Nadal and Djokovic are 3 years apart, not 1! And don't forget it!

DRII

G.O.A.T.
But what does that have to do with vulturing five wins against Djokovic in slams before Djokovic was an ATG?
Nadal has always had at least one other coGoat in prime form to deal with, Federer and Djokovic have not.

That's the point.

If we were to just go by age, then it could be argued that Nadal and Djokovic always faced the same level of competition at nearly the same time and circumstances, but that's not the case due to Nadal declining earlier and Murray not maintaining his ATG form, which is Big 4 or coGoat level.
 

InsideOut900

Hall of Fame
Kind of? But he has played 72 more matches in his career than Djokovic... That's basically one full season. While early in their careers this difference may have been larger, Nadal took several sabbaticals after RG to peak at the clay season, preserving his body
To be fair, some of Nadal's "sabbaticals" were due to injuries, which in themselves add mileage on the body.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
So Nadal has 0 chamce at UO. Nice logic.
The USOpen is the most neutral of all the slams between the coGoats (assuming all are playing at least decently) even though it's a hardcourt, which is Djokovic's favorite surface.

So yes, Nadal still has a chance there if he plans his schedule correctly.
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
Nadal has always had at least one other coGoat in prime form to deal with, Federer and Djokovic have not.

That's the point.

If we were to just go by age, then it could be argued that Nadal and Djokovic always faced the same level of competition at nearly the same time and circumstances, but that's not the case due to Nadal declining earlier and Murray not maintaining his ATG form, which is Big 4 or coGoat level.
You are also making the point whether you intended to or not, in basically stating that Nadal picked up a lot of wins against Djokovic before Djokovic was an ATG, which you state he became in 2011.

So basically 5-0 in slam H2H and 16-7 in overall H2H was helped by Nadal vulturing wins against a yet to be ATG player.

Put Federer to one side here, I am specifically talking about how Nadal got the massive head start over Djokovic in their personal H2H before, as you said, Djokovic became an elite ATG level player. Baby Djokovic so to speak.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
You are also making the point whether you intended to or not, in basically stating that Nadal picked up a lot of wins against Djokovic before Djokovic was an ATG, which you state he became in 2011.

So basically 5-0 in slam H2H and 16-7 in overall H2H was helped by Nadal vulturing wins against a yet to be ATG player.

Put Federer to one side here, I am specifically talking about how Nadal got the massive head start over Djokovic in their personal H2H before, as you said, Djokovic became an elite ATG level player. Baby Djokovic so to speak.
OK that's fine, just in the same way Djokovic got most of his wins after Nadal started to decline more.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
You can come up with your own explanation if you'd like, mine wholy seems supported by the evidence and what we all have observed and can incorporate facets of yours such as playing style.

The point is that it's disingenuous to act like Nadal and Djokovic are only separated by one year in age. It distorts the entire discussion in a false manner.

Just like Djokovic fans like to point out that Federer had it relatively easier pre 2008 due to competition absent a coGoat in prime form (BTW I was the first on this board to point that fact out and was pillaried for it for years by Federer fans), they need to admit that Djokovic has had it relatively easier in more recent years because of the same reason. If Murray had kept his 2012-2013 pre back surgery form, this would not be the case.

Nadal has had no such 'luck'!
The fact is they are separated by only one year. Nadal has played 72 more matches than Djokovic, which is about the amount Djokovic plays each year. By the time Djokovic is Nadal's age, he will have just as many matches played, about as much time on court, and everything else regarding mileage.

Why is it that Nadal is then 3 years older than Djokovic? Oh yes, because he won his first slam 3 years earlier and had his strongest year 3 years earlier. That doesn't mean anything. Entering your athletic prime doesn't dictate when you leave it.

All the evidence points to Nadal being just 1 year older than Djokovic. For instance: Age in years, matches played, match wins, # of grand slams at that age, etc. The falsehood and distortions come from claiming something not based in reality.

And yes, right now Djokovic has easier competition, but that's due to Nadal injuring himself in his prime years and ruining his longevity. Nadal's decline started in his 16th year on tour, whereas Novak is on track for CYGS in his 16th. Federer started his decline in his 19th. Maybe it's back luck for Nadal that he can't capitalize on the weaker competition, not some reasoning that Nadal is actually older than he is.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
The fact is they are separated by only one year. Nadal has played 72 more matches than Djokovic, which is about the amount Djokovic plays each year. By the time Djokovic is Nadal's age, he will have just as many matches played, about as much time on court, and everything else regarding mileage.

