Nadal won last 15 slam matches over Djok/Murr/Fed, anyone else done that to rivals?

[tennis_commentator]

Nadal currently has won his last 4 slam matches vs. Djokovic.
Nadal currently has won his last 5 slam matches vs. Murray.
Nadal currently has won his last 6 slam matches vs. Federer.

Is Nadal the first man ever to simultaneously hold a 4+ slam winning streak over his 3 biggest rivals?

Federer never did.
Sampras ever?

 

[Chico]

Two words. Pascal Maria.

This thread would not be possible if it was not for Pascal Maria's robbery on RG 2013.

Will not talk about other factors like sickness, rain, easy draws or favorable schedules now.

 

[Chico]

Also another factor not to forget - huge majority of these are on RG. i.e. Nadal hides, skips slams and loses to lesser opponents when has no chance of beating his main rivals.

So sorry but there is nothing really meaningful in this stat.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I would have to agree to a certain extent with Chico here. Nadal has missed out on a couple of slams for whatever reason, and also had a few unexpected early round loses - Wimbledon comes to mind.

 

[dlk]

Nadal currently has won his last 4 slam matches vs. Djokovic.
Nadal currently has won his last 5 slam matches vs. Murray.
Nadal currently has won his last 6 slam matches vs. Federer.

Is Nadal the first man ever to simultaneously hold a 4+ slam winning streak over his 3 biggest rivals?

Federer never did.
Sampras ever?

Good point. Very impressive & telling.

 

[triforce defender]

Also another factor not to forget - huge majority of these are on RG. i.e. Nadal hides, skips slams and loses to lesser opponents when has no chance of beating his main rivals.

So sorry but there is nothing really meaningful in this stat.

Last 4 slam matches vs. Djokovic (3 RG and 1 USO)

Last 5 slam matches vs. Murray (2 RG, 2 Wimbledon, 1 USO)

Last 6 slam matches vs. Federer (3 AO, 2 RG, 1 Wimbledon)

Conclusion: RG is only a majority of Nadal's matches vs. Djokovic during the winning streak. It comprises a minority of his matches vs. Murray and Federer during the streak. Next time, before posting a generalized statement like "huge majority of these are on RG", please do a little a research, ok?

 

[Bartelby]

Another meaningless set of statistics cobbled together by the besotted.

 

[dlk]

Another meaningless statistic cobbled together by the besotted.

You're so smart

 

[Bartelby]

And I suppose you also have personally interviewed Nadal?

You're so smart

 

[Steve0904]

I would have to agree to a certain extent with Chico here. Nadal has missed out on a couple of slams for whatever reason, and also had a few unexpected early round loses - Wimbledon comes to mind.

Me as well. It's obviously an insane stat that proves that he beats those guys when he is in absolute top form, but he has many ups and downs. This fact glosses over some of the truth.

And since this thread is just an extension of the H2H debate it kind of proves the fallacy associated with going solely by a H2H. Nadal has great H2H's with all his main rivals which would lead someone who didn't pay attention to the wrong conclusion that he is the most accomplished player of his era, but that is not true.

This stat is a roundabout way of showing that Nadal is awesome against his rivals, but not the field. Hence the losses, to Rosol, Darcis, Krygios. and Wawrinka. Either that or he's been injured.

You could do the opposite kind of stat for Djokovic or Federer over a certain period of time I'm sure.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Me as well. It's obviously an insane stat that proves that he beats those guys when he is in absolute top form, but he has many ups and downs. This fact glosses over some of the truth.

And since this thread is just an extension of the H2H debate it kind of proves the fallacy associated with going solely by a H2H. Nadal has great H2H's with all his main rivals which would lead someone who didn't pay attention to the wrong conclusion that he is the most accomplished player of his era, but that is not true.

This pretty much states it. Let's take nothing away from the fact that Nadal did win those matches and deserves the accolades that come with it, but lets also not be blind to the full truth here.

