Nadal: Novak Djokovic reached a higher level than Roger Federer

[yatestwile]

I do think the jist of this is given what Djokovic did to a still absolutely prime Nadal in 2011, 7 straight wins across all surfaces including 2 on clay, it is understandable he would view Djokovics top level as the best since it was the hardest for him to face, and that includes even peak Federer. Peak Djokovic is the toughest thing for Nadal himself to face, over Federer or anyone else. It doesnt mean the same would apply to other players however. You wouldnt expect Roddick for instance to opine he finds Djokovic harder to face than Federer, and the same would apply to Nadal in reverse.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Statistically, Murray is a better returner than Hewitt. Some might say Hewitt is quite overrated himself on here.

Yeah because he has an insanely long prime inflating his numbers.

Use only Hewitt's peak years and I bet it's much closer.

I think Murray is overrated on here. Guy struggled to win a set against old man Fed and you're making arguments for him against peak Fed.

Anybody has a right to believe whatever version of Federer is better. I just happen to believe the version that served 61%, hit 69 winners, 17 aces (0 dfs), 34 forced errors and 19 unforced errors, is better than the version that served 55%, hit 40 winners, 11 aces (1df), 37 forced errors and 26 unforced errors.

Serve isn't everything.

Fed wasn't lethal off both wings like the 2003 TMC that match.

He played conservatively and waited for Roddick to crumble. That really wasn't a special Fed performance, but neither was his 2005 USO SF. Lleyton still pushed him harder than Roddick did a year later.

 

[NoleFam]

nope, if anything , I'd expect the rally length in the 4th set to be shorter than the 1st three sets combined (given Djokovic was swinging more freely and Nadal was tired).

I counted. There were 15 rallies of 7+ shots.
out of 46 points. (32.6%)

so for the 1st 3 sets, it was 92 rallies of 7+ shots out of 222 points (41.44%)

You bringing in an outlier in USO 2011 final is just basically utterly useless.
I already explained why the USO 2010 final is a much better point of comparision.

Look at Nadal-Verdasco AO 09, Djoko-Stan - AO 13 matches as well.

Why would the USO final in 2011 be useless when it's the 1st match that they met peak to peak there? I think you are going off track from the initial point you were trying to make anyway, and these two meeting at the USO really has nothing to do with Federer and Hewitt. You need a point of reference from these two players to be the most accurate if you want to compare the 2004 match and say, this one was no different as far as rally length as their other USO matches. Surprising stats from the 2011 match though and it is an outlier, and shocking so many rallies were that long. Highly entertaining match though.

 

[NoleFam]

Yeah because he has an insanely long prime inflating his numbers.

Use only Hewitt's peak years and I bet it's much closer.

I think Murray is overrated on here. Guy struggled to win a set against old man Fed and you're making arguments for him against peak Fed.


Serve isn't everything.

Fed wasn't lethal off both wings like the 2003 TMC that match.

He played conservatively and waited for Roddick to crumble. That really wasn't a special Fed performance, but neither was his 2005 USO SF. Lleyton still pushed him harder than Roddick did a year later.

Murray's numbers back him up over Hewitt and let's not pretend that Murray hasn't played peak Federer. Just let it go.

You don't think that 2006 performance was special? You have to be kidding me. Both were special performances. I just happen to rate that one over 2004 because Roddick played exceptionally well and had 10+ more winners than errors, compared to Hewitt who was -11 on winners to errors. Roddick also has more firepower and a huge serve so he is harder to break and tested Federer more compared to Hewitt, who didn't serve that great and didn't have as many weapons to push Federer. So to each their own.

 

[tennis_pro]

BLASHPEMY........

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray's numbers back him up over Hewitt and let's not pretend that Murray hasn't played peak Federer. Just let it go.

So in other words they are close if you isolate Hewitt's peak numbers against Murray, pretty much invalidating what you proclaimed as fact.

You don't think that 2006 performance was special? You have to be kidding me. Both were special performances. I just happen to rate that one over 2004 because Roddick played exceptionally well and had 10+ more winners than errors, compared to Hewitt who was -11 on winners to errors. Roddick also has more firepower and a huge serve so he is harder to break and tested Federer more compared to Hewitt, who didn't serve that great and doesn't have as many weapons to push Federer. So to each their own.