Why is it that Nadal is then 3 years older than Djokovic? Oh yes, because he won his first slam 3 years earlier and had his strongest year 3 years earlier. That doesn't mean anything. Entering your athletic prime doesn't dictate when you leave it.

All the evidence points to Nadal being just 1 year older than Djokovic. For instance: Age in years, matches played, match wins, # of grand slams at that age, etc. The falsehood and distortions come from claiming something not based in reality.

And yes, right now Djokovic has easier competition, but that's due to Nadal injuring himself in his prime years and ruining his longevity. Nadal's decline started in his 16th year on tour, whereas Novak is on track for CYGS in his 16th. Federer started his decline in his 19th. Maybe it's back luck for Nadal that he can't capitalize on the weaker competition, not some reasoning that Nadal is actually older than he is.
Nadal never had easier competition. He was sandwiched between fellow coGoats and ATGs.

Your making the assumption that their competition has always been level. That's not true, Nadal had it hardest.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Nadal never had easier competition. He was sandwiched between fellow coGoats and ATGs.

Your making the assumption that their competition has always been level. That's not true, Nadal had it hardest.
I never said Nadal had easier competition. I said he could be taking advantage of the current lack of competition by not declining after only 16 years on tour. After 16 years on tour, Federer still had 2017 form. Novak is in his 16th year and going for the CYGS.

Unless you're making the assumption that losing to Federer or Djokovic a few more times than the other 2 took off 2 years of his career, competition shouldn't factor into this.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Let's take as gospel that Nadal's decline happened roughly 3 years before Djokovic's. Attributing a reason to that after the fact introduces bias, namely that you can fit whatever evidence you want into it.

It's much simpler to say Nadal's repeated injuries and recoveries hampered his body, leading to long-lasting damage that led to an earlier decline. Or that Djokovic's diet and flexibility led to the damage he sustains on court being less taxing on his body than on Nadal's.

This "tennis-age vs real-age" talk is much more complicated and introduces more unknown variables. It's possible that Nadal's game just relies more on physicality (we know this to be true), meaning that him as a well-developed teenager was already very close to his prime level. This physical game causes more wear on his body and led to injuries and likely led to a shorter career than he would have had with a less taxing game.
Good points, and to that I’d add that Djokovic wasn’t exactly sitting around in 2005-2006 either. His schedule may not have been as gruelling, but he was still a professional.

Moreover, what about their respective backgrounds? Nadal coming from a more affluent family, in a non-war torn city made his childhood years cushier. How does that factor in? Is on-court time the only thing that can lead to eventual burn-out? It’s all so nebulous.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Nadal never had easier competition. He was sandwiched between fellow coGoats and ATGs.

Your making the assumption that their competition has always been level. That's not true, Nadal had it hardest.

While Federer and Djokovic are indeed all-time greats of the highest order, it does bear mentioning that the surface on which Nadal compiled most of his tournament wins is the one that doubled as his main rivals worst surface.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
I never said Nadal had easier competition. I said he could be taking advantage of the current lack of competition by not declining after only 16 years on tour. After 16 years on tour, Federer still had 2017 form. Novak is in his 16th year and going for the CYGS.

Unless you're making the assumption that losing to Federer or Djokovic a few more times than the other 2 took off 2 years of his career, competition shouldn't factor into this.
Federer's 2017 was a rennisaunce (sic) year, he won 2 slams. Nadal just won the French Open last year and still has a chance at the USOpen this year. I think Nadal is in the rennisaunce (sic) stages ala Federer's 2017, but his overwhelming dominance at the French may give him more chances.

We'll see, but yes Nadal's 16 years is not equal to Djokovic's 16 years. He had it appreciably harder.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Good points, and to that I’d add that Djokovic wasn’t exactly sitting around in 2005-2006 either. His schedule may not have been as gruelling, but he was still a professional.

