Nadal is 28-13 vs Djokovic, Federer and Murray in Grand Slam tournaments

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
That's not the way it worked out. Sometimes, Djokovic didn't "keep his appointment" with Nadal at the Australian Open (like 2009, 2014, 2017, 2022). It wasn't always Nadal failing to keep it.

But Djokovic almost all the time kept his with Nadal at RG despite the disadvantage. And most of the time it was Nadal not keeping his appointment at the AO. 2009 was pre-prime Djokovic, 2022 he wasn't allowed to. Basically only 2014 and 2017. Even if those had been played it would still be considerably fewer meetings. Even if you add 2009 too. And let's not even mention Wimbledon.

In the end, both lead H2H at two slams. Nadal has the advantage of more wins because of playing more of his turf, Djokovic the advantage of not having being defeated at his turf, because of fewer meetings. If they had played the same amount at every slam it would be very very close, basically a coin toss.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Well no, but Djokovic not making it wouldn't have mattered in the grand scheme of things. Counting valid withdrawals separately (when both players had a chance of meeting had they played)

AO (2 meetings)
Djokovic didn't do it 3 times (09, 14, 17)
Djokovic withdrawals -> 1 time - 2022
Nadal didn't do it 7 times (08, 11, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23)
Nadal withdrawals -> 2013, 2024

RG (10 meetings)
Djokovic didn't do it 5 times (10, 11, 17, 18, 19)
Djokovic withdrawals -> never withdrawn from RG
Nadal didn't do it 1 time (16)
Nadal withdrawals -> 2023


Just based on that data alone, if Djokovic matched Nadal (only failed to make the appointment once, withdrew once) they would have met at the AO 4 times compared to the 10 times they met at RG. However, if Nadal hadn't withdrawn from 2 AOs and made the appointment all but 5 times, they would've met another 4 times.

Djokovic and Nadal's early success on clay contributes 2 matches to their RG total (06 and 07) while neither really blossomed at the AO until 08. Another 2 matches are contributed to Nadal's greater consistency at RG than Novak at AO. But 4 matches are due to Nadal withdrawing more often and failing to make the appointment.

If we were to give the opponent the win for each match their opponent was responsible for missing, the AO would be 6-2 for Djokovic and their slam H2H would be 13-11 for Nadal - and that doesn't even account for Wimbledon or the USO.

Of course we can't just gift wins like that, but a cursory glance at the numbers support that Nadal is more responsible for the lack of meetings at the AO, though not wholly responsible.
To follow up on this, the Wimbledon numbers and USO numbers:

WIM (3 meetings)
Djokovic didn't do it 2 times (08, 10)
Djokovic withdrawals -> 0 times.
Nadal didn't do it 5 times (13, 14, 15, 19, 22)
Nadal withdrawals -> 5 times - 09, 16, 21, 23, 24
(We can even count 06 as a Djokovic fail too if you want).

That's 10 times Nadal made it impossible for them to meet at Wimbledon and 2-3 times Djokovic did. Meaning Djokovic made the appointment as many times at Wimbledon as Nadal did at RG, but Nadal made them miss the appointment 9 (I won't count 2009 since Djokovic didn't make the final) times at WIM as opposed to Djokovic's 5 at RG. If you made half those meetings happen (approximately +1 win for Nadal, +4 for Djokovic) practically the entire slam H2H lead dissolves. And that's if they played only 9 times at Wimbledon in addition to the 10 they played at RG.

USO (3 meetings)
Djokovic didn't do it 1 time (19)
Djokovic withdrawals -> 2 times - 17, 22
Nadal didn't do it 4 times (07, 15, 16, 18)
Nadal withdrawals -> 5 times - 12, 14, 20, 21, 23 (2014 a weak withdrawal since no guarantee Novak makes it to Nadal either)

Again, Djokovic responsible for missing Nadal about 3 times. Nadal, on the other hand, made them miss out on meeting each other approximately 8 times (not counting 2014). If they had met all those times, you can bet that the H2H would be very different than 2-1 Nadal - just like if Novak had lost earlier in RG 06-08 there would be 3 fewer lost matches on Novak's side at RG.



All this isn't to say Djokovic would've led the slam H2H with more meetings. That's unknowable. But what we can certainly say is it's not Djokovic's fault they didn't play more often at the other venues. And when they didn't play it was most often because Nadal was either taken out earlier or injured. If I had to guess who would win those hypothetical matches, I'd do with the person who made it further/isn't injured. But again, we can't say for sure.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
But Djokovic almost all the time kept his with Nadal at RG despite the disadvantage. And most of the time it was Nadal not keeping his appointment at the AO. 2009 was pre-prime Djokovic, 2022 he wasn't allowed to. Basically only 2014 and 2017. Even if those had been played it would still be considerably fewer meetings. Even if you add 2009 too. And let's not even mention Wimbledon.