No, it wasn't a special performance from Fed. I know because I watched the damn match when it happened.

You're talking about "firepower" but Roddick was basically a grinder with a big serve then. We really must have been watching different matches.

 

[NoleFam]

So in other words they are close if you isolate Hewitt's peak numbers against Murray, pretty much invalidating what you proclaimed as fact.


No, it wasn't a special performance from Fed. I know because I watched the damn match when it happened.

You're talking about "firepower" but Roddick was basically a grinder with a big serve then. We really must have been watching different matches.

Peak to peak, Murray's numbers edge Hewitt's. Murray's returning peak was 2016 and Hewitt's was 2002, in case you want to check yourself. It's pretty much a fact and you're getting worked up over nothing,

I watched both matches when they happened, and watched them both again recently and my opinion hasn't changed. Being a grinder with a big serve is still better than that performance that Hewitt gave in the final in 2004. I think we are watching the same matches but have different vision. We don't have to agree and that is okay.

 

[metsman]

Yeah that too...although to be fair, I believe Federer benefited from a bad line call in the second set. Was it on BP? I can't remember, just recall the commies lamenting about how it should have been Murray's break.

Yeah you're correct. But Federer of the USO 2008 final was at best an average performance by peak Fed standards.

 

[abmk]

Why would the USO final in 2011 be useless when it's the 1st match that they met peak to peak there? I think you are going off track from the initial point you were trying to make anyway, and these two meeting at the USO really has nothing to do with Federer and Hewitt. You need a point of reference from these two players to be the most accurate if you want to compare the 2004 match and say, this one was no different as far as rally length as their other USO matches. Surprising stats from the 2011 match though and it is an outlier, and shocking so many rallies were that long. Highly entertaining match though.

1. you answered your own question. Its an an outlier. Hence useless bringing it in a comparision with the USO 04 final.

The USO 10 final where Nadal played pretty aggressive is a much more approrpiate comparision.

My point of bringing the USO 2010 final up was to show that ~25% of 7+ shot rallies is within the average range. The mention of Stan-Djoko AO 13 and Nadal-Verdasco AO 09 was for that as well.

2. The only other Fed-hewitt matches that are there in TA are :

a) the 2004 Tennis Masters Cup final :

federer played a near-perfect match and Hewitt actually played well in this one.

22/102 points (21.57%) of the points were 7+ shot rallies.

http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/20041115-M-Masters_Cup-F-Roger_Federer-Lleyton_Hewitt.html

b) IW 2005 final :

27/176 points (15.34%) were 7+ shot rallies.

This is actually in the lower range (thanks to Federer serving exceptionally well)

http://www.tennisabstract.com/chart...s_Masters-F-Lleyton_Hewitt-Roger_Federer.html

3. Re : the 2011 USO match, not a surprise to me at all, not shocking either.
Below par serving from both and some insane defense in the rallies.
I've always known/evaluated it correctly.

 

[MLRoy]

Meh. Neither Djokovic or Nadal have played a level that has caused them to pass Federer’s GS count.

But Federer's got a five year head start. Nadal's won more slams in a shorter time.

 

[MLRoy]

Well, yeah. His H2H isn't as good against Joker, and no one plays better "D", so he must be much more frustrating to play than Rog. But Roger takes a lot more risks. What ev'.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

But Federer's got a five year head start. Nadal's won more slams in a shorter time.

Been hearing this crap for years.

He has at most a 2 years "head start". Nadal was winning slams in 2005 for God's sake.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Peak to peak, Murray's numbers edge Hewitt's. Murray's returning peak was 2016 and Hewitt's was 2002, in case you want to check yourself. It's pretty much a fact and you're getting worked up over nothing,

I watched both matches when they happened, and watched them both again recently and my opinion hasn't changed. Being a grinder with a big serve is still better than that performance that Hewitt gave in the final in 2004. I think we are watching the same matches but have different vision. We don't have to agree and that is okay.

Fine then dude, agree to disagree.

 

[MLRoy]

Been hearing this crap for years.

He has at most a 2 years "head start". Nadal was winning slams in 2005 for God's sake.