Moreover, what about their respective backgrounds? Nadal coming from a more affluent family, in a non-war torn city made his childhood years cushier. How does that factor in? Is on-court time the only thing that can lead to eventual burn-out? It’s all so nebulous.
Please, with the Serbian sob story regarding Djokovic. His family was quite affluent in their society.

You're going way off the field now.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
While Federer and Djokovic are indeed all-time greats of the highest order, it does bear mentioning that the surface on which Nadal compiled most of his tournament wins is the one that doubled as his main rivals worst surface.
Even if true, that's rather irrelevant. Especially considering that Djokovic's favorite slam surface compromises 2 chances to win a slam each year while Nadal only has 1.

Nadal is just that much more dominant on his surface slam than Federer is his and especially Djokovic is on his!
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Reads this thread
Checks the birth date of both players
Confirms only 11 months difference
Shakes head at the many coping mechanisms posters come up with
But this makes Djoker look good as he has reached 19 at a far younger age than Rafa.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
OP, we really need a thread about Murray and Djokovic are really many moons apart, and not really a week apart.

The key difference between Nadal and Djokovic is that Nadal uses a lot of energy in his grinding brand of play. It takes its toll over a long career. Look at Thiem, who plays a similar style. Djokovic plays a much more measured, clinical brand of tennis.
 
Last edited:

reef58

Semi-Pro
Federer's 2017 was a rennisaunce (sic) year, he won 2 slams. Nadal just won the French Open last year and still has a chance at the USOpen this year. I think Nadal is in the rennisaunce (sic) stages ala Federer's 2017, but his overwhelming dominance at the French may give him more chances.

We'll see, but yes Nadal's 16 years is not equal to Djokovic's 16 years. He had it appreciably harder.
No he didn't. You are just looking for something to grab onto in case "your" guy doesn't win the slam race, which is weird since you don't get a trophy or prize money.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Good recall. I remember those days. The board was pretty split on who would have the brighter future between him and Murray.
I was not here in those days but even back then I knew that Djokovic was special and somehow destined for greatness and Murray was not, because Djokovic did win his 1st HC slam before Nadal did despite Nadal being an established slam winner for years before him + Djokovic was making finals and losing only to Federer at the USO, and Murray had done nothing except his 3 sets wins which r nonsense. So my gut feeling did tell me that Djokovic could not / would not fade away.

History works in funny ways, he fixed his diet issues and became great from 2011.

Strangely I had same vibes about Potro too when he won his 1st slam at 20 but he emerged a fluke dude....
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Even if true, that's rather irrelevant. Especially considering that Djokovic's favorite slam surface compromises 2 chances to win a slam each year while Nadal only has 1.

Nadal is just that much more dominant on his surface slam than Federer is his and especially Djokovic is on his!
Yes yes, my point is that his ATG competition was only ATG on the surfaces he himself was a borderline all-timer on.

On clay, the field was not stacked at any point. There were formidable fields, but they were never stacked.

That Nadal is better on clay than Federer is on grass or Djokovic is on hard is a truism.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic was still playing while Nadal was winning on clay, so their age difference is the relevant parameter.
In 2004, Rafa played 47 matches to Djoker's 5 matches.
In 2005, Rafa played 89 matches to Djoker's 22 matches.
After 2005, their number of yearly matches start to become similar.

But we cannot say that Rafa's heavy match play in 04 05 was necessarily more grueling than whatever Djoker was doing.
Djoker might have been intensively training or playing junior/non ATP tournaments while Rafa was playing those 2004 05 ATP matches.
 


Not a Nadal fan at all. Could care less about him for the most part. But the last person you'd want to accuse for 'coping mechanism' is Nadal or his fans as he is the only player today that has the strongest case to GOAT-hood due to his superiority on clay. Not Federer, not Djokovic, not anybody else. There are still HUGE and MASSIVE arguments against either Federer or Djokovic being GOATS at any aspect of tennis. However, there are only a few arguments against Rafa being the GOAT on clay and at Roland Garros.

So Rafa's GOAT-hood is clearer than anybody else's. And furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Nadal still wins as many Roland Garros titles as Djokovic has overall slams.

