Is Djokovic the favorite for the French Open?

[NamRanger]

According to your own logic:


You can't turn around and claim that Djokovic picks on Nadal with the DTL in response without running into the same error for "not being very sound."

Djokovic's DTL backhand dominated the whole tour last year. He does it against everyone. Djokovic's game depends upon him switching the pace back and forth and moving his opponents side to side. How many points did Djokovic win specifically by pinning Nadal into his backhand corner until he made an error?

Nadal's forehand used to dominate the whole tour. He does it against everyone. How many points did Nadal win pinning his opponents into the corner of their backhand?


See? I can do it too. Look, I know you loathe Nadal, but you can't seriously justify that Djokovic is not a bad match-up for Nadal. It's just not seriously possible. He is a match-up problem because he exposes Nadal for what he really is, a one dimensional player. No other player can do that.


And Nadal's forehand to Federer's backhand is ONLY a match-up issue ON clay. Off clay, Federer generally deals with it fine, it is the fact that he chokes more often than not that causes him to lose.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Nadal's forehand used to dominate the whole tour. He does it against everyone. How many points did Nadal win pinning his opponents into the corner of their backhand?


See? I can do it too. Look, I know you loathe Nadal, but you can't seriously justify that Djokovic is not a bad match-up for Nadal. It's just not seriously possible. He is a match-up problem because he exposes Nadal for what he really is, a one dimensional player. No other player can do that.


And Nadal's forehand to Federer's backhand is ONLY a match-up issue ON clay. Off clay, Federer generally deals with it fine, it is the fact that he chokes more often than not that causes him to lose.

This is ridiculous. I apparently 'loathe' Nadal because I claim he gets beat fair and square? Is Nadal some kind of golden idol that can only lose when someone exploits a matchup advantage?

You said it yourself, Nadal is a one-dimensional player. One-dimensional players lose when their one-dimension doesn't work. That means anyone who is capable of forcing him out of his one-dimensional play, or minimize the effectiveness of that style of play, will be able to beat him. That doesn't mean they are doing it via a matchup advantage.

And I fail to see your point. Nadal has a very good forehand, and it does dominate the tour. Are you trying to argue that Nadal doesn't have a matchup advantage against Federer? Fine. Let's suppose you're right. Nadal doesn't have a matchup advantage against Federer. However, if true, by your same logic, Djokovic doesn't have a matchup advantage against Nadal, as I've already demonstrated. I know it's hard, but keep your logic consistent please.

Secondly, how exactly does having a dominating forehand mean that you aren't exploiting a matchup advantage with it? Does having a dominating forehand always mean that any shot you hit off it isn't exploiting a matchup advantage? If so, how? Please demonstrate how that logic is valid.

Are you trying to argue that Nadal's forehand doesn't work especially well against Federer? Whereas a lot of players lose to Nadal because they play right into his hands, or because Nadal simply hits a winner off of a short ball against his forehand, few players show the same vulnerability to Nadal's rally-prolonging crosscourt forehand high to his backhand side. Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro, Soderling, Ferrer, Tsonga, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Berdych, etc don't share this specific weakness.

 

[Mustard]

As I asked, why was Nadal 14-4 against Djokovic if Djokovic was such a matchup problem? Mustard at least attempted to explain this to me by claiming that he always felt Djokovic had some level of stroke superiority over Nadal, but Nadal won by being fitter and physically stronger.

The most important point about the fitness is that Nadal was able to be in position better than Djokovic before 2011, in order to dictate the rallies against Djokovic. That has now reversed, and Djokovic is dictating to Nadal instead. Djokovic before 2011 would only beat Nadal on hardcourt in 2 straight sets by hitting hard, flat strokes the way the likes of Blake, Berdych, Youzhny would do to Nadal on hardcourt. In the matches where Djokovic went toe-to-toe with Nadal, Nadal would ultimately wear him down. Since 2011, Djokovic is generally in control of the rallies against Nadal and Nadal can't enforce his physical grinding game on Djokovic anymore. Instead, the opposite is happening, and Djokovic is making Nadal feel the force of his grinding game instead.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

The most important point about the fitness is that Nadal was able to be in position better than Djokovic before 2011, in order to dictate the rallies against Djokovic. That has now reversed, and Djokovic is dictating to Nadal instead. Djokovic before 2011 would only beat Nadal on hardcourt in 2 straight sets by hitting hard, flat strokes the way the likes of Blake, Berdych, Youzhny would do to Nadal on hardcourt. In the matches where Djokovic went toe-to-toe with Nadal, Nadal would ultimately wear him down. Since 2011, Djokovic is generally in control of the rallies against Nadal and Nadal can't enforce his physical grinding game on Djokovic anymore. Instead, the opposite is happening, and Djokovic is making Nadal feel the force of his grinding game instead.

I agree with this assessment completely. I also agree that the fitter, more confident, and stronger player frequently gets in better court positioning.

However, I'm saying that these factors all go into the big pool of skills and attributes that make a player good. So while Djokovic had certain advantages over Nadal, prior to 2011, he was not as good a player as Nadal because he lacked attributes that Nadal had in abundance. Now, since he's closed the gap on the factors that once held him back (fitness, strength, confidence), he's n longer missing those factors that make him a great player. At the moment, I think he's simply better than Nadal, and not winning because he's exploiting a matchup advantage he holds over Nadal.