Is Federer 5 YEARS older, or not? That's half a frigging decade which is TWENTY (20) more slam opportunities. That's why you've been hearing it for "years" -- and you still don't get it! But, what's 5 years to an athlete's career, right?

 

[NatF]

But Federer's got a five year head start. Nadal's won more slams in a shorter time.

At the same age Federer was on 17.

 

[KINGROGER]

In terms of Rafa, did Djoker play Nadal better than Fed did? Overall yes, but in slams it's negligible - 4-9 vs. 3-9.

Outside of Rafa, in his career did Djoker rise to a higher level than Fed? Sure, if in your world 12 is > 19.

With one more slam, Courier would be as close to Djoker as Djoker is to Fed.

Nadal caught Djokovic pre prime a lot same with Federer post prime. Slam H2H can be explained by Rafa MIA Wimbledon 12,14,15,17, USO 05,06,07,08,09,12,15,16 AO 07,10,11,15,16 on the other hand fed and Djokovic rarely failed to reach RG final and all other grand slam SF/F so their h2h looks worse thanks to their consistency.

 

[MLRoy]

At the same age Federer was on 17.

Yes, I understand that. Actually, i think Rafa was 16, but I'm not sure. But, that still gives Federer several years head-start since he's older. His first pro tourney was in 1998. I just looked up Rafa's first pro year: 2001. So that's a 3 yr head start, or 12 more slam opportunities. I think Rafa will end up with more slams by the end of his career, but who knows.

 

[KINGROGER]

Yes, I understand that. Actually, i think Rafa was 16, but I'm not sure. But, that still gives Federer several years head-start since he's older. His first pro tourney was in 1998. I just looked up Rafa's first pro year: 2001. So that's a 3 yr head start, or 12 more slam opportunities. I think Rafa will end up with more slams by the end of his career, but who knows.

Yeah the difference is Federer aged 30-35 had to content with peak Djokovic, prime Nadal. Nadal at same age currently has a 36 year old grandpa as his main competition, and has 0 competition on clay.

 

[mike danny]

But Federer's got a five year head start. Nadal's won more slams in a shorter time.

Fed turned pro in 1998. It took him 13 years to win 16 slams. Nadal turned pro in 2001 and it has taken him 17 years to win 16 slams.

Fed won his first slam in 2003 and won 16 slams in 8 years. Nadal won his first slam in 2005 and has won 16 in 13 years.

I don't see the shorter time span.

In fact, since Nadal blossomed earlier than Federer he had more opportunities to rack up more slams.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Is Federer 5 YEARS older, or not? That's half a frigging decade which is TWENTY (20) more slam opportunities. That's why you've been hearing it for "years" -- and you still don't get it! But, what's 5 years to an athlete's career, right?

You don't seem to "get" Rafa was contending for slams two years after Federer. 5 years is baloney.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yes, I understand that. Actually, i think Rafa was 16, but I'm not sure. But, that still gives Federer several years head-start since he's older. His first pro tourney was in 1998. I just looked up Rafa's first pro year: 2001. So that's a 3 yr head start, or 12 more slam opportunities. I think Rafa will end up with more slams by the end of his career, but who knows.

Just like people predicted Djokovic would have 18 slams which at the time was more than Federer.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Fact: Federer only won 1 AO from 2008-2016
Fact: Federer has 0 USO since 2008
Fact: Federer had 2 Wimby from 2008-2016
Fact: Federer had 1 slam in almost 7 years before 2017

Wow, was not aware Fed hasn't won USO in soon a decade.

Fact: the fact that even Federer's detractors are accustomed to talking about the man in superlatives by holding him to standards beyond any other player, says a lot for the man and his legacy.

We are talking a full decade after he dominated that Major for 5 straight years.

 

[hann7]

The thing with Federer is he's just the most accomplished player because of titles and results, the weak era from 2003-2007 helped that but his matchups against his 2 biggest rivals in the sport, Nadal and Djokovic, the "most talented player evah" has a losing record against both of them.

At the end of the day, frauds always get found out.