So Nadal nor his fans need any coping mechanisms here. 13 Roland Garros says it all. Say that to Federer fans all you like but not Nadal fans.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Many Nadal haters and/or Djokovic fanatics try and say that 'they are only 11 months apart in age' so therefore it can't be true that Djokovic is vulturing slam titles that last few years as Federer and Nadal have declined more than Djokovic has; nearly to the same extent Federer gobbled up slams before Nadal and Djokovic became ATGs in form.

On paper that argument might seem to have some credence, but we all know that in reality it is not the case!

Tennis years are not the same as age or calendar years. Let's look at the facts:

Nadal won his first slam in 2005 (RG) and then assumed ATG form 3 years later in 2008 when he became slam winning on all the surfaces (winning the French and Wimbledon that year and the Aussie the beginning of the next year).

Djokovic won his first slam in 2008 (Aussie) and then assumed ATG form 3 years later in 2011 when he won 3/4 slams that calendar year.

The pattern is clear for both Nadal and Djokovic, win your 1st slam and then make it to ATG form 3 years later. The fact that this happened 3 years apart - 2005 starting with Nadal and then 2008 starting with Djokovic shows that there is a 3 year differential between the two of them, not 1 year!

Nadal just happened to mature earlier and subsequently tennis-aged and declined earlier as well.

Those are the facts! Deal with them, instead of disingenuously suggesting that Nadal and Djokovic are basically the same tennis age; they are not!
EXCUSES, EXCUSES, EXCUSES. They were born 11 months apart, accept the reality.
 

Tigerlion

New User
Many Nadal haters and/or Djokovic fanatics try and say that 'they are only 11 months apart in age' so therefore it can't be true that Djokovic is vulturing slam titles that last few years as Federer and Nadal have declined more than Djokovic has; nearly to the same extent Federer gobbled up slams before Nadal and Djokovic became ATGs in form.

On paper that argument might seem to have some credence, but we all know that in reality it is not the case!

Tennis years are not the same as age or calendar years. Let's look at the facts:

Nadal won his first slam in 2005 (RG) and then assumed ATG form 3 years later in 2008 when he became slam winning on all the surfaces (winning the French and Wimbledon that year and the Aussie the beginning of the next year).

Djokovic won his first slam in 2008 (Aussie) and then assumed ATG form 3 years later in 2011 when he won 3/4 slams that calendar year.

The pattern is clear for both Nadal and Djokovic, win your 1st slam and then make it to ATG form 3 years later. The fact that this happened 3 years apart - 2005 starting with Nadal and then 2008 starting with Djokovic shows that there is a 3 year differential between the two of them, not 1 year!

Nadal just happened to mature earlier and subsequently tennis-aged and declined earlier as well.

Those are the facts! Deal with them, instead of disingenuously suggesting that Nadal and Djokovic are basically the same tennis age; they are not!
There is some mileage in this. Nadal vultured many slams before Djokovic got his first and Djokovic is vulturing many now Nadal is past his best.
The thing to look at is who won most when their peaks overlapped which is probably 2010-2013. Nadal won 6 Majors Djokovic 5 Majors.
Certainly looking at their rivalry Nadal at his best seemed to have the better of it except for 2011.
It is hard to split them. Equal Majors equal M1000s close h2h. Hopefully they meet in a USO final as the title decider.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
There is some mileage in this. Nadal vultured many slams before Djokovic got his first and Djokovic is vulturing many now Nadal is past his best.
The thing to look at is who won most when their peaks overlapped which is probably 2010-2013. Nadal won 6 Majors Djokovic 5 Majors.
Certainly looking at their rivalry Nadal at his best seemed to have the better of it except for 2011.
It is hard to split them. Equal Majors equal M1000s close h2h. Hopefully they meet in a USO final as the title decider.
Djokovic was not at the required level in 2010.
 
@Tigerlion, who wrote: “There is some mileage in this. Nadal vultured many slams before Djokovic got his first and Djokovic is vulturing many now Nadal is past his best.”

So Nadal “vultured” slams before Djokovic got his first? Uhhh… you mean from scrubs like Roger Federer? Gotcha.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
2011-12 Nadal was not peak Nadal though. And you conveniently left out 2013.

These players are both far too great to suggest that either one owns the other.
2011 Nadal reached more finals than 2010 but ran into peak Djokovic! His level was just as high.