However, I also think Nadal is slowly adapting his game to beat Djokovic, and getting better because of it. It's not out of the question that he can wrestle away the title of being the best player on tour from him.

 

[DRII]

I agree with this assessment completely. I also agree that the fitter, more confident, and stronger player frequently gets in better court positioning.

However, I'm saying that these factors all go into the big pool of skills and attributes that make a player good. So while Djokovic had certain advantages over Nadal, prior to 2011, he was not as good a player as Nadal because he lacked attributes that Nadal had in abundance. Now, since he's closed the gap on the factors that once held him back (fitness, strength, confidence), he's n longer missing those factors that make him a great player. At the moment, I think he's simply better than Nadal, and not winning because he's exploiting a matchup advantage he holds over Nadal.

However, I also think Nadal is slowly adapting his game to beat Djokovic, and getting better because of it. It's not out of the question that he can wrestle away the title of being the best player on tour from him.

So I guess your 'at the moment' simply negates all past history and makes it irrelevant. By the same token, Nadal is simply just a better player than Federer since he has a dominant head to head against him (including before Federer's slight decline starting in 2008) and his overall achievements are on par with Federer!

The point is; let's not have double standards! If we're only going by recent history, then Nole is just 'simply better' than everyone right now... Not just Nadal, who has himself declined since 2010!

 

[NamRanger]

This is ridiculous. I apparently 'loathe' Nadal because I claim he gets beat fair and square? Is Nadal some kind of golden idol that can only lose when someone exploits a matchup advantage?

You said it yourself, Nadal is a one-dimensional player. One-dimensional players lose when their one-dimension doesn't work. That means anyone who is capable of forcing him out of his one-dimensional play, or minimize the effectiveness of that style of play, will be able to beat him. That doesn't mean they are doing it via a matchup advantage.

And I fail to see your point. Nadal has a very good forehand, and it does dominate the tour. Are you trying to argue that Nadal doesn't have a matchup advantage against Federer? Fine. Let's suppose you're right. Nadal doesn't have a matchup advantage against Federer. However, if true, by your same logic, Djokovic doesn't have a matchup advantage against Nadal, as I've already demonstrated. I know it's hard, but keep your logic consistent please.

Secondly, how exactly does having a dominating forehand mean that you aren't exploiting a matchup advantage with it? Does having a dominating forehand always mean that any shot you hit off it isn't exploiting a matchup advantage? If so, how? Please demonstrate how that logic is valid.

Are you trying to argue that Nadal's forehand doesn't work especially well against Federer? Whereas a lot of players lose to Nadal because they play right into his hands, or because Nadal simply hits a winner off of a short ball against his forehand, few players show the same vulnerability to Nadal's rally-prolonging crosscourt forehand high to his backhand side. Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro, Soderling, Ferrer, Tsonga, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Berdych, etc don't share this specific weakness.

I'm really not going to bother with this, because it's obvious you're completely blinded by your hatred.


I said Federer and Nadal Forehand to Backhand only becomes a match-up issue ON CLAY. Off clay, it is not really as big of an issue, and really it comes more down to Federer choking to Nadal more than anything. The scorelines off clay will tell you exactly this too; the two are simply evenly matched off clay.


But continue strawmanning everything I say. It's great to see a poster like you get caught up with your hatred for Nadal. I don't even like the guy, but you seem to be out to get him right now. Just completely disregard the fact that I stated that OFF clay, the Nadal FH to Federer BH is not an issue; it's no more of an issue than it is for someone like Roddick to deal with off clay.




Djokovic matches up well against Nadal. He has advantages in almost every normal rally shot. That is by definition a match-up advantage. Novak wins DTL to DTL backhand exchanges, and FH to BH exchanges. The FH/FH is a wash, and Nadal's FH to Novak's BH is completely neutralized. The reason why Nadal beat Federer ON clay was because of a match-up issue. Off clay, totally different story. It was just Federer getting intimidated and folding like a chair. Your insistence that Novak is simply just a "better" player than Nadal is just hilarious. Novak has always been a match-up issue from a technical standpoint for Nadal. Tennis is a game of match-ups. Novak has match-up advantages against Nadal that no other player has. Plain and simple.


To argue that because Nadal beats Federer because of a "match-up" advantage he has in his forehand and then reverse it and say Novak doesn't have a match-up advantage against Nadal (when Novak clearly struggles with certain players like Murray, Federer, and a few other big hitters that can move well like Monfils) is just hilarious. It only further proves either 1) How little you actually play tennis or 2) How biased you really are. Nadal completely takes away Federer's greatest weapon, his forehand, by continuously abusing Federer's backhand like no one can. Novak takes away Nadal's greatest asset, his ability to "stretch" the field of play with his amazing defense by constantly pressuring Nadal and pinning him far behind the baseline like no one else can. There is absolutely no difference in what they do; they are exploiting a match-up advantage that both players have against the players that they both own.

 

[celoft]

Djokovic is in Nadal's head no matter the surface.

If the final is Djokovic-Nadal, Djokovic wins.