 

[clayqueen]

Phenomenadal

 

[Sander001]

Last 4 slam matches vs. Djokovic (3 RG and 1 USO)

Last 5 slam matches vs. Murray (2 RG, 2 Wimbledon, 1 USO)

Last 6 slam matches vs. Federer (3 AO, 2 RG, 1 Wimbledon)

Conclusion: RG is only a majority of Nadal's matches vs. Djokovic during the winning streak. It comprises a minority of his matches vs. Murray and Federer during the streak. Next time, before posting a generalized statement like "huge majority of these are on RG", please do a little a research, ok?

Huge majority? It's not a majority at all.
15 matches is still impressive as hell, no matter how you slice it. [that is if it's true, not going to bother looking it up]

 

[dlk]

And I suppose you also have personally interviewed Nadal?

LOL. That's why I respect you. You're intelligent, but don't take things personal. Voltaire would have loved your wit.

Oh, & no. I've been 10feet away from D1 player (and low level D1); that's the closest to tennis nobility I've ever been.

 

[clayqueen]

Also another factor not to forget - huge majority of these are on RG. i.e. Nadal hides, skips slams and loses to lesser opponents when has no chance of beating his main rivals.

So sorry but there is nothing really meaningful in this stat.

Why is RG a factor? Why is Wimbledon not a factor, or AO, or the USO?

 

[triforce defender]

Huge majority? It's not a majority at all.
15 matches is still impressive as hell, no matter how you slice it. [that is if it's true, not going to bother looking it up]

Exactly! Chico once again shows his blatant ignorance in his attempt to undermine Nadal whenever he can. Or perhaps he just made a simple assumption without bothering to fact-check it.

 

[TheMusicLover]

This stat is a roundabout way of showing that Nadal is awesome against his rivals, but not the field. Hence the losses, to Rosol, Darcis, Krygios. and Wawrinka. Either that or he's been injured.

This - of course.

Tennis is still about how well a player manages to do against the entire field. It's not boxing.

What's this with this current offseason outbreak of Nadal troll threads, btw?

 

[clayqueen]

Me as well. It's obviously an insane stat that proves that he beats those guys when he is in absolute top form, but he has many ups and downs. This fact glosses over some of the truth.

And since this thread is just an extension of the H2H debate it kind of proves the fallacy associated with going solely by a H2H. Nadal has great H2H's with all his main rivals which would lead someone who didn't pay attention to the wrong conclusion that he is the most accomplished player of his era, but that is not true.

This stat is a roundabout way of showing that Nadal is awesome against his rivals, but not the field. Hence the losses, to Rosol, Darcis, Krygios. and Wawrinka. Either that or he's been injured.

You could do the opposite kind of stat for Djokovic or Federer over a certain period of time I'm sure.

Of course Nadal is the most accomplished player of his era if it's not him, who is? Why don't you do the same stat for Djokovic and Federer to prove your point so we can all see?

 

[Bartelby]

This thread is best described as Nadal News 2.1.

 

[clayqueen]

This thread is best described as Nadal News 2.1.

So you'll be hanging around here for the foreseeable future, then.

 

[Bartelby]

When I interviewed Nadal in Melbourne he was quite adamant that he was still three slams behind and not the best player.

Of course Nadal is the most accomplished player of his era if it's not him, who is? Why don't you do the same stat for Djokovic and Federer to prove your point so we can all see?

 

[zam88]

It's not Djokmurerer's fault Nadal either donks out of tournaments early to avoid beatdowns or doesn't participate if he's not "100%"

 

[The_Order]

Also another factor not to forget - huge majority of these are on RG. i.e. Nadal hides, skips slams and loses to lesser opponents when has no chance of beating his main rivals.

So sorry but there is nothing really meaningful in this stat.

Huge majority?

Of those 15 wins, 7 were at RG. That's less than half and nowhere even remotely close to a huge majority.

Nadal wasn't hiding from Novak at AO this year, where was he?

Nadal also had nothing to hide from at the US Open either, had he played it he would've won no doubt because your boy failed to even make the final.

Ever since RG13, Novak's been hiding from the net...

