RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic met Nadal 2 times in 2017 on clay. And played him at Wimbledon in 2018. Wimbledon 2018 was really where the comeback happened so don't discount that by saying early 2018.
Nadal - Djokovic H2H skewness... numbers
- Thread starter beard
- Start date
- Status
Djokovic met Nadal 2 times in 2017 on clay. And played him at Wimbledon in 2018. Wimbledon 2018 was really where the comeback happened so don't discount that by saying early 2018.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
It’s certainly skewed on surface distribution for sure.
do you seriously want to argue that the competition on grass between 2006-12 was somehow weaker than since 2014? Real expert you are
Not even going into the whole Federer-Djokovic grass comparison ... because the delusions of the Djokovic fans in that regard are just too insane to even try to get a meaningful argument in ...
InsideOut900
Legend
That just means Nadal is better/more consistent at RG than Djokovic at AO, which is true.
Not that Nadal is better at AO than Djokovic at RG.
his collection of Wimbledon, USO and AO titles stronkly disagrees with your statement
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
As I said before, Djokovic is amazing on clay
he is even more amazing on ttw
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Nadal_Django
Legend
His continuous roasting of your idol outside clay disagrees with you.
His continuous roasting of your idol outside clay disagrees with you.
please tell me who is my idol?
and then let's discuss in which universe Zverev is a better server than Roddick
Easy to dismiss with one word than give a factual response. Go sleep well.
Cortana
Legend
When was the last time Nadal won the AO? 2009. Wimbledon? 2010. He didn't even reach any Wimbledon final in the last 10 years.
10 years of mostly avoiding Djokovic in his 2 best slams.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
Even if there’s a supposed surface skew, it has been more than compensated for in the amount of times Joker got to play 2015-2016 Crapdal compared to the times RAFA got to play Crapovic.
At the end of the day all surfaces are valid. The H2H is 29-27 almost a 50-50 split which makes sense given how great they both are.
At the end of the day all surfaces are valid. The H2H is 29-27 almost a 50-50 split which makes sense given how great they both are.
Texas Tennis Fan
Professional
This is not true. If one looks at slams and Masters 1000s, Djokovic has more SF, F, and W and so outpoints Nadal in ATP points. Of course, you can always point out an exception to this rule, but overall, Djokovic is substantially more likely to go deeper into big tournaments. It is just one recent example, but look at the last two slams: Djokovic made it to the finals in the FO, Nadal, got beaten in the QFs in the AO. If Nadal had made it to the finals to face Djokovic, he most likely would have lost based on not having beaten Djokovic on hardcourt since 2013. The high number of clay slam wins by Nadal is evidence of his weakness elsewhere.
irrelevant
please list all the players that have more GS titles on HC and grass than Nadal
and please mark separately those that are currently active
1. read
2. comprehend
3. answer with something that might be interesting to keep the discussion going
till then, sleep well buddy
Texas Tennis Fan
Professional
When Nadal fans start throwing around words like "insane" when a cogent argument is presented, it just is an attempt to mask their insecurity. Many Nadal fans argue that a lot of Federer's early slams were in a weaker era. I am just dove-tailing with that argument and saying that Nadal benefited also. He won some hard-court and grass slams when Federer was the only real competition since Djokovic was too inexperienced. It is fine to disagree with my analysis, but you show your insecurity when you say my argument is "insane."do you seriously want to argue that the competition on grass between 2006-12 was somehow weaker than since 2014? Real expert you are
Texas Tennis Fan
Professional
I take your "irrelevant" and raise it by one "irrelevant."
Nadal is an all-time great. The greatest clay-courter of all time, who won some non-clay court slams in a relatively weak era. He has also benefited from no one else so focused on clay. He has little competition there whereas there is far more quality competition on hardcourt and at least Djokovic and Federer compete again each other on grass. Not having won an AO or a Wi for ten years is very significant in the GOAT debate. Nadal is so good that he has won 2 US Opens on a very slow hard court that no longer exists. His winning days there are over.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Djokovic is the only man in history to make 9 semis at each of the four slams. Insaneovic.
where is the cognent argument in your post? You made a statement, which can either be true or false ... in this case I tend to the latter
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Funny how the people who are bragging about Nadal feasting on pre 2011 asthmatic, fast quitting, Peak Glutenovic are always the first ones to dismiss the 2015 RG, the whole 2015/16 period and the Djokovic's wins against "Crapdal"... These clay aficionados...