Only way Nadal wins another slam is by avoiding Djokovic.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

So I guess your 'at the moment' simply negates all past history and makes it irrelevant. By the same token, Nadal is simply just a better player than Federer since he has a dominant head to head against him (including before Federer's slight decline starting in 2008) and his overall achievements are on par with Federer!

The point is; let's not have double standards! If we're only going by recent history, then Nole is just 'simply better' than everyone right now... Not just Nadal, who has himself declined since 2010!

I don't see anyone arguing that Federer is better than Nadal at the moment, because it's not true. Nadal is the better player and has been for a few years now. His overall achievements, however, are not "on par". He needs a few more slams to get there.

Where's the double standard?

I'm really not going to bother with this, because it's obvious you're completely blinded by your hatred.


I said Federer and Nadal Forehand to Backhand only becomes a match-up issue ON CLAY. Off clay, it is not really as big of an issue, and really it comes more down to Federer choking to Nadal more than anything. The scorelines off clay will tell you exactly this too; the two are simply evenly matched off clay.


But continue strawmanning everything I say. It's great to see a poster like you get caught up with your hatred for Nadal. I don't even like the guy, but you seem to be out to get him right now. Just completely disregard the fact that I stated that OFF clay, the Nadal FH to Federer BH is not an issue; it's no more of an issue than it is for someone like Roddick to deal with off clay.

Speaking of strawman, this is very clearly an ad hominem attack. Instead of debating the finer points rationally, you decide to argue that I simply hate Nadal. I don't hate Nadal. I acknowledge Nadal for what he is. He's the second best player in the world at the moment, one of the all time greats in tennis, and the best clay courter of all time. None of that negates the fact that Djokovic in his recent form has been the better overall player.

So again, debate rationally, or not at all. Don't be an idiot.

Djokovic matches up well against Nadal. He has advantages in almost every normal rally shot. That is by definition a match-up advantage. Novak wins DTL to DTL backhand exchanges, and FH to BH exchanges. The FH/FH is a wash, and Nadal's FH to Novak's BH is completely neutralized. The reason why Nadal beat Federer ON clay was because of a match-up issue. Off clay, totally different story. It was just Federer getting intimidated and folding like a chair. Your insistence that Novak is simply just a "better" player than Nadal is just hilarious. Novak has always been a match-up issue from a technical standpoint for Nadal. Tennis is a game of match-ups. Novak has match-up advantages against Nadal that no other player has. Plain and simple.

Again, if Novak has "always been a matchup issue for Nadal," how come Nadal was 14-4 against Novak? 14-4 implies complete, one-dimensional domination. How come Nadal managed to dominate the series so completely?

I guess you can't rely on the crutch that Nadal was simply "better" than Djokovic, because you said it yourself, that insistence is apparently 'hilarious.'

To argue that because Nadal beats Federer because of a "match-up" advantage he has in his forehand and then reverse it and say Novak doesn't have a match-up advantage against Nadal (when Novak clearly struggles with certain players like Murray, Federer, and a few other big hitters that can move well like Monfils) is just hilarious. It only further proves either 1) How little you actually play tennis or 2) How biased you really are. Nadal completely takes away Federer's greatest weapon, his forehand, by continuously abusing Federer's backhand like no one can. Novak takes away Nadal's greatest asset, his ability to "stretch" the field of play with his amazing defense by constantly pressuring Nadal and pinning him far behind the baseline like no one else can. There is absolutely no difference in what they do; they are exploiting a match-up advantage that both players have against the players that they both own.

The main difference is that Nadal's strategy is clear and precise when he plays Federer. He attempts to consistently abuse Federer's backhand in a way that he doesn't do against the average top-10 player.

Djokovic's strategy against Nadal is much the same as how he approaches the match against every top-10 player. He approaches the match the same way that he approached the match in Murray, that is, trying to push Murray back behind the baseline, switch the court of play, and play amazing defense when Murray goes on the offensive. Does this imply that Djokovic is a good matchup against Murray too? Or does your one-sided logic only apply to Nadal?

Secondly, by your own logic, Nadal is not a bad matchup for Federer away from clay. Ergo, you cannot use the logic that "Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer because he does X, and Djokovic does the same, therefore Djokovic is a matchup problem." You do understand how dumb and invalid that logic is, right? You already claimed that, away from clay, Nadal is not a matchup problem for Federer, so how can you use Nadal as the premise of your argument that Djokovic has a matchup advantage against Nadal?

Good grief. It's like there's a bunch of people who are intellectual retards on here. As I already said, your logical tenets must be universal and absolute in order to be valid. If you claim "if X, therefore Y", then X must result in Y in any and all circumstances of X.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I'm really not going to bother with this, because it's obvious you're completely blinded by your hatred.

I said Federer and Nadal Forehand to Backhand only becomes a match-up issue ON CLAY. Off clay, it is not really as big of an issue, and really it comes more down to Federer choking to Nadal more than anything. The scorelines off clay will tell you exactly this too; the two are simply evenly matched off clay.

But continue strawmanning everything I say. It's great to see a poster like you get caught up with your hatred for Nadal. I don't even like the guy, but you seem to be out to get him right now. Just completely disregard the fact that I stated that OFF clay, the Nadal FH to Federer BH is not an issue; it's no more of an issue than it is for someone like Roddick to deal with off clay.