In the end, both lead H2H at two slams. Nadal has the advantage of more wins because of playing more of his turf, Djokovic the advantage of not having being defeated at his turf, because of fewer meetings. If they had played the same amount at every slam it would be very very close, basically a coin toss.
Nadal was injured in 2011 and 2013. 2015- is post prime and then old from 2020.

Djokovic missed 2009, 2014. Nadal 2008, 2011, 2013.

It’s a good thing for Djokovic he got to face Murray and old Federer so much in 2014/2015/2016 rather than a legit in form prime version of Nadal.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Nadal was injured in 2011 and 2013. 2015- is post prime and then old from 2020.

Djokovic missed 2009, 2014. Nadal 2008, 2011, 2013.

It’s a good thing for Djokovic he got to face Murray and old Federer so much in 2014/2015/2016 rather than a legit in form prime version of Nadal.

So out-of-prime counts for Nadal as an excuse but not for Djokovic lol.

Nadal was good enough to go deep in 2017-2022. This is why this obsession with "primes" and "peaks" is ridiculous. He won the title in 2022 but everything post 2015 is erased because of "post-prime". I agree that in 2023 and 2024 he was done (and in 2015 and 2016 in a slump) but taking out the 2017-2022 period is ridiculous.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
So out-of-prime counts for Nadal as an excuse but not for Djokovic lol.

Nadal was good enough to go deep in 2017-2022. This is why this obsession with "primes" and "peaks" is ridiculous. He won the title in 2022 but everything post 2015 is erased because of "post-prime". I agree that in 2023 and 2024 he was done (and in 2015 and 2016 in a slump) but taking out the 2017-2022 period is ridiculous.
17-22 is inflation era. Nadal was still prime on clay from 17-20
 

ballamaz

Rookie
Nadal actually prefers bo5 b/c he has more chance to recover if he gets behind.

He also prefers some familiarity with opponents or ones with a typical game.

Considering those factors , this is exactly the sort of scenario he absolutely dreads:

 
How about, 6-4 to Nadal against Djokovic in matches at the majors from the 2012 French Open onwards, and 5-0 to Nadal from 2006-2010?
Nadal is the Greatest big match player of all time, of that there is no doubt. At the Slams he is the greatest, it is unarguable. 28-13 against Federer Murray and Djokovic is unreal and why the likes of Michael Jordan and Brady and Woods see Nadal as their GOAT as the greats in other sports do tend to judge players in the biggest moments against other greats. Nadal achieved all this in the era of (as of last week) overall GOAT Djokovic which makes Nadal's big match record even more phenomenal.
It is noticeable how the commentators and pundits who never were that keen on Nadal nowadays do focus on non slams a lot more than they used to say 10 years ago.
 

duaneeo

Legend
Valid against Federer
Clay skew against Djokovic

In winning 8 non-clay slam titles, Nadal beat Federer (08 WB/09 AO) and Djokovic (10 & 13 USO) twice.

In winning 10 non-clay Masters, Nadal beat Federer (2013 Indian Wells & Cincinnati) and Djokovic (2007 Indian Wells, 2013 Canada) twice.

In winning Olympic gold (now important to Nole fans) on HC, Nadal beat Djokovic (not Federer) in the process.
 

duaneeo

Legend
USO is not his favorite slam, AO is. And Nadal made 0 wins against Novak there. Also those 2 wins you mentioned are made during Nadal's best 2 years on the tour. 2010 and 2013. After 2013 he won 0 sets against Novak on hard.

Nole is the HC GOAT, no? Why is he at his peak losing to Rafa at the USO in 2013...in four sets with a breadstick?

And he should've had the advantage in 2010. It was his 2nd USO final (compared to Rafa's first) and he had lost to no one but Federer for 3 consecutive years.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Nole is the HC GOAT, no? Why is he at his peak losing to Rafa at the USO in 2013...in four sets with a breadstick?

And he should've had the advantage in 2010. It was his 2nd USO final (compared to Rafa's first) and he had lost to no one but Federer for 3 consecutive years.
You better slay :D

nqk4pavuzmvbstcqxuqv.gif
 

Unseeded Player

Hall of Fame
Nole is the HC GOAT, no? Why is he at his peak losing to Rafa at the USO in 2013...in four sets with a breadstick?

