for the remainder of that set.

I think that's way Nadal said he wasn't too upset by the loss, because by playing almost in Nadal mode, it was a little up and down, he shook off a lot of the mental issues he's been having with Nole. It was a little too late, but by the end he realized his mistake. 2012 is going to be interesting, but personally, I think Nadal has worked the issue out.

 

[cc0509]

Djoko is already at Fed level dominance. If he takes clay on top, he will be way beyond what Fed's level of dominance ever was because Fed could never dominate clay (even before Rafa's era, before 2005).

No he isn't. Federer won 3 slams per year for three years. Djokovic has dominated like that only for one year. He is not anywhere near Fed's level of dominance. Plus Fed was number one for 280 weeks, how long has Djokovic been number one for? Don't make silly statements that have no basis in reality.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

I don't see Djokovic's dominance over Nadal being a foregone conclusion. That AO could have gone either way. Nadal started the match under the "mental edge," seemed surprised Djoker wasn't playing to his usual standard and made the mistake of not hitting the gas. In the second and third set, imo, he let Novak be Novak, but in the 4th he took that set away from Nole. The biggest mistake Nadal made in that match wasn't the obvious mistake to go up 5-2, but in letting up off the gas for the remainder of that set.

I think that's way Nadal said he wasn't too upset by the loss, because by playing almost in Nadal mode, it was a little up and down, he shook off a lot of the mental issues he's been having with Nole. It was a little too late, but by the end he realized his mistake. 2012 is going to be interesting, but personally, I think Nadal has worked the issue out.

Again this is revisionist history. You're basically saying that Nadal should have taken all the opportunities afforded to him, which is neither plausible or all that realistic. In the course of any tightly contested match, there will be points where either player can capitalize and there will be missed opportunities. Such is tennis and such is life.

You could just as easily say that Nole shouldn't have messed around in that first set to close out the win in straights, or that he should have put his foot on the gas in the 4th and converted one of his many break points (including one game where he was up love-40).

The bottom line is it's not like Nadal didn't take opportunities that were afforded to him, or that all the breaks went Djokovic's way. Djokovic played better throughout the match, which is reflected by Djokovic's strong statistical edge. That's why he won. Djokovic's level was higher than Nadal.

This was also after Djokovic came off a 5 hour semifinal against Murray, with one fewer day of rest. Remember how all the Nadal fans were trumping up Nadal's victory over Federer in 09 because he came off a grueling semifinal win against Verdasco?

If Nadal wants to win, he needs to raise his level some value of significance, or hope that Djokovic lowers his. If they both continue playing at this level, Nadal will need luck and breaks to go his way in order to win.

 

[TheTruth]

So then Djokovic didn't always have the matchup advantage against Nadal. If anything, Djokovic's newfound stamina is a new weapon in his arsenal and poses problems for everyone. Federer was a victim to it. Murray was a victim to it. So I fail to see how this is a proposed matchup advantage.

You don't go up 14-4 on a talented rival that has a matchup advantage against you. This notion that Nadal has a matchup disadvantage against Djokovic is absurd, and reeks of the misguided belief that Nadal can only lose if he has a bad matchup.

He has very poor confidence against Djokovic right now, because Djokovic has stripped away any sense of invincibility he might have had, and makes him question whether he can ever beat him again, but that's part of the mental aspect of the game. That's not part of the matchup (dis)advantage.

I agree. It's not about matchup at all, because even during this slump Nadal has gone into true Nadal mode, forgetting all about the losses and handing Novak a 6-1 set, and ripped the 4th set out of his hands when he was serving for the match.

The problem was, Novak went on his tear and Nadal came back a bit rusty. Many thought that once Nadal came back he would deal with this new Novak. He had so many things over him. Nole had never beat him ---, never outlasted him there---, etc. When Novak's magic appeared to work even on him, Nadal lost confidence, but this AO may be the turning point.

Now, Novak is still much improved, no doubt about that, but I think the dominance is over.

 

[veroniquem]

No he isn't. Federer won 3 slams per year for three years. Djokovic has dominated like that only for one year. He is not anywhere near Fed's level of dominance. Plus Fed was number one for 280 weeks, how long has Djokovic been number one for? Don't make silly statement that have no basis in reality.

Who talked about longevity? I'm not talking long term or overall achievements, I'm talking about current level of dominance over the tour. What was missing to Fed's level was clay, so Djoko can do better than Fed IF he takes clay as well.