Djokovic matches up well against Nadal. He has advantages in almost every normal rally shot. That is by definition a match-up advantage. Novak wins DTL to DTL backhand exchanges, and FH to BH exchanges. The FH/FH is a wash, and Nadal's FH to Novak's BH is completely neutralized. The reason why Nadal beat Federer ON clay was because of a match-up issue. Off clay, totally different story. It was just Federer getting intimidated and folding like a chair. Your insistence that Novak is simply just a "better" player than Nadal is just hilarious. Novak has always been a match-up issue from a technical standpoint for Nadal. Tennis is a game of match-ups. Novak has match-up advantages against Nadal that no other player has. Plain and simple.


To argue that because Nadal beats Federer because of a "match-up" advantage he has in his forehand and then reverse it and say Novak doesn't have a match-up advantage against Nadal (when Novak clearly struggles with certain players like Murray, Federer, and a few other big hitters that can move well like Monfils) is just hilarious. It only further proves either 1) How little you actually play tennis or 2) How biased you really are. Nadal completely takes away Federer's greatest weapon, his forehand, by continuously abusing Federer's backhand like no one can. Novak takes away Nadal's greatest asset, his ability to "stretch" the field of play with his amazing defense by constantly pressuring Nadal and pinning him far behind the baseline like no one else can. There is absolutely no difference in what they do; they are exploiting a match-up advantage that both players have against the players that they both own.

Very well said on all counts! There is no doubt Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer (moreso on clay than other surfaces, Nadal plays extremely well and fights hard to compete with and sometimes beat Federer on other surfaces in his prime, and now capatilizes with Federer's decline and general lack of nerve against Nadal at this point too), and that Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal. Djokovic was a bad matchup for Nadal even prior when Nadal was clearly ahead of him, but his lack of fitness and mental fortitude, and that at that point he was still a big level down from Federer and Nadal largely for those reasons, still meant he regularly lost to Nadal off of hard courts (even pre 2011 Djokovic had a slight and at one point lopsided winning record on hards). For anyone to deny Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal atleast as much as Nadal is for Federer is either someone purposely turning a blind eye to reality or who doesnt have a clue what they are talking about.

 

[jackson vile]

Can't just throw Federer away, he was in the final!

 

[ChanceEncounter]

For anyone to deny Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal atleast as much as Nadal is for Federer is either someone purposely turning a blind eye to reality or who doesnt have a clue what they are talking about.

Again, please rationalize how someone who is a bad matchup against you is 4-14 against you.

Was he just a grossly inferior player? Then why was his record against Federer never that bad? Did his game change such that he became a better matchup against Nadal and a worse matchup against Federer? Or did he simply elevate his game overall and became better against everybody?

I love this spindoctoring that is going on here. Nadal was 14-4 against this guy. He got better and started performing better. Now he's in Nadal's head so Nadal has a mental block against him. Where's the inconsistency in that?

 

[fednad]

Players who are capable of beating Ralph on clay in this order -

1)Djokovic(DUH)

2)DelPotro(breadsticked Nadal on clay in DC, was firmly in control of the match till the spanish crowd disturbed DelPo.No prizes for guessing who the French will support if they face off)

3)Soderking(on paper,I'd put him above Delpo if I knew his form)

4) Tberd( if he's learnt something from AO and plays more clutch)

4)Pablo Andujar(clay court specialist, if he decides not to choke like an engine)

5) John Isner(ONLY if they play with lighter balls like last year)

6)Andy Murray(Depends if his BH could handle the abuse and if he decides to convert his umpteen BPs)

7)Federer(hope springs eternal. Funnily enough I thought he ran Ralph close in RG than AO. He can hit through the court more in RG imo with the lighter balls.)

8 ) Spanish lapdogs


Favourite of RG - Nadal(with his history and all the hoopla)

RG final Novak vs Nadal - Novak. The only BH that holds up against BH abuse/moonball on CLAY. Complete his career slam and Rafailed slam as the icing on the cake. Accelerate Ralph's process of pulling a Borg.


Best case scenario for Fed - Lose in the QFs(Monfils would be ideal).
If he faces Novak in the semis its a lose-lose situation. If he loses to Novak then his ownage of Novak diminishes, if he beats him then he damages his own legacy by letting Ralph win yet another free slam.

Wise up,Fed. Save the trouble and lose the QFs.

Vow! Impressive post.
Fed should indeed lose in the quarters; and for a change, I think he should lose to Ferrer and then Ferrer should face ****** in semis.
Ferrer would not beat ****** on clay but would dogfight enough to ensure that the match goes on for at least 4.5 hours. You see, the little man Ferrer is the only player from Spain (other of course is Rafa) who has got b@ll$

 

[NadalAgassi]

Again, please rationalize how someone who is a bad matchup against you is 4-14 against you.

Was he just a grossly inferior player?

As already noted his stamina and mental strength were his greatest shortcomings. Those kill you against Nadal more than anyone else. Apart from those things and stroke wise and playing style wise he was a bad matchup for Nadal, and now that those things are rectified you really see it. Of course he is a better player than Nadal currently too, but Nadal is certainly right now a better player than an old Federer and Murray who both give Djokovic a harder time than Nadal, further indicating the truth.