And he should've had the advantage in 2010. It was his 2nd USO final (compared to Rafa's first) and he had lost to no one but Federer for 3 consecutive years.
Losses do happen for any reason. I could also ask how it happend for the peak Rafa to lose against Soderling at RG who wasn't even a clay specialidst or a slam winner?

High bouncing ball courts suited Nadal very good, which is the reason he won tournaments that have those courts multiple times, unlike low bouncing.
In 2013 weather conditions were mote suitable for Nadal and he had easier draw. In 2011 conditions were more suitable for Novak. 2010 was one of the worst seasons for Novak and the best season for Nadal, how can Novak have advantage?
 

vokazu

Legend
The amount of Grand Slam tournaments not entered since they turned Pro:


Nadal: 27
Djokovic: 11

(Not counting non existent Wimbledon 2020)

Useless head to head thread lol
 
Last edited:

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
The amount of Grand Slam tournaments not entered since they turned Pro:


Nadal: 27
Djokovic: 11

(Not counting non existent Wimbledon 2020)

Useless head to head thread lol
Thats the primarily reason why Djokovic holds with most slams.
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
Nadal is better big match or slam(h2h) player regardless of Murray. With Federer there is no clay skew in their meetings. With Djokovic yeah there is but still better, positive score for Rafa together with leading at USO.

I don't understand the argument of had they played more with Djokovic yeah h2h could have been closer say it 13-12. But that would mean Nadal will play more tournaments hence will very likely win more slams. The reason of less meatings is not because Nadal has many bad losses its due to him playing a lot less.
 

GoatNo1

Hall of Fame
Djokovic making it far enough to meet Nadal four consecutive times between 2012 to 2015 and three consecutive times between 2020 to 2022 at Roland Garros, but Nadal could never consecutively meet Djokovic at the Australian Open? Shows how ridiculous the H2H is.
there is 14 big tournaments in the normal ATP calendar. 4 of them (29%) is on clay. yet, they met each other on clay 29 times (48%) out of 60 matches. and nole still has positive h2h 31-29 (52%).

there is 9 masters tournaments 3 (33%) being on clay and 6 (67%) on HC. they played 29 times, 17 times on clay (59%) and 12 times on HC (41%). nole leads h2h in masters with 16-13 (55%).

there is 4 slams and 1 is on clay (25%). they met each other 18 times at slams and 10 on clay (56%). rafa leads 11-7 (61%). only 2 matches was at AO (11%).

after USO13 rafa did not won a single match outside of clay vs nole, 0-10, and a single set on HC, 0-9 in HC matches and 0-19 in sets. since USO13 they played once at AO, once at W and 5 times at RG (3-2 for rafa)!
 
Last edited:
Nadal is better big match or slam(h2h) player regardless of Murray. With Federer there is no clay skew in their meetings. With Djokovic yeah there is but still better, positive score for Rafa together with leading at USO.

I don't understand the argument of had they played more with Djokovic yeah h2h could have been closer say it 13-12. But that would mean Nadal will play more tournaments hence will very likely win more slams. The reason of less meatings is not because Nadal has many bad losses its due to him playing a lot less.
Nadal isn’t as good as Djokovic off clay. It really is that simple. I know you struggle to accept this but Nadal didn’t deserve the slam record in the end because he simply wasn’t as good as Djokovic as an all round tennis player.

Nadal maxed out on clay and is the clay GOAT but he didn’t do enough off it. Whether he’s fit or not he was quite a bit inferior to Djokovic outside clay.

Djokovic also missed slams he may have won but I won’t cry about that as it’s a what if. All fans can use the same excuses but it’s just an excuse and sour grapes.
 

Eren

Professional
Valid against Federer
Clay skew against Djokovic
No one cares about Murray

How does Nadal have a clay skew against Djokovic in Slams and Federer does not, how does that work?

Fedal:
Grass: 4 matches
HC: 4 matches
Clay: 6 matches

Clay skew: 42.86%

Djokodal:
Grass: 3 matches
HC: 5 matches
Clay: 10 matches

Clay skew: 55.56%

Djokovic won two of those RG matches and 2015 was a subpar Nadal.

Djokovic had a worse clay skew disadvantage in terms of matches played at RG, but an advantage in terms of what form Nadal was in compared to Nadal's meetings with Federer. Obviously both Djokovic and Federer weren't always at their best when meeting Nadal in every match in Slams either (2013 USO was a subpar Djokovic imo).