 

[Clarky21]

Who talked about longevity? I'm not talking long term or overall achievements, I'm talking about current level of dominance over the tour. What was missing to Fed's level was clay, so Djoko can do better than Fed IF he takes clay as well.

Yeah,from a past his prime Nadal who Fed had to deal with when he was at his peak. Not even remotely the same,but your Fedhate will never let you see that.

 

[TheTruth]

Again this is revisionist history. You're basically saying that Nadal should have taken all the opportunities afforded to him, which is neither plausible or all that realistic. In the course of any tightly contested match, there will be points where either player can capitalize and there will be missed opportunities. Such is tennis and such is life.

You could just as easily say that Nole shouldn't have messed around in that first set to close out the win in straights, or that he should have put his foot on the gas in the 4th and converted one of his many break points (including one game where he was up love-40).

The bottom line is it's not like Nadal didn't take opportunities that were afforded to him, or that all the breaks went Djokovic's way. Djokovic played better throughout the match, which is reflected by Djokovic's strong statistical edge. That's why he won. Djokovic's level was higher than Nadal.

This was also after Djokovic came off a 5 hour semifinal against Murray, with one fewer day of rest. Remember how all the Nadal fans were trumping up Nadal's victory over Federer in 09 because he came off a grueling semifinal win against Verdasco?

If Nadal wants to win, he needs to raise his level some value of significance, or hope that Djokovic lowers his. If they both continue playing at this level, Nadal will need luck and breaks to go his way in order to win.

No, I'm not saying that Nadal should have taken every opportunity available to him. I understand that no one gets all of the breaks on their side during a match and it is neither reasonable or possible. I think Nadal's issue was confidence going in. In 2011 and 2012 so far, Nadal has not played to the death like we're accustomed to seeing. When he gets to Nole that block is there, and that's what needs to be addressed. He could also use a little help on his tactics too.

Regarding the Federer/Nadal final I think that is a mental issue as well. I don't believe that Federer cannot beat Nadal in the big matches, I think Federer thinks he can't beat Nadal in the big matches. It has nothing to do with statistics, it has to do with belief.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

I agree. It's not about matchup at all, because even during this slump Nadal has gone into true Nadal mode, forgetting all about the losses and handing Novak a 6-1 set, and ripped the 4th set out of his hands when he was serving for the match.

The problem was, Novak went on his tear and Nadal came back a bit rusty. Many thought that once Nadal came back he would deal with this new Novak. He had so many things over him. Nole had never beat him ---, never outlasted him there---, etc. When Novak's magic appeared to work even on him, Nadal lost confidence, but this AO may be the turning point.

Now, Novak is still much improved, no doubt about that, but I think the dominance is over.

6-1??? You're talking about the Wimbledon 2011 final? That wasn't Nadal mode, that was Djoker playing like crap in that set.

 

[veroniquem]

I think that's way Nadal said he wasn't too upset by the loss, because by playing almost in Nadal mode, it was a little up and down, he shook off a lot of the mental issues he's been having with Nole. It was a little too late, but by the end he realized his mistake. 2012 is going to be interesting, but personally, I think Nadal has worked the issue out.

Man, I envy your optimism! Truth is Rafa will have worked the issue out if and when he beats Novak (hopefully soon).
Until then, Djoko is still the dominant player and Rafa the one with a problem to solve. (Let's not forget that if AO final had been a best of 3 match, Djoko would still have won it and AO is a slower surface than either W or USO, so I still see a lot of work- mental and technical- for Rafa to overcome that hurdle.)

 

[ChanceEncounter]

No, I'm not saying that Nadal should have taken every opportunity available to him. I understand that no one gets all of the breaks on their side during a match and it is neither reasonable or possible. I think Nadal's issue was confidence going in. In 2011 and 2012 so far, Nadal has not played to the death like we're accustomed to seeing. When he gets to Nole that block is there, and that's what needs to be addressed. He could also use a little help on his tactics too.

Regarding the Federer/Nadal final I think that is a mental issue as well. I don't believe that Federer cannot beat Nadal in the big matches, I think Federer thinks he can't beat Nadal in the big matches. It has nothing to do with statistics, it has to do with belief.