Then why was his record against Federer never that bad?

Djokovic first became a top player in late 2007. For the most part Nadal has been a much better player then Federer (the only exceptions being late 2007, and June-November 2009) since then, and harder for most everyone to beat.

 

[fednad]

That was after Nadal lost his confidence against Djokovic and was still using his old game patterns. Plus Madrid is not really clay-court tennis due to the altitude.

Now, with his regained confidence, heavier racket, DTL forehand, better slice and deeper topspin backhand he was able to make it even on Djokovic's best surface where Djokovic had 2 titles and Nadal only had 1, vs 6-0 at RG.

Nadal is 25 years old and shares the clay GOAT title with Borg. He is definitely the favorite at RG.

I don't understand what makes people think that Nadal has regained confidence after Aussie open. It is even worse for him now. He could not beat a subpar Novak, who was more tired and less rested. Not only that, Noval took away the match from him in 5th set the way Nadal takes away match from others in losing position. ****** must have felt like puking on the court after losing.
Nadal gangsters on this board are gaga because of the way he did not lose in the 4th and then said after the final that he came closer and has more confidence. Waht else do you want him to say; that I lost and want to puke here and my confidence is further eroded?

 

[fednad]

To debunk this very same notion, he beat Nadal in straights in Rome(real clay,right?)




So, Nadal's most soul crushing defeat(because he got so close) against his master gives him renewed confidence, while it destroys other players careers ala Roddick wimby 09? We don't even know yet how Nadal responds to this defeat, pressers are useless to judge players by.

Novak played a subpar first set with 19 UEs(unheard of by his standards) and 50% FS. Novak threw his racquet in disgust during changeovers not believing how badly he played. Yet Nadal got broken in that set and won it 7-5.

When Novak slightly upped his FS % to 65% he ran away with it in sets 2 and 3. Set 4 was epic fighting spirit from Nadal and Novak getting inexplicably tight(he does this a lot ,not sure why). Set 5 was an endurance contest.

Yes, Nadal did change it up a little bit but when Novak played to his expected level he ran riot(set 2 & 3).





This will be irrelevant if they face off in the final in most people's eyes.

The bold part - well said.

 

[fednad]

The problem is that Djokovic didn't play well in the final compared to his peak hard court level and took about 10 games to warm his legs up. Oh, and he still won.

That bold part gave me a chuckle.

 

[fednad]

Mustard, don't feed the trolls, at the end of the day they can "hate and speculate" but all that matters is this:

Something tells me this time he would bite a circular plate.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

As already noted his stamina and mental strength were his greatest shortcomings. Those kill you against Nadal more than anyone else. Apart from those things and stroke wise and playing style wise he was a bad matchup for Nadal, and now that those things are rectified you really see it. Of course he is a better player than Nadal currently too, but Nadal is certainly right now a better player than an old Federer and Murray who both give Djokovic a harder time than Nadal, further indicating the truth.

As I said though, stamina, physicality, and mental strength are all parts of what make a player great. There's no such thing as, "Oh, he would be a great player if he had stamina/physicality/mental strength." That's no more valid than claiming, "well if Nadal had poor stamina, he would not be a great player." Well, the truth of the matter was that Nadal does have great fitness, thus he isn't an average player and is in fact, one of the all time greats.

So to simplify the equation:

Pre-2011 Novak Djokovic had a stroke superiority advantage against Nadal. Nadal however made it up with much superior mental strength and stamina. Therefore, the net difference of Djokovic's stroke superior and Nadal's superior fitness had Nadal come out on top by a significant margin. 14-4 is complete, one-sided domination. Nadal won over 80% of their meetings!

Nowadays, Djokovic has completely turned the table. He was the one that matched Nadal stroke for stroke going on 6 hours, despite coming off a day's less rest, running more throughout the tournament, and coming off a bruising 5-setter against Murray. He was the one with more mental strength than Nadal.

So at the moment now, the net result is that Djokovic has better strokes than Nadal, better mental toughness, and just as much stamina. In fact, he was the one that outlasted Nadal at the US Open last year.

Also, the assertion that he beats Nadal easier than he beats Federer/Murray isn't entirely true either. He beat Murray by a bigger statistical margin than he beat Nadal in the AO. He also straight-setted Murray and Federer last year at the AO, and has never straight-setted Nadal out of a grand slam.

So no, Federer and Murray don't always give Djokovic a harder time. They also can give him an easier time.

Djokovic first became a top player in late 2007. For the most part Nadal has been a much better player then Federer (the only exceptions being late 2007, and June-November 2009) since then, and harder for most everyone to beat.

Okay, let's take only the years where Federer was winning grand slams (2007-early 2010). Those were the years where Federer was still getting to every grand slam final, and the wheels hadn't come off yet. The stats also bear this out:

Roger Federer's record during that span:

2007: 63-7
2008: 66-15
2009: 61-12
early 2010: 10-1 (Federer had a bad spring after the AO, and didn't reach another slam final that year)

Cumulative record during this span: 200-35.
Winning percentage: 85.1%

Rafael Nadal's record during that span:

2007: 64-12
2008: 82-11
2009: 66-14
early 2010: 8-2

Cumulative record during this span: 220-39
Winning percentage: 84.9%

Nadal was better than Federer during most of this period, that's true, but the difference wasn't massive. But Federer supposedly has a matchup advantage, and Nadal supposedly has a matchup disadvantage. Nadal in this span raced out to a 14-4 advantage over Djokovic. Federer carried a 10-6 advantage over Djokovic in this same span.