Nadal won 3 slams in that era you just quoted. He is a weak era player. He just added two slams in this year’s unimaginably weak era as well. It’s realy stacking up. And it’s even worse because he didn’t even dominate this years weak era and couldn’t beat a grandad

Nadal has completely failed to dominate this year in the weakest field ever. That is all the proof you need he would fail to win a single title more than he managed in any era. 2003-2007 lol? Well brush aside the fact nadal has 3 slams in that era (that single point alone defeats your entrie argument but hey let’s forget that a second) but nadal regularly loses to the likes of ferrer, mueller, query, pouille etc etc etc etc the list is ernomous and he doesn’t win anything on multiple surfaces e.g. indoors and grass for 5 years. You think he would fare better in 2004 or something?

Lol I’ll spell that out for you he has trouble beating mueller, ferrer, a 37 year old. He will struggle in any era and won’t add a single slam. In fact his slam count would actually significantly go down as he would meet real clay courters and maybe wouldn’t luck out and face Anderson or ferrer in a slam final

 

[hann7]

Boy, was that era weak!

Nadal won 3 majors in 2004-2007 so he’s a weak era hoarder too. He gained another 2 this year. Wow he’s really piling them up. He Has never faced a clay specialist at RG either and wracked up a lot of weak slams when other were injured or missing.

Despite all his weak era chances he never defended a non clay anything even a Atp250. Doesn’t matter how much of a fan boy you are can’t spin that. That is terrible. Djokovic has piled up a hoard of slams by beating Murray

 

[timnz]

But Federer's got a five year head start. Nadal's won more slams in a shorter time.

Well actually no.

Federer won his 16th Slam at the age of 28 years and 5 months. Nadal won his 16th Slam at the age of 31 years and 3 months. So Federer was nearly 3 years younger.

 

[hann7]

Well actually no.

Federer won his 16th Slam at the age of 28 years and 5 months. Nadal won his 16th Slam at the age of 31 years and 3 months. So Federer was nearly 3 years younger.

@MLRoy also Nadal has only been on tour 3 years less than Federer. There isnt a 5 year gap. Also Federer's early years didn't add to his legacy in anyway. He was a late bloomer and didnt win anything early on. Nadal has had longer than Fed to add slams etc. More to the point Federer is a grandad now Nadal has every opportunity and no excuses to crush federer in any encounter and rack up slams in a non existant field. Instead he failed to dominate this year

 

[mike danny]

Well actually no.

Federer won his 16th Slam at the age of 28 years and 5 months. Nadal won his 16th Slam at the age of 31 years and 3 months. So Federer was nearly 3 years younger.

Not to mention Nadal started winning slams at 19, while Fed started at nearly 22.

If it's someone who had a head start, it's Rafa.

 

[hann7]

Yes, I understand that. Actually, i think Rafa was 16, but I'm not sure. But, that still gives Federer several years head-start since he's older. His first pro tourney was in 1998. I just looked up Rafa's first pro year: 2001. So that's a 3 yr head start, or 12 more slam opportunities. I think Rafa will end up with more slams by the end of his career, but who knows.

As already stated by multiple people Nadal only has 3 less playing years on tour. He started earlier than fed. He has actually won less than fed had at his age and nadal has needed longer to achieve what he has so far. He will also never catch up Federer at AO or Wimbeldon, the US open, the WTF and so on. Even if Nadal played for another 20 years. His ship has sailed. At best he will win some more RG's, get maybe another Anderson like draw and get a non RG and then face Federer when Fed is 38.

 

[hann7]

Not to mention Nadal started winning slams at 19, while Fed started at nearly 22.

If it's someone who had a head start, it's Rafa.

Lol I just realised what your profile pic was, I thought it was the real Hulk all this time haha

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nadal won 3 slams in that era you just quoted. He is a weak era player. He just added two slams in this year’s unimaginably weak era as well. It’s realy stacking up. And it’s even worse because he didn’t even dominate this years weak era and couldn’t beat a grandad

Nadal has completely failed to dominate this year in the weakest field ever. That is all the proof you need he would fail to win a single title more than he managed in any era. 2003-2007 lol? Well brush aside the fact nadal has 3 slams in that era (that single point alone defeats your entrie argument but hey let’s forget that a second) but nadal regularly loses to the likes of ferrer, mueller, query, pouille etc etc etc etc the list is ernomous and he doesn’t win anything on multiple surfaces e.g. indoors and grass for 5 years. You think he would fare better in 2004 or something?