Well, one Nadal fan told me that because Nadal made the second week of RG 2015 he was in fact playing good tennis, just was beaten on the day.
I mean, who do you believe here.
Hitman
Bionic Poster
This is fair.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
"Surface distribution" to skew H2H? Why not address AGE, when Federer is 5 years older than Nadal and 6 years older than Djokovic? It mattered little 10-15 years ago, but it's been monumental since 2013.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Incorrect. You strategically omitted the Olympics. Novak has 0 wins over Rafa at the Olympics, with the Olympics being an important/big tournament. The Olympics are equally relevant than the ATP finals.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Because Nadal also led the H2H over young Federer back in 2004-2009.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
7) Sampras is also better than Nadal on grass and hard, yet he isn't more versatile because he lacks RG. Being better in 2 surfaces does not equal to being more versatile. You need to have the most balanced resume considering 100% of the surfaces, not only 2 of 3 (66%).
8) Nadal has won at least 2 Slams ln each surface (hard, grass and clay), while Djokovic only has 1 Slam on clay. Hence, Nadal has his Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic. Not only that, Nadal is even greater than Djokovic in a Grand Slam on hard (US Open), while Djokovic is not greater than Nadal on any clay tournament.
zagor
Bionic Poster
It's not about a surface skew, it's about a slam skew. They met 2 times at Novak's best slam, compared to 8 times at Nadal's best slam.
Given that they're the same age almost (1 year difference), there's no going around it.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
RAFA is also a lot moar consistent at his pet schlem than Joker is at his. That makes a YUGE difference.
BauerAlmeida
Legend
Lol, NO.
At Djokovic's best slam they played TWICE, at Nadal's best slams they played SEVEN times. Nadal's not more versatile, he faced him very few times at Djokovic's best slams, precisely because he's not so versatile to reach more finals there. Nadal lost to Tsitsipas at the AO and avoided another loss in the H2H, Djokovic beat Tsitsipas at Roland Garros and got another loss in the H2H.
If they had faced 5 times at each slam, and we used the winning percentage they got in the H2H at each slam, Djokovic would be leading the H2H, it's as simple as that.
After all, Djokovic was able to beat Nadal and Federer at every slam.
zagor
Bionic Poster
More consistent to such a degree that it explains them having 4 times less meetings at AO? Nah, there's a skew.
Nadal may end up with more slams than Novak and the slam H2H is usable to some degree in his favour when comparing him to Fed, but against Novak? It's a pretty weak argument.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
Lol this coming from the “RAFAN” who craps all over his 2008 form, yet r!des 2015. I’m surprised you get a WiFi signal under that bridge.
TennisHockey
Rookie
Could you imagine what Nadal's record would be if there were 2 clay slams (and 1 hard and 1 grass slam)? The world would be at his mercy
Sport
G.O.A.T.
If Novak had reached the AO 2009, AO 2014 and AO 2017 finals, they would have faced each other 3 extra times at the AO. Unfortunately, Djokovic is much less consistent at the AO than Nadal at RG. You are penalizing Nadal for being more consistent at RG than Novak at the AO, which makes no sense.
Besides, if Djokovic had won all his WB and USO matches against Nadal, he would lead the H2H in Slams. So not a valid excuse.
Untestable claim, therefore invalid. Plus, it is unrealistic to expect them to face each other the exact same number of times at each Major.
zagor
Bionic Poster
That would still leave them at half less meetings in Novak's house.
Oh and Rafa could have reached AO final maybe, I don't know, those other 7 times Novak did?