How does this work? How does Djokovic carry a notably better record against the guy that supposedly holds a matchup advantage against him than the guy that he holds a better matchup against? Was the difference between Nadal and Federer so vast that it could overcome the fact that Djokovic had the worse matchup against the player he held the lower score against?

If so, the 'matchup advantage' and 'matchup disadvantage' that Djokovic has versus Nadal and Federer must not have been very vast or significant.

I, personally, think that the assertion that Nadal has lost because of a "bad matchup" to be pretty dismissive of what Djokovic has accomplished. Djokovic has been the better player for a year now. This isn't something new or inexplicable. When Djokovic is on his game, Nadal gets bossed on the baseline. The same is true against Federer and Murray. All of them have to change their game to play Djokovic.

NamRanger asserted that Nadal had to play more aggressive and go for shots he wasn't comfortable with against Djokovic, thus since he had change his game, this proves that Djokovic has a matchup advantage against him.

On the other hand, I said that Murray had to do the same thing. Ivan Lendl specifically told him to be more aggressive, to stand closer to the baseline, to go for more winners against Djokovic, which is decidedly not Murray's game. Does this mean that Djokovic has a matchup advantage against Murray too?

Is there anyone that Djokovic doesn't have a matchup advantage against, then?

 

[Deleted member 3771]

It will be a first if Joker can be the favourite for the French Open when he has never even made the French Open final before.

 

[batz]

As I said though, stamina, physicality, and mental strength are all parts of what make a player great. There's no such thing as, "Oh, he would be a great player if he had stamina/physicality/mental strength." That's no more valid than claiming, "well if Nadal had poor stamina, he would not be a great player." Well, the truth of the matter was that Nadal does have great fitness, thus he isn't an average player and is in fact, one of the all time greats.

So to simplify the equation:

Pre-2011 Novak Djokovic had a stroke superiority advantage against Nadal. Nadal however made it up with much superior mental strength and stamina. Therefore, the net difference of Djokovic's stroke superior and Nadal's superior fitness had Nadal come out on top by a significant margin. 14-4 is complete, one-sided domination. Nadal won over 80% of their meetings!

Nowadays, Djokovic has completely turned the table. He was the one that matched Nadal stroke for stroke going on 6 hours, despite coming off a day's less rest, running more throughout the tournament, and coming off a bruising 5-setter against Murray. He was the one with more mental strength than Nadal.

So at the moment now, the net result is that Djokovic has better strokes than Nadal, better mental toughness, and just as much stamina. In fact, he was the one that outlasted Nadal at the US Open last year.

Also, the assertion that he beats Nadal easier than he beats Federer/Murray isn't entirely true either. He beat Murray by a bigger statistical margin than he beat Nadal in the AO. He also straight-setted Murray and Federer last year at the AO, and has never straight-setted Nadal out of a grand slam.

So no, Federer and Murray don't always give Djokovic a harder time. They also can give him an easier time.


Okay, let's take only the years where Federer was winning grand slams (2007-early 2010). Those were the years where Federer was still getting to every grand slam final, and the wheels hadn't come off yet. The stats also bear this out:

Roger Federer's record during that span:

2007: 63-7
2008: 66-15
2009: 61-12
early 2010: 10-1 (Federer had a bad spring after the AO, and didn't reach another slam final that year)

Cumulative record during this span: 200-35.
Winning percentage: 85.1%

Rafael Nadal's record during that span:

2007: 64-12
2008: 82-11
2009: 66-14
early 2010: 8-2

Cumulative record during this span: 220-39
Winning percentage: 84.9%

Nadal was better than Federer during most of this period, that's true, but the difference wasn't massive. But Federer supposedly has a matchup advantage, and Nadal supposedly has a matchup disadvantage. Nadal in this span raced out to a 14-4 advantage over Djokovic. Federer carried a 10-6 advantage over Djokovic in this same span.

How does this work? How does Djokovic carry a notably better record against the guy that supposedly holds a matchup advantage against him than the guy that he holds a better matchup against? Was the difference between Nadal and Federer so vast that it could overcome the fact that Djokovic had the worse matchup against the player he held the lower score against?

If so, the 'matchup advantage' and 'matchup disadvantage' that Djokovic has versus Nadal and Federer must not have been very vast or significant.

I, personally, think that the assertion that Nadal has lost because of a "bad matchup" to be pretty dismissive of what Djokovic has accomplished. Djokovic has been the better player for a year now. This isn't something new or inexplicable. When Djokovic is on his game, Nadal gets bossed on the baseline. The same is true against Federer and Murray. All of them have to change their game to play Djokovic.

NamRanger asserted that Nadal had to play more aggressive and go for shots he wasn't comfortable with against Djokovic, thus since he had change his game, this proves that Djokovic has a matchup advantage against him.