Right now, Nadal needs to find ways to consistently hurt Djokovic. The two sets that he played his best against Djokovic (outside of the 6-1 set at Wimbledon and the first set at AO where Djokovic's level dipped severely) were the 3rd set at the US Open and the 4th set at AO. In those sets, Nadal actually had a few weapons that could win points outright.

Unfortunately, in both sets, Nadal put in so much effort just to squeak out tiebreak wins that he had a letdown in the next set. He needs to find more weapons to use against Djokovic and more ways to win sets more decisively, because his usual method of winning isn't going to work against Djokovic, because Djokovic is playing better defensive/counterpunching tennis than Nadal is right now.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

That 6-1 set was a travesty, Nole should have won in 3.

 

[cc0509]

Who talked about longevity? I'm not talking long term or overall achievements, I'm talking about current level of dominance over the tour. What was missing to Fed's level was clay, so Djoko can do better than Fed IF he takes clay as well.

So one FO will establish Djokovic's dominance is superior to Federer's? Come on. Federer would have had 5 FO titles if it were not for a young prime Nadal. Djokovic will still need to do what he did in 2011 for another two years to be even close to what Fed did.

 

[cc0509]

Man, I envy your optimism! Truth is Rafa will have worked the issue out if and when he beats Novak (hopefully soon).
Until then, Djoko is still the dominant player and Rafa the one with a problem to solve. (Let's not forget that if AO final had been a best of 3 match, Djoko would still have won it and AO is a slower surface than either W or USO, so I still see a lot of work- mental and technical- for Rafa to overcome that hurdle.)

See that, you CAN be perfectly rational! :lol:

 

[veroniquem]

Yeah,from a past his prime Nadal who Fed had to deal with when he was at his peak. Not even remotely the same,but your Fedhate will never let you see that.

Nadal is not past his prime. He's made the last 4 slam finals and he made ALL clay finals last year (that's 5). He may have had highs and lows in terms of form but he is as tough to beat on clay as he ever was (who's beaten him on clay last year apart from Novak?)
I do NOT think Novak is gonna take clay from Rafa to be honest but if he did, full credit where credit is due.

 

[veroniquem]

So one FO will establish Djokovic's dominance is superior to Federer's? Come on. Federer would have had 5 FO titles if it were not for a young prime Nadal. Djokovic will still need to do what he did in 2011 for another two years to be even close to what Fed did.

You're still talking about longevity when I'm only talking about level of dominance at any given point. Still, 1 RG title beating Rafa would have more value than an RG title beating Sod. Also, in terms of level of dominance, it wouldn't speak well for Fed that Djoko would beat Nadal at first try (at RG) when Fed was not able to do it after 5 attempts. But never mind that, I am not arguing overall achievements, I'm arguing that while in 2006 or 2004 (Fed's best seasons), Fed dominated everything EXCEPT FOR clay (and Rafa wasn't an issue in 2004, so, no, Rafa is not the excuse), IF (and it's a huge if), Djoko made 4 slams in a row by dominating grass, fast hard court, slow hard court AND clay simultaneously, his level of dominance would be superior to the level of dominance Fed ever had - even during his best season because Fed was always missing clay.

 

[Mustard]

So then Djokovic didn't always have the matchup advantage against Nadal. If anything, Djokovic's newfound stamina is a new weapon in his arsenal and poses problems for everyone. Federer was a victim to it. Murray was a victim to it. So I fail to see how this is a proposed matchup advantage.

You don't go up 14-4 on a talented rival that has a matchup advantage against you. This notion that Nadal has a matchup disadvantage against Djokovic is absurd, and reeks of the misguided belief that Nadal can only lose if he has a bad matchup.

He has very poor confidence against Djokovic right now, because Djokovic has stripped away any sense of invincibility he might have had, and makes him question whether he can ever beat him again, but that's part of the mental aspect of the game. That's not part of the matchup (dis)advantage.

Yes. Djokovic's style has always been a tough matchup for Nadal, but Nadal could always overcome it and win through persistence, fitness and determination if Djokovic went toe-to-toe him in a match before 2011. I'm talking here about their matches like 2008 Hamburg, 2008 Queen's Club, 2008 Beijing Olympics, 2009 Monte Carlo, 2009 Rome and 2009 Madrid. Djokovic would ultimately be grinded down by Nadal's determination and physical game. The situation since 2011 is very different because Djokovic now has a lot more stamina and is very rarely out of position on court. Because of this, he dictates the rallies against Nadal with authority, and as a result, he is having Nadal on the run and grinding Nadal down, which is a completely turnaround in the on-court dynamic.