Lol I’ll spell that out for you he has trouble beating mueller, ferrer, a 37 year old. He will struggle in any era and won’t add a single slam. In fact his slam count would actually significantly go down as he would meet real clay courters and maybe wouldn’t luck out and face Anderson or ferrer in a slam final

Djokovic beat a 32, 33 and 34 year old Fed in GS finals.

Fed is good for his age but he isn't in his prime.

 

[masao]

Djokovic beat a 32, 33 and 34 year old Fed in GS finals.

Fed is good for his age but he isn't in his prime.

Federer said that he was at his peak and was playing the best tennis of his life in 2015. His coach said that also. Many others did too. And if you remove Nole, he was having some of his most dominant slams ever.

 

[aditya123]

Is it Djokovic's fault that Federer is older than him??? Some people here need to grow up

 

[mike danny]

Is it Djokovic's fault that Federer is older than him??? Some people here need to grow up

Agreed. Some people need to stop pretending like Djokovic defeated a peak Federer in his major finals

 

[kevaninho]

Its true. Ive said this, and im not a Djokovic fan. But his level reached in recent years when he was winning everything in the 2015-16 period almost, he played the best ive ever seen anyone play. Not a beautiful style, or the most eye opening shots, but just sometimes he looked unbeatable against anyone who could ever pick up a racquet IMO.

 

[tennisaddict]

The usual jig here to undermine Fed’s generation and prop up Andy Murray, a glorified David Ferrer.

 

[pame]

But Federer's got a five year head start. Nadal's won more slams in a shorter time.

Has he? Not according to this comparative time line: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...eline-comparison-between-big-3-by-age.605846/

 

[money_ball]

Nadal is correct. Djokovic has reached the highest ELO rating in the history of tennis:

• https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/djokovic-and-federer-are-vying-to-be-the-greatest-of-all-time
• http://tennisabstract.com/reports/atp_elo_ratings.html

 

[NoleFam]

Soderling was asked about the comparison between Federer and Djokovic in a new interview and pretty much agrees with Nadal.

Who’s better: Novak in his prime or Roger in his prime?

I always had tough matches against Roger. Playing against Djokovic, Nadal, I could go off the court and feel I played well. But against Roger, he just made me play bad. Hm…but if they are both at the top, I think Novak would beat Roger more times than the opposite. He moved so well, got so many balls back. That’s really tough for Roger because he might play too fast, he would panic a little bit. But it’s really tough to say.

https://tennismash.com/2017/12/13/robin-soderling-life-tennis/

 

[NatF]

Soderling was asked about the comparison between Federer and Djokovic in a new interview and pretty much agrees with Nadal.

Who’s better: Novak in his prime or Roger in his prime?

I always had tough matches against Roger. Playing against Djokovic, Nadal, I could go off the court and feel I played well. But against Roger, he just made me play bad. Hm…but if they are both at the top, I think Novak would beat Roger more times than the opposite. He moved so well, got so many balls back. That’s really tough for Roger because he might play too fast, he would panic a little bit. But it’s really tough to say.

https://tennismash.com/2017/12/13/robin-soderling-life-tennis/

Sounds like he called Djokovic a pusher?

 

[NoleFam]

Sounds like he called Djokovic a pusher?

Defense is the best offense. Even better when you can turn defense turned into offense.

 

[uscwang]

Nadal is correct. Djokovic has reached the highest ELO rating in the history of tennis:

• https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/djokovic-and-federer-are-vying-to-be-the-greatest-of-all-time
• http://tennisabstract.com/reports/atp_elo_ratings.html

Novak actually reached his and ATP's peak ELO about six months after where this graph ends, at Miami 2016 I believe, to 2570.

 

[NoleFam]

Novak actually reached his and ATP's peak ELO about six months after where this graph ends, at Miami 2016 I believe, to 2570.

According to ultimate tennis stats it was 2623 in Feb. 2016.

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/playerProfile?playerId=4920&tab=ranking&rankType=ELO_RATING

 

[uscwang]

Soderling was asked about the comparison between Federer and Djokovic in a new interview and pretty much agrees with Nadal.