On the other hand, I said that Murray had to do the same thing. Ivan Lendl specifically told him to be more aggressive, to stand closer to the baseline, to go for more winners against Djokovic, which is decidedly not Murray's game. Does this mean that Djokovic has a matchup advantage against Murray too?

Is there anyone that Djokovic doesn't have a matchup advantage against, then?

Murray may have done this v Noel, but it was a general thing rather than a specific tactic v Noel i.e. Murray played that way for the whole tournament. Hawkeye stats showed that on average, Murray hit the ball one metre further forward than he did at AO 2010.

 

[zagor]

The fact that Novak nullifies Nadal's main weapon/tactic( lefty FH to opponent's BH) already makes it a bad match-up for Nadal, can't see how anyone can claim otherwise.

That Nadal had such a lopsided record over Novak before doesn't mean Novak was not a bad match-up for him, it means Novak mentally and physically wasn't up to the task yet. In his wins Nadal usually grinded down Novak which despite what people think isn't his (Nadal's) main gameplan, his A game is pounding his opponent's BH with his FH (hit with incredible placement, pace and spin) until he gets a short ball he attacks.

 

[vllaznia]

The fact that Novak nullifies Nadal's main weapon/tactic( lefty FH to opponent's BH) already makes it a bad match-up for Nadal, can't see how anyone can claim otherwise.

That Nadal had such a lopsided record over Novak before doesn't mean Novak was not a bad match-up for him, it means Novak mentally and physically wasn't up to the task yet. In his wins Nadal usually grinded down Novak which despite what people think isn't his (Nadal's) main gameplan, his A game is pounding his opponent's BH with his FH (hit with incredible placement, pace and spin) until he gets a short ball he attacks.

Sorry Zagor, i have to disagree with you on this one, you actually said it yourself it nullifies Nadal's main weapon it doesn't mean it has the upper edge they are pretty equal on both sides, its not like Federer's backhand vs Nadal's forehand where Nadal wins almost of their matches. Djokovic's wins over Nadal in 2011 and 2012 were more about Djokovic being the better player than Nadal.

 

[Feather]

This year he'll do the real ultimate troll job of all times by taking out Nadal in the semi. You. Read. It. Here. First.

I second it.

 

[Deleted member 54563]

Nadal has lost one best-of-5 sets match on clay in his life, and you just assume he'd have lost?

Nadal never lost 4 sets on clay in a row to the same guy, and you assume he'd have won?

You're right, there's no way to tell what would happen (Yeah, yeah, we know, he lost in the semifinal), but looking at their history so far and how things where developing, it stands to reason that the most likely result would be Novak winning if they met on that hypothetical FO final.

 

[Laurie]

Close poll. I've voted Nadal, he is the one who has won it a number of times. Based on that I make him favourite for now. It will be an exciting French Open this year for sure provided they stay fit.

 

[Sentinel]

Best case scenario for Fed - Lose in the QFs(Monfils would be ideal).
If he faces Novak in the semis its a lose-lose situation. If he loses to Novak then his ownage of Novak diminishes, if he beats him then he damages his own legacy by letting Ralph win yet another free slam.

Wise up,Fed. Save the trouble and lose the QFs.

monfed, His Rogerness just said that he cares more about titles than matchups. He'll keep trying to reach the semi or final even if it means being beaten repeatedly.

He doesn't read TW, except for the BOTE thread.

 

[NamRanger]

Sorry Zagor, i have to disagree with you on this one, you actually said it yourself it nullifies Nadal's main weapon it doesn't mean it has the upper edge they are pretty equal on both sides, its not like Federer's backhand vs Nadal's forehand where Nadal wins almost of their matches. Djokovic's wins over Nadal in 2011 and 2012 were more about Djokovic being the better player than Nadal.

Being able to nullify a one dimensional player's biggest weapon is far worse than simply having a rally advantage.

 

[Sentinel]

Something tells me this time he would bite a circular plate.

I hope so, would be certainly better than taking an early flight back considering how low on morale he must be after the devastating loss at AO.

 

[Andres]

Nadal never lost 4 sets on clay in a row to the same guy, and you assume he'd have won?

2003 ATP Masters Series Hamburg
Gaudio, Gaston: 6-2, 6-2
2004 Bastad
Gaudio, Gaston: 6-2, 6-3
2005 Buenos Aires
Gaudio, Gaston: 0-6, 6-0, 6-1

4 sets in a row, and 6 out of 7.

What happened right after those 7 sets, we all know it.

 

[Seany]

Excellent research Andres !

 

[hoodjem]

Djokovic will be the no. 1 seed, and thus the favorite . . . unless something really drastic happens.

 

[dirkpitt38]

A long way to go I know, and a lot of injuries/shock results may happen before then, but at this current moment what do you think?

Clay is still clay, and Rafa is still Rafa, yes Djokovic beat him a lot on clay last year, but best of 5 is a different ball game. However everyone can see how dominant Djokovic is over Nadal at this current time.