So, Djokovic is a tough matchup for Nadal and always has been, but the difference since 2011 is Djokovic's stamina, enabling much better court positioning, tougher mental strength and enabling Djokovic to dictate to Nadal instead of vice-versa.

 

[Clarky21]

Nadal is not past his prime. He's made the last 4 slam finals and he made ALL clay finals last year (that's 5). He may have had highs and lows in terms of form but he is as tough to beat on clay as he ever was (who's beaten him on clay last year apart from Novak?)
I do NOT think Novak is gonna take clay from Rafa to be honest but if he did, full credit where credit is due.

He most certainly is past his prime no matter how many finals he has made. Do you think a prime Nadal gets taken to 5 sets on clay by Isner,or drops a set to 135th ranked Paulo Lorenzi on clay? How about nearly dropping sets to Andujar on clay? Those are just a few examples of how horrible Nadal played last year on clay. There is no way in the world he is still in his prime with results like that on his best surface.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

7 out of the last 8 Slam finals, and showed incredible form by his standards on hard courts in the 2010 US Open, comparable to his efforts at 2009 AO and 2008 RG relative to the levels that he would expect to produce given the surfaces. His all around game and consistency is prime time. Nadal is still in his prime, maybe not his peakiest 'peak', but indeed, his prime.

 

[Sentinel]

Aye, Djoker is the favorite

No question about it. Nadal's 2011 win was an accident or gift by Fred, no Federer, no slam. Don't see how Nadal can be a clear fave.

Have to see the clay season, but i suspect it will be closer this year with Ralph taking some wins.

 

[veroniquem]

See that, you CAN be perfectly rational! :lol:

I always try to be objective. I want Rafa to win as much as the next guy but what good is denial gonna do?
Rafa will figure things out when he beats Djoko again. I'm not gonna start celebrating before it happens, that would be setting myself up for disappointment.

 

[Sentinel]

He most certainly is past his prime no matter how many finals he has made. There is no way in the world he is still in his prime with results like that on his best surface.

But you do agree that Fred is still in his prime don't you ?

I didn't know being beaten by someone automatically means you are no longer in prime. What if that person is just plain better ?

 

[veroniquem]

He most certainly is past his prime no matter how many finals he has made. Do you think a prime Nadal gets taken to 5 sets on clay by Isner,or drops a set to 135th ranked Paulo Lorenzi on clay? How about nearly dropping sets to Andujar on clay? Those are just a few examples of how horrible Nadal played last year on clay. There is no way in the world he is still in his prime with results like that on his best surface.

He was in poor form during clay season (probably due to some health issues). That doesn't mean he is past his prime. He's #2, closer to #1 after the AO and he's most definitely NOT past his prime if despite form struggles, he's just made his best ever streak in slams (4 consecutive finals).

 

[Clarky21]

But you do agree that Fred is still in his prime don't you ?I didn't know being beaten by someone automatically means you are no longer in prime. What if that person is just plain better ?

Nope,sure don't.


And since Nadal beats Fed does that mean Nadal is better?

 

[mrDamien]

No way. I would like Nadal to teach Djokovic a lesson in clay. With Nadal success on clay has earned him the nickname "The King of Clay"...

 

[Clarky21]

He was in poor form during clay season (probably due to some health issues). That doesn't mean he is past his prime. He's #2, closer to #1 after the AO and he's most definitely NOT past his prime if despite form struggles, he's just made his best ever streak in slams (4 consecutive finals).

What health issues? I haven't heard anything about that.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Yes. Djokovic's style has always been a tough matchup for Nadal, but Nadal could always overcome it and win through persistence, fitness and determination if Djokovic went toe-to-toe him in a match before 2011. I'm talking here about their matches like 2008 Hamburg, 2008 Queen's Club, 2008 Beijing Olympics, 2009 Monte Carlo, 2009 Rome and 2009 Madrid. Djokovic would ultimately be grinded down by Nadal's determination and physical game. The situation since 2011 is very different because Djokovic now has a lot more stamina and is very rarely out of position on court. Because of this, he dictates the rallies against Nadal with authority, and as a result, he is having Nadal on the run and grinding Nadal down, which is a completely turnaround in the on-court dynamic.

So, Djokovic is a tough matchup for Nadal and always has been, but the difference since 2011 is Djokovic's stamina, enabling much better court positioning, tougher mental strength and enabling Djokovic to dictate to Nadal instead of vice-versa.