 

[Steve0904]

Of course Nadal is the most accomplished player of his era if it's not him, who is? Why don't you do the same stat for Djokovic and Federer to prove your point so we can all see?

I think you can figure that one out yourself. As far as Federer is concerned, I know that he has some crazy stat of 120 odd match wins (think it's 124-0) in a row in grand slams against players ranked outside the top 5. The streak was snapped by JMDP at the USO in 2009 (who was ranked 6).

And we all know Novak's been very consistent the last few years.

 

[beast of mallorca]

This thread is best described as Nadal News 2.1.

So, this will be your new workplace then ? :twisted:

 

[The_Order]

When I interviewed Nadal in Melbourne he was quite adamant that he was still three slams behind and not the best player.

You didn't interview Nadal. It was someone else, just that you're so badly in need of glasses that your vision lead you to believe this guy was the real Nadal.

 

[Steve0904]

This - of course.

Tennis is still about how well a player manages to do against the entire field. It's not boxing.

What's this with this current offseason outbreak of Nadal troll threads, btw?

Don't ask me.

As it is, that's the brilliance of the H2H for any fanboy/girl. They can look at Nadal's H2H with Rosol and say "At least Nadal is in the lead and not 10-23 behind." All the while not realizing the whole point of the thing, which is that Nadal lost a chance at adding to his slam count because he lost to a journeyman. Just like Federer does when he loses to Djokovic or Nadal or Gulbis even. The point is not that Nadal will still lead a H2H, the point is that he's not winning any trophies regardless of what the H2H is if he's losing to the guys I mentioned.

It's only natural that Nadal won't have a losing record to some random player because they barely ever play, and most times when they do, Nadal will come out on top. The point is that Rosol cost Nadal Wimbledon in 2012, not that the H2H is 2-1 for Nadal. Or better yet, the H2H between Nadal and Wawrinka is 12-1, but Wawrinka cost him the AO in 2014 regardless.

 

[clayqueen]

Don't ask me.

As it is, that's the brilliance of the H2H for any fanboy/girl. They can look at Nadal's H2H with Rosol and say "At least Nadal is in the lead and not 10-23 behind." All the while not realizing the whole point of the thing, which is that Nadal lost a chance at adding to his slam count because he lost to a journeyman. Just like Federer does when he loses to Djokovic or Nadal or Gulbis even. The point is not that Nadal will still lead a H2H, the point is that he's not winning any trophies regardless of what the H2H is if he's losing to the guys I mentioned.

It's only natural that Nadal won't have a losing record to some random player because they barely ever play, and most times when they do, Nadal will come out on top. The point is that Rosol cost Nadal Wimbledon in 2012, not that the H2H is 2-1 for Nadal. Or better yet, the H2H between Nadal and Wawrinka is 12-1, but Wawrinka cost him the AO in 2014 regardless.

You mean like Fed losing to Delbonis and Stakhovsky?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Don't ask me.

As it is, that's the brilliance of the H2H for any fanboy/girl. They can look at Nadal's H2H with Rosol and say "At least Nadal is in the lead and not 10-23 behind." All the while not realizing the whole point of the thing, which is that Nadal lost a chance at adding to his slam count because he lost to a journeyman. Just like Federer does when he loses to Djokovic or Nadal or Gulbis even. The point is not that Nadal will still lead a H2H, the point is that he's not winning any trophies regardless of what the H2H is if he's losing to the guys I mentioned.

It's only natural that Nadal won't have a losing record to some random player because they barely ever play, and most times when they do, Nadal will come out on top. The point is that Rosol cost Nadal Wimbledon in 2012, not that the H2H is 2-1 for Nadal. Or better yet, the H2H between Nadal and Wawrinka is 12-1, but Wawrinka cost him the AO in 2014 regardless.

You make valids points. Sometimes to get the full truth you need to open the book and not just read the cover.

 

[Sysyphus]

Don't ask me.

As it is, that's the brilliance of the H2H for any fanboy/girl. They can look at Nadal's H2H with Rosol and say "At least Nadal is in the lead and not 10-23 behind." All the while not realizing the whole point