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
13 (most likely 14) titles to 9 titles is a pretty big difference yes. They’ve both made 5 finals at their worst schlem. RAFA has made 3 other AO finals with Joker nowhere to be seen. And why are you limiting it to their schlem h2h
They’ve played 56 times and the h2h is almost 50-50. The years where Joker played Crapdal 4x as often as RAFA got to play Crapovic balance things out.
Nadal_Django
Legend
You're not only pathetic hypocrite, but you sound like a spoiled entitled brat also. Yes I have to work hard for my WiFI signal. Sometimes even more than 10 hours per day... Disgusting...Lol this coming from the “RAFAN” who craps all over his 2008 form, yet r!des 2015. I’m surprised you get a WiFi signal under that bridge.
BauerAlmeida
Legend
Uh? It's not untestable at all, it's actually very testable. Apply their winning % in the H2H at each slam and pick a number of meetings of your preference for each slam. Djokovic comes out on top. Yeah, and if Nadal had reached the 2016 RG final or wherever he was supposed to meet Djokovic they would have played one more time there too. You can cherry-pick an exception but more often than not Djokovic was in the AO final and Nadal wasn't there, OTOH they meet plenty at RG. Why? Because he's more versatile and made it far more often at his worst slam. There's a HUGE gap between 7 and 2. It's not like it's at least close.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Leaving aside for a second that H2h is not a very useful metric, and that slam H2h is even less useful then yes it’s skewed. Obviously if they had met 8 times at AO and 2 times at FO, instead of the other way around, the results would be very different.
But if we want to compare them at slams, say, there is a much better way. There are only four slams. Who did better at AO? At the FO? At Wimby? At the USO?
that’s it. That’s all you need to compare their slam results
But if we want to compare them at slams, say, there is a much better way. There are only four slams. Who did better at AO? At the FO? At Wimby? At the USO?
that’s it. That’s all you need to compare their slam results
zagor
Bionic Poster
Eh, maybe the CC field would have deeper than as the majority surface, who knows.
Either way, given that this is the era where every slam is slow and high bouncing, I wouldn't be quick to throw pity parties for Nadal. I doubt he'd like it as much in the 90s or 80s, or basically every other era in the whole sport history.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
They’re skewed based on form. Each has had roughly the same amount of time slumping/getting back into form after injury. Nadal about 6-8 months more. Djokovic racked up a ton of his wins during Nadal’s down phase and spent his own down phases losing to mugs instead of reaching Nadal
zagor
Bionic Poster
Not enough to justify 8-2. It's skewed.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
7 matches in 2015-2016 to 2 matches in 2017-mid 2018 moar than makes up for that.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
9) Sampras has more AOs, more Wimbledons, more USOs. His grand slam titles are definitely more evenly distributed than that of Nadals. There are 3 surfaces played on tour, Sampras is more successfull/better at 2 of them. More versatile player as Nadal is only better at one.
10) There is only one clay slam on tour. There are two HC slams on tour. Your argument is therefore invalid.
The count is as follows:
HC Slams: Djoko 12, Nadal 5
Grass slams: Djoko 5, Nadal 2.
Clay slams: Nadal 13, Djoko 1.
Conclusion: Djokovic is considerably better at 2/3 surfaces than nadal while nadal is considerably better at one surface = Djokovic the much more completer player unfortunately.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
It is 100% untestable. Applying the winning % in the H2H is not a valid measure, because it cannot calculate which player will win X or Y match. It also assumes the winnig % will maintain continuous, when it can change over time.
Last edited:
Sport
G.O.A.T.
9) Nadal has won 10% of his Slams on grass, Sampras won 0% of his Slams on clay. Nadal has his Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Sampras. Winning at least 10% of your Slams on each surface >>> winning 0% of your Slams in one surface. I mean, Career Grand Slam >>> No French Open.
10) Even if we consider that there are 2 Slams on hard, 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5. Nadal averages 2.5 titles per Slam held on hard, while Djokovic only averages 1 title per Slam held on clay. My argument is therefore valid.
OG is quite special. is not played every year, is played under different conditions, different countries, different surfaces. the tournament says nothing about the versatility of the players.
- Status
Similar threads