2013 was the last year Nadal got the best of Djokovic! But it is well known than he was in a sort of slam final slump between 12-14, losing a few matches to Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka!
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
There is some mileage in this. Nadal vultured many slams before Djokovic got his first and Djokovic is vulturing many now Nadal is past his best.
The thing to look at is who won most when their peaks overlapped which is probably 2010-2013. Nadal won 6 Majors Djokovic 5 Majors.
Certainly looking at their rivalry Nadal at his best seemed to have the better of it except for 2011.
It is hard to split them. Equal Majors equal M1000s close h2h. Hopefully they meet in a USO final as the title decider.
Good post. Although Nadal was dealing with a prime Federer even when he was dealing with a baby Djokovic.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Nadal in 2011 held 3/4 slams and reached even more finals than 2010. The difference was peak Djokovic instead of Soderling and Berdych.
Nadal has never had a peak year where the next year was just as strong! Never! He always experienced a dip.
 

PilotPete

Hall of Fame
Nadal's lone AO was a fluke clearly as he could never repeat it again. He only won because Fed had a bad back in the final that affected his serve.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
2011 Nadal reached more finals than 2010 but ran into peak Djokovic! His level was just as high.

2013 was the last year Nadal got the best of Djokovic! But it is well known than he was in a sort of slam final slump between 12-14, losing a few matches to Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka!
Nope! Murray just happen to enter his ATG form in 2012 to 2013 before he had back surgery, at which time he won 2/3 slam finals against Djokovic!

You see how that works, it was very analogous to what happened in 2011 with Djokovic vs Nadal, it's just that Djokovic was lucky that Murray's form did not last due to back surgery and resulting hip issues!

Read and weep.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Nadal's lone AO was a fluke clearly as he could never repeat it again. He only won because Fed had a bad back in the final that affected his serve.
Riiiiight, yet he made it to another 3 finals, one in which he took Djokovic to 5 sets and lost by only a few inches!

Grow up
 

Kralingen

Hall of Fame
Riiiiight, yet he made it to another 3 finals, one in which he took Djokovic to 5 sets and lost by only a few inches!

Grow up
I’m not even a Nadal fan but some of the suggestions laid against the guy are bordering on blasphemy. Nadal at the AO was his worst slam but the ‘12 AO final validates him forever in my eyes.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
I’m not even a Nadal fan but some of the suggestions laid against the guy are bordering on blasphemy. Nadal at the AO was his worst slam but the ‘12 AO final validates him forever in my eyes.
Exactly!

Because of the ridiculous disrespect and attacks on Nadal, I probably go overboard in his defense, but I always try and use logic and observation when doing so. I've just found that letting things go unanswered leads to worse things and ridiculous fallacies, so I always answer.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
There is some mileage in this. Nadal vultured many slams before Djokovic got his first and Djokovic is vulturing many now Nadal is past his best.
The thing to look at is who won most when their peaks overlapped which is probably 2010-2013. Nadal won 6 Majors Djokovic 5 Majors.
Certainly looking at their rivalry Nadal at his best seemed to have the better of it except for 2011.
It is hard to split them. Equal Majors equal M1000s close h2h. Hopefully they meet in a USO final as the title decider.
lol, 2010 was Djokovic's worst year from 2007-2016.
His 2nd worst from 2007-current as a matter of fact (after 2017)
 

Hitman

G.O.A.T.
There is some mileage in this. Nadal vultured many slams before Djokovic got his first and Djokovic is vulturing many now Nadal is past his best.
The thing to look at is who won most when their peaks overlapped which is probably 2010-2013. Nadal won 6 Majors Djokovic 5 Majors.
Certainly looking at their rivalry Nadal at his best seemed to have the better of it except for 2011.
It is hard to split them. Equal Majors equal M1000s close h2h. Hopefully they meet in a USO final as the title decider.
LOL :D

K
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Nadal never had easier competition. He was sandwiched between fellow coGoats and ATGs.

Your making the assumption that their competition has always been level. That's not true, Nadal had it hardest.
Weak years/periods

Nadal: 2006, 2010, 2017-2020
Federer: 2006, 2010, 2015, 17,early 18
Djokovic: 2015-16,18-current
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
How about you explain why you feel that way?
2006 obv because Hewitt out of his prime, Agassi having his last decent year in 05, Safin out, Roddick in a funk for 1st half of the year, Coria gone etc. Arrival of Davydenko, baggy for example doesn't compensate.