Who’s better: Novak in his prime or Roger in his prime?

I always had tough matches against Roger. Playing against Djokovic, Nadal, I could go off the court and feel I played well. But against Roger, he just made me play bad. Hm…but if they are both at the top, I think Novak would beat Roger more times than the opposite. He moved so well, got so many balls back. That’s really tough for Roger because he might play too fast, he would panic a little bit. But it’s really tough to say.

https://tennismash.com/2017/12/13/robin-soderling-life-tennis/

"What were your impressions of the tour this year?

There were so many guys that were injured, and tennis can only blame itself for that. The season is way too long, it’s not like other sports where you have a three, four-month off-season where athletes can rest and recover. In tennis, we have a few weeks in December and that’s it. You start again the day after New Year’s Eve. The sport would really benefit from having a longer break."

This is Soderling's impression of year 2017? He seems hard to impress.

 

[NoleFam]

"What were your impressions of the tour this year?

There were so many guys that were injured, and tennis can only blame itself for that. The season is way too long, it’s not like other sports where you have a three, four-month off-season where athletes can rest and recover. In tennis, we have a few weeks in December and that’s it. You start again the day after New Year’s Eve. The sport would really benefit from having a longer break."

This is Soderling's impression of year 2017? He seems hard to impress.

Well I mean the top 5 from last year all went out injured at some point so I understand what he means. The idea of shortening the tennis season has been debated on since forever, and nothing has changed. I do feel they need a longer break, at least two months, and maybe wrap the season in October.

 

[NatF]

Defense is the best offense. Even better when you can turn defense turned into offense.

Agree to disagree, if Djokovic only had his defensive attributes he'd probably be just a three slam winner like Murray

 

[mike danny]

Well I mean the top 5 from last year all went out injured at some point so I understand what he means. The idea of shortening the tennis season has been debated on since forever, and nothing has changed. I do feel they need a longer break, at least two months, and maybe wrap the season in October.

Either that or speed up the courts in order to force the guysto finish points quickly. The possibility of getting injured is lessened since guys wouldn't grind too much anymore.

 

[NoleFam]

Either that or speed up the courts in order to force the guysto finish points quickly. The possibility of getting injured is lessened since guys wouldn't grind too much anymore.

It was complained about even when the surfaces were faster. I say shorten the season by ending in October or start the Australia swing in February.

 

[NatF]

It was complained about even when the surfaces were faster. I say shorten the season by ending in October or start the Australia swing in February.

Season should be shorter and maybe some tweaks to how many mandatory events there are - including tweaks to ranking points so that players can choose to play less without suffering. I think some faster courts would be good but only for the events that have been traditionally fast in the past. One slow HC major and one quick one would be good, with the events closest to each reflecting that speed. I'd make indoors lightning quick as well.

 

[NoleFam]

Season should be shorter and maybe some tweaks to how many mandatory events there are - including tweaks to ranking points so that players can choose to play less without suffering. I think some faster courts would be good but only for the events that have been traditionally fast in the past. One slow HC major and one quick one would be good, with the events closest to each reflecting that speed. I'd make indoors lightning quick as well.

They should probably change the rule about mandatory tournaments and let all players opt out of 2 of them by choice. I liked the idea of AO being med/slow and USO being fast, which they were always traditionally, and should just keep it that way. Maybe speed the USO back up to 2004 levels. The indoor season has already been sped up so that's pretty much changed now, and then just wrap the ATP final up in mid October. I think it would make a big difference.

 

[EdMcMush]

obviously, Peak Djoko was the dominant force on the court ever

 

[mike danny]

It was complained about even when the surfaces were faster. I say shorten the season by ending in October or start the Australia swing in February.

I would cut from the masters events. If the season were to stay the way it is, I would ditch Madrid, Canada and Shanghai. Madrid is too close to Rome. A nice break between MC and Rome would be good and would help players recuperate a bit. Cut down Canada. Cincy is enough preparation for the USO. Cut down Shanghai too since it's not even an indoor event and thus put Paris earlier in the fall season as preparation for the WTF. So 4 slams, 6 masters and the WTF is enugh to not over-stress the players.

The best option in my book would be to ditch Madrid an replace it with a grass masters.