This is a contradiction of terms. So you're saying that Djokovic always had a technical advantage against Nadal but Nadal had more fitness and physicality.

Guess what? Fitness and strength were Nadal's strengths over Djokovic [at the time]. In any match between two similarly strong competitors, one player will have certain advantages over the other. Djokovic may have had better technical strokes, but Nadal had better fitness and strength.

The problem here is that Djokovic has improved his stamina, to the point where he now has better technical strokes than Nadal and better stamina. That means, right now, Djokovic is the more complete and better player.

A matchup advantage is when a player can take advantage of another player even without necessarily being better than that player overall. Earlier in Nadal's career, he would always trouble Federer even when Federer was the better overall player. Why? Because he had a very clear matchup advantage. Taller players like Soderling and Del Potro can give Nadal trouble, even without necessarily being as good as Nadal, because they have a matchup advantage.

When a better/more complete player beats a lesser/less complete player, it's not exploiting a matchup advantage, it's simply being better. Djokovic isn't doing anything to Nadal that he isn't doing to Murray, Federer, et al. His gameplan doesn't really change. He doesn't have some kind of panacea like Nadal does when he hits to Federer's backhand. The only difference is that he's beaten Nadal so conclusively so many times that Nadal is lacking confidence over whether or not he's even capable of beating Djokovic.

That's a mental advantage, not a matchup advantage. Your confusion is that you somehow exclude fitness and physicality from your analysis of 'matchup' advantages and disadvantages when, in fact, you should be including them. Fitness and physicality are crucial skills to have in today's game. At one point, Nadal had much more fitness and physicality than Djokovic, making him the better player. That's not true any more.

 

[cc0509]

You're still talking about longevity when I'm only talking about level of dominance at any given point. Still, 1 RG title beating Rafa would have more value than an RG title beating Sod. Also, in terms of level of dominance, it wouldn't speak well for Fed that Djoko would beat Nadal at first try (at RG) when Fed was not able to do it after 5 attempts. But never mind that, I am not arguing overall achievements, I'm arguing that while in 2006 or 2004 (Fed's best seasons), Fed dominated everything EXCEPT FOR clay (and Rafa wasn't an issue in 2004, so, no, Rafa is not the excuse), IF (and it's a huge if), Djoko made 4 slams in a row by dominating grass, fast hard court, slow hard court AND clay simultaneously, his level of dominance would be superior to the level of dominance Fed ever had - even during his best season because Fed was always missing clay.

1. No it wouldn't. A slam title is a slam title, doesn't matter who you beat. You can only beat who is in front of you. Nadal did not make the finals yet he was in that FO tournament that year. If we are going to look at who a player defeats to get his slam trophy, let's look at Nadal's first FO win against Puerta. Now that is a real quality opponent! Maybe we should discount that win?

2. Whatever Djokovic is able to do or not do on clay has nothing to do with Federer. In any case that is a silly argument, how many times did Federer reach the finals of the FO? Compare that to Djokovic's record of FO finals. Also nobody cares about anything but a win. If Djokovic beats Nadal at the FO Djokovic will have one FO which is the same number that Fed has. People only look at slam numbers.

I do agree that if Djokovic wins the FO by defeating Nadal this year that will be a great achievement but it has nothing to do with Federer at all and will not make Federer look bad in any way. The only player who will look bad will be Nadal. Already the 7 straight defeats that Djokovic has handed Nadal is much worse than anything Nadal was able to do against Federer which is only the h2h. Don't bring Federer into it, this is all about Nadal now.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

This is a contradiction of terms. So you're saying that Djokovic always had a technical advantage against Nadal but Nadal had more fitness and physicality.

Guess what? Fitness and strength were Nadal's strengths over Djokovic [at the time]. In any match between two similarly strong competitors, one player will have certain advantages over the other. Djokovic may have had better technical strokes, but Nadal had better fitness and strength.

The problem here is that Djokovic has improved his stamina, to the point where he now has better technical strokes than Nadal and better stamina. That means, right now, Djokovic is the more complete and better player.

A matchup advantage is when a player can take advantage of another player even without necessarily being better than that player overall. Earlier in Nadal's career, he would always trouble Federer even when Federer was the better overall player. Why? Because he had a very clear matchup advantage. Taller players like Soderling and Del Potro can give Nadal trouble, even without necessarily being as good as Nadal, because they have a matchup advantage.

When a better/more complete player beats a lesser/less complete player, it's not exploiting a matchup advantage, it's simply being better. Djokovic isn't doing anything to Nadal that he isn't doing to Murray, Federer, et al. His gameplan doesn't really change. He doesn't have some kind of panacea like Nadal does when he hits to Federer's backhand. The only difference is that he's beaten Nadal so conclusively so many times that Nadal is lacking confidence over whether or not he's even capable of beating Djokovic.

That's a mental advantage, not a matchup advantage. Your confusion is that you somehow exclude fitness and physicality from your analysis of 'matchup' advantages and disadvantages when, in fact, you should be including them. Fitness and physicality are crucial skills to have in today's game. At one point, Nadal had much more fitness and physicality than Djokovic, making him the better player. That's not true any more.

This is a really outstanding post, very intelligent and flawlessly argued in my opinion. It's a great rebuttal and I think the reasoning is secure, wish I had your skills but still I can sit back and admire. Those attributes should certainly be included and not excluded.

 

[TheTruth]

Man, I envy your optimism! Truth is Rafa will have worked the issue out if and when he beats Novak (hopefully soon).
Until then, Djoko is still the dominant player and Rafa the one with a problem to solve. (Let's not forget that if AO final had been a best of 3 match, Djoko would still have won it and AO is a slower surface than either W or USO, so I still see a lot of work- mental and technical- for Rafa to overcome that hurdle.)

It's not about optimism to me, it's about life. Too many times people tend to look only at what they see before them, rather than seeing all facets of a situation and how they got there.

I saw a post, I don't remember who, that said who would have thought Novak would come on this strong? I did. Why not? He has the skills, and he's always been a tough matchup for Rafa. What's the mystery there? And for those who think Murray will never win a slam. I do. Again, why not? Once we burn today, the past is over, but the future holds many surprises. I don't know about you, but things never turn out the way I envision. There are always wrinkles I hadn't considered.

I agree Rafa has a problem to solve, but in solving problems that's how we get better. If we stagnate and rest on our laurels then growth becomes elusive.

I can't understand you thinking if it would have been best of three it would have been a foregone conclusion, because a best of 3 and a best of 5 have totally different dynamics.

 

[Mustard]

Guess what? Fitness and strength were Nadal's strengths over Djokovic [at the time]. In any match between two similarly strong competitors, one player will have certain advantages over the other. Djokovic may have had better technical strokes, but Nadal had better fitness and strength.

The problem here is that Djokovic has improved his stamina, to the point where he now has better technical strokes than Nadal and better stamina. That means, right now, Djokovic is the more complete and better player.

Exactly......

 

[Mike Sams]

This is a contradiction of terms. So you're saying that Djokovic always had a technical advantage against Nadal but Nadal had more fitness and physicality.

Guess what? Fitness and strength were Nadal's strengths over Djokovic [at the time]. In any match between two similarly strong competitors, one player will have certain advantages over the other. Djokovic may have had better technical strokes, but Nadal had better fitness and strength.

The problem here is that Djokovic has improved his stamina, to the point where he now has better technical strokes than Nadal and better stamina. That means, right now, Djokovic is the more complete and better player.

A matchup advantage is when a player can take advantage of another player even without necessarily being better than that player overall. Earlier in Nadal's career, he would always trouble Federer even when Federer was the better overall player. Why? Because he had a very clear matchup advantage. Taller players like Soderling and Del Potro can give Nadal trouble, even without necessarily being as good as Nadal, because they have a matchup advantage.

When a better/more complete player beats a lesser/less complete player, it's not exploiting a matchup advantage, it's simply being better. Djokovic isn't doing anything to Nadal that he isn't doing to Murray, Federer, et al. His gameplan doesn't really change. He doesn't have some kind of panacea like Nadal does when he hits to Federer's backhand. The only difference is that he's beaten Nadal so conclusively so many times that Nadal is lacking confidence over whether or not he's even capable of beating Djokovic.

That's a mental advantage, not a matchup advantage. Your confusion is that you somehow exclude fitness and physicality from your analysis of 'matchup' advantages and disadvantages when, in fact, you should be including them. Fitness and physicality are crucial skills to have in today's game. At one point, Nadal had much more fitness and physicality than Djokovic, making him the better player. That's not true any more.

...and Djokovic's knees are in much better shape than Nadal's by the looks of it.

 

[TheTruth]

Right now, Nadal needs to find ways to consistently hurt Djokovic. The two sets that he played his best against Djokovic (outside of the 6-1 set at Wimbledon and the first set at AO where Djokovic's level dipped severely) were the 3rd set at the US Open and the 4th set at AO. In those sets, Nadal actually had a few weapons that could win points outright.

Unfortunately, in both sets, Nadal put in so much effort just to squeak out tiebreak wins that he had a letdown in the next set. He needs to find more weapons to use against Djokovic and more ways to win sets more decisively, because his usual method of winning isn't going to work against Djokovic, because Djokovic is playing better defensive/counterpunching tennis than Nadal is right now.

You may be right. It's just not the way I break things down. I enjoyed your post though, because it makes sense. The biggest difference I see is that he's not playing his "usual" game. Just like to me, Federer doesn't play his usual game when playing against Nadal.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Exactly......

Sneaky little edit.:twisted:

 

[cc0509]

It's not about optimism to me, it's about life. Too many times people tend to look only at what they see before them, rather than seeing all facets of a situation and how they got there.


I agree Rafa has a problem to solve, but in solving problems that's how we get better. If we stagnate and rest on our laurels then growth becomes elusive.

Who knew we would be treated to a philosophy lesson on a tennis board!

 

[veroniquem]

It's not about optimism to me, it's about life. Too many times people tend to look only at what they see before them, rather than seeing all facets of a situation and how they got there.

I saw a post, I don't remember who, that said who would have thought Novak would come on this strong? I did. Why not? He has the skills, and he's always been a tough matchup for Rafa. What's the mystery there? And for those who think Murray will never win a slam. I do. Again, why not? Once we burn today, the past is over, but the future holds many surprises. I don't know about you, but things never turn out the way I envision. There are always wrinkles I hadn't considered.

I agree Rafa has a problem to solve, but in solving problems that's how we get better. If we stagnate and rest on our laurels then growth becomes elusive.

I can't understand you thinking if it would have been best of three it would have been a foregone conclusion, because a best of 3 and a best of 5 have totally different dynamics.

I agree with everything you say here. But I wouldn't go so far as saying Rafa has figured out Djoko (your former post), I would say he is in the process of doing it, which is not exatly the same and I'm still unsure how it's gonna pan out because as you mention, life is full of surprises.
The best of 3 remark is just because Rafa was so totally dominated in set 2 and 3, it made me think Djoko could still blitz Rafa off the court in matches where Rafa doesn't have time to organize a reaction. He has to work on his position on the court, his second serve and on his backhand imo. I think Rafa will be more comfortable on clay than on hard to reverse the momentum, that's been my theory from the start.

 

[Mustard]

Sneaky little edit.:twisted:

I pressed the submit reply button too soon

 

[Mustard]

This is a really outstanding post, very intelligent and flawlessly argued in my opinion. It's a great rebuttal and I think the reasoning is secure, wish I had your skills but still I can sit back and admire. Those attributes should certainly be included and not excluded.

I did include them. I'm talking about tennis-wise, or skills-wise if you prefer, Djokovic has always been a tough matchup for Nadal, but Nadal could overcome this because of his better mental strength, fitness, determination etc. Djokovic's increased stamina, and the results from that, have turned the rivalry in Djokovic's favour.

 

[TheTruth]

I agree with everything you say here. But I wouldn't go so far as saying Rafa has figured out Djoko (your former post), I would say he is in the process of doing it, which is not exatly the same and I'm still unsure how it's gonna pan out because as you mention, life is full of surprises.
The best of 3 remark is just because Rafa was so totally dominated in set 2 and 3, it made me think Djoko could still blitz Rafa off the court in matches where Rafa doesn't have time to organize a reaction. He has to work on his position on the court, his second serve and on his backhand imo. I think Rafa will be more comfortable on clay than on hard to reverse the momentum, that's been my theory from the start.

I didn't say (or mean to say) he's figured out how to play Nole. I think his tactics do need a bit of work. I think he's getting past the confidence issues, otherwise he would have gone down meekly, imo. That's what I'm happy about.

I agree with this part too. I'm just giving my take on the way I see things. I don't profess to be right. Everyone makes good points and if we embrace different perspectives, we broaden our own experiences.

Good post. Appreciate it.