But to say that Federer had no clay skew disadvantage at all, is a bit ridiculous. 43% Of Slam matches on clay is way too much since it only comprises 25% of Slam surfaces.
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
LOL, yes to me. It doesn't take his greatness. As i said so many times being fit/healthy counts. So i rank Djokovic ahead. For me the biggest difference was their ability to stay fit. You don't need to agree but for me it's clear.

Nadal is not far from Djokovic at slams in all-aroundness(ability to win) i can even say ahead or equal whatever at. But in ATP tour all tournaments i agree Djokovic is more versatile better etc. Djokovic only last year got his 4th USO to equal Rafa.

What is ridiculous to me is that some Djokovic fans really believe Nadal's injuries/health almost didn't make any difference in Slam race. That's delusional.
 

Phenomenal

Hall of Fame
Nadal isn’t as good as Djokovic off clay. It really is that simple. I know you struggle to accept this but Nadal didn’t deserve the slam record in the end because he simply wasn’t as good as Djokovic as an all round tennis player.

Nadal maxed out on clay and is the clay GOAT but he didn’t do enough off it. Whether he’s fit or not he was quite a bit inferior to Djokovic outside clay.

Djokovic also missed slams he may have won but I won’t cry about that as it’s a what if. All fans can use the same excuses but it’s just an excuse and sour grapes.
Is the amount comparable?

If you read my comments i usually don't mention esp in comparisons about weak era etc eventhough i have clear opinion on that. But forum, most here is not honest.

Yeah for me thats the biggest reason.

One thing is certain that Djokovic nor Fed would have as many as they have had they missed as much as Nadal. Since Djokovic barely not winning slams post 30 almost sure he would win less had he missed more in his 30's like Rafa who missed tons since beginning. Many of them were not random he would be top 2 fav.

Maybe this help to understand better. This is not excuse just this was the difference to me. Not because one is superior on slams.
 

GoatNo1

Hall of Fame
How does Nadal have a clay skew against Djokovic in Slams and Federer does not, how does that work?

Fedal:
Grass: 4 matches
HC: 4 matches
Clay: 6 matches

Clay skew: 42.86%

Djokodal:
Grass: 3 matches
HC: 5 matches
Clay: 10 matches

Clay skew: 55.56%

Djokovic won two of those RG matches and 2015 was a subpar Nadal.

Djokovic had a worse clay skew disadvantage in terms of matches played at RG, but an advantage in terms of what form Nadal was in compared to Nadal's meetings with Federer. Obviously both Djokovic and Federer weren't always at their best when meeting Nadal in every match in Slams either (2013 USO was a subpar Djokovic imo).

But to say that Federer had no clay skew disadvantage at all, is a bit ridiculous. 43% Of Slam matches on clay is way too much since it only comprises 25% of Slam surfaces.
rafa and nole played only 2 matches at AO, 11% and 10 at RG, 56%. fed and rafa played 4 matches at W, 29% and 6 at RG, 43%.
nole and rafa are 5-3 outside of clay (3-2 on HC and 2-1 at W) and fed and rafa are 4-4 rafa being 3-1 on HC.

25x0,2+50x0,6+25x0,67=5+30+16,75=52%
25x0+50x0,25+25x0,75=0+12,5+18,75=31%

so if slams in h2h was distributed as on the tour nole would win 52% of slam matches insted of 39% vs rafa and fed 31% instead of 29%.

if you look at whole h2h nole and rafa played 48% of matches on clay (29 out of 60) and nole is positive vs rafa with 52% wins (31 aout of 60). he is 9-20 on CC (31%) and 20-7 on HC vs rafa (74%).
fed and rafa played 16 out of thers 40 matches on clay (40%) and fed has losing h2h, 16-24 (40%). he has catastrophically 2-14 on CC (12,5%) and 11-9 (55%) on HC. with such bad h2h on CC and almost even on HC you can not say it is clay skew. even if they played 29% on CC, 64% on HC and 7% on GC (as big tournaments %) fed would have losing h2h with rafa: 29x0,125+64x0,55+7x0,75=3,6+35,2+5,25=44%
if you calculate the same for nole it will be: 29x0.31+64x0,74+7x0,5=9+47,4+3,5=60%

so if fed vs rafa h2h was equally distributed as the surfaces are fed would won 44% of matches instead for 40% (17-23 or 18-22 instead of 16-24 in 40 matches)
and nole would win 60% instead of 52% (36-24 instead of 31-29 in 60 matches)!
 
Last edited:
Top