2010 because fed went out of his prime after AO 2010 (mediocre matches at Wim/USO in the losses going by prime level) . Djokovic having his worst year in 07-16 period. Murray inconsistent that year though he did play well in some tourneys, no Delpo unlike in 09, Roddick not doing well in slams unlike in 09 etc.

2015 because Nadal AWOL, Federer not able to keep it up for long in Bo5, Murray's top level lacking compared to 12-13. Stan the only one who go the distance mentally+physically vs Djoko in slams

2016-current doesn't need an explanation does it? Two of the worst gens ever (atleast in slams and atleast so far for young gen)
 

Nole_King

Professional
You are also making the point whether you intended to or not, in basically stating that Nadal picked up a lot of wins against Djokovic before Djokovic was an ATG, which you state he became in 2011.

So basically 5-0 in slam H2H and 16-7 in overall H2H was helped by Nadal vulturing wins against a yet to be ATG player.

Put Federer to one side here, I am specifically talking about how Nadal got the massive head start over Djokovic in their personal H2H before, as you said, Djokovic became an elite ATG level player. Baby Djokovic so to speak.
I think you are not aware that it is crime in some countries to beat up kids ... :-D You may want to be a little more careful with the OP
 

Nole_King

Professional
The fact is they are separated by only one year. Nadal has played 72 more matches than Djokovic, which is about the amount Djokovic plays each year. By the time Djokovic is Nadal's age, he will have just as many matches played, about as much time on court, and everything else regarding mileage.

Why is it that Nadal is then 3 years older than Djokovic? Oh yes, because he won his first slam 3 years earlier and had his strongest year 3 years earlier. That doesn't mean anything. Entering your athletic prime doesn't dictate when you leave it.

All the evidence points to Nadal being just 1 year older than Djokovic. For instance: Age in years, matches played, match wins, # of grand slams at that age, etc. The falsehood and distortions come from claiming something not based in reality.

And yes, right now Djokovic has easier competition, but that's due to Nadal injuring himself in his prime years and ruining his longevity. Nadal's decline started in his 16th year on tour, whereas Novak is on track for CYGS in his 16th. Federer started his decline in his 19th. Maybe it's back luck for Nadal that he can't capitalize on the weaker competition, not some reasoning that Nadal is actually older than he is.
I do agree with OP regarding tennis age v/s the calendar age. Becker was not an average 17 year old and neither was he anywhere close to an average champion at 25+ ... But the fact is that 2011 happened and Novak showed what he could do with peak Nadal .....
 

Jokervich

Hall of Fame
Many Nadal haters and/or Djokovic fanatics try and say that 'they are only 11 months apart in age' so therefore it can't be true that Djokovic is vulturing slam titles that last few years as Federer and Nadal have declined more than Djokovic has; nearly to the same extent Federer gobbled up slams before Nadal and Djokovic became ATGs in form.

On paper that argument might seem to have some credence, but we all know that in reality it is not the case!

Tennis years are not the same as age or calendar years. Let's look at the facts:

Nadal won his first slam in 2005 (RG) and then assumed ATG form 3 years later in 2008 when he became slam winning on all the surfaces (winning the French and Wimbledon that year and the Aussie the beginning of the next year).

Djokovic won his first slam in 2008 (Aussie) and then assumed ATG form 3 years later in 2011 when he won 3/4 slams that calendar year.

The pattern is clear for both Nadal and Djokovic, win your 1st slam and then make it to ATG form 3 years later. The fact that this happened 3 years apart - 2005 starting with Nadal and then 2008 starting with Djokovic shows that there is a 3 year differential between the two of them, not 1 year!

Nadal just happened to mature earlier and subsequently tennis-aged and declined earlier as well.

Those are the facts! Deal with them, instead of disingenuously suggesting that Nadal and Djokovic are basically the same tennis age; they are not!
Does this mean that Thiem is actually 11 years younger than Djokovic? Because he won his first slam at 27, Djokovic won his at 23. Which makes Thiem 23 when he won his first slam. Right?

Sorry, but with all due respect, your theory is a load of BS! :-D
 
Top