To me this is the most interesting FO in years, we also must take into account that Fed has shown he's capable of taking out peak Djokovic on clay, and Murray looks to be improving at a very rapid rate under Lendl, so all 4 guys very much in the equation. The draw will be important, If Djoker gets Fed and Rafa gets Murray, we may get a Fed vs Murray final. If Fed gets Rafa and Djoker gets Murray then the final looks much predictable to be Rafa vs Djoker.

If we do indeed get a Rafa vs Djoker final, Nadal will know that he HAS to win that match or things will be looking very bad if he wants to add to his 10 GS's. He simply can't let Djoko beat him in the final on what is essentially HIS court, his best surface, over 5. If that were to happen he may never beat Djokovic again.

Really can't wait, the dynamic in men's tennis is very interesting right now, Murray can beat anybody by the looks of it, and Fed is still a bad match for Djoker.

I really think he will win all 4 GS this year. I feel bad for Federer and Nadal becuase once this happens Jokers team will start saying he is the greatest of all time if not already!!!!

 

[kishnabe]

How could Djokovic be favourite....he hasn't ever reached RG final....Nadal has like 6 of trophies.

Im suprised at 73 picks for Djokovic. 2011 he was the favourite for sure......but the clay season is still yet to come and Djokovic doesn't look anyting like 2011.

Nadal will win 100 percent.....

I hope the real final between Federer and Djokovic will happen again.

 

[MichaelNadal]

If Rafa plays as well or better than he did in the AO final, Rafa will win in 4 sets.

 

[fednad]

I hope so, would be certainly better than taking an early flight back considering how low on morale he must be after the devastating loss at AO.

Do you really think that ****** would be devastated with the result of AO 2012 final which slipped out of his hand like water from fist?
Or, do you tend to agree with many og his fan-gang here who believe that he would be more confident since he came so close to victory?

 

[PrinceMoron]

We need a word limit here or the FO will be over before I get to the last post.

 

[jackson vile]

The way that he has deal with Nadal he is 100% the fav. the only way he is not winning is if Federer takes him out, or if Nadal can somehow slug it out. Like he did in 09, was it Madrid?

 

[Clarky21]

If Rafa plays as well or better than he did in the AO final, Rafa will win in 4 sets.

I don't agree. I think he is going to have to play better than he ever has at RG to stop FrankenCvac from winning it should Nadal make the final against him. Anything else will not be anywhere near good enough.

 

[tennis_pro]

If Rafa plays as well or better than he did in the AO final, Rafa will win in 4 sets.

I don't think Nadal's level will matter as long as Djokovic is playing close or at his best. He was FAR from it in the AO final.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I don't agree. I think he is going to have to play better than he ever has at RG to stop FrankenCvac from winning it should Nadal make the final against him. Anything else will not be anywhere near good enough.

Really? He played well in the AO final and almost took him out on hardcourt. As long as he plays at least that well, I like his chances.

 

[Clarky21]

Really? He played well in the AO final and almost took him out on hardcourt. As long as he plays at least that well, I like his chances.

I hope you're right,but I will have to see it to believe it.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I hope you're right,but I will have to see it to believe it.

I think so, Nadal was SLACK on clay last year, well everywhere last year, he's playing with more positive emotion now and kicking his forehand up well again, If he plays with belief again on clay this year like 2010 and before, he'll win. If that 5th set at the AO was on clay, Rafa would have nabbed it.

 

[cc0509]

I don't agree. I think he is going to have to play better than he ever has at RG to stop FrankenCvac from winning it should Nadal make the final against him. Anything else will not be anywhere near good enough.

Nadal is still the favorite to win the FO and that will only change if Djokovic defeats Nadal in the tune-up events prior to the FO--i.e Madrid and Rome.

The problem on this forum is everybody is so biased about their favorite players they can't make a proper prediction. Federer lovers/Nadal haters don't want Nadal to win another slam again so they are adamant that Djokovic will defeat Nadal at the FO even though Nadal has owned that tournament for 7 years. Then you have the Nadal lovers who say Nadal will win the FO for sure despite the fact that Djokovic has killed their hero in the last 7 finals they have played. It is all too hilarious. I am a Federer fan first but I also like Nadal and Djokovic so I can be a bit more objective and for me I still think the favorite for the FO is Nadal and I think he will fight to the death to keep that title.

 

[TennisFan3]

Nadal is still the favorite to win the FO

If Djokovic is in the final, no one in their right mind would say that Nadal is the favorite to win the F.O. Not by a long shot.

The very tactics that have enabled Nadal to have "limited" success against Djokovic (shortening points, big serve, slice, i/o forehands) on hardcourts will NOT work on clay. While I don't agree with NamRanger's demolition job prediction, I can't see how Nadal will win unless he magically becomes the beast he was in F.,O 2008. He just has a huge handicap against Djokovic in neutral rallies, because he can't be offensive. His backhand gets exposed and his forehand does NO DAMAGE whatsoever. This becomes worse on clay. I've NEVER seen Nadal defend as much on clay as he did against Djoko in Madrid/Rome 2011..

Also I'm LOLing at assertions that Djokovic is NOT a bad matchup for Nadal. Djokovic has been a bad matchup since day 1. He used to absolutely destroy Nadal on hardcourts prior to 2011. Their clay matches also almost always went down the wire, with Rafa barely squeezing them on account of more physicality and mental strength. Now the roles have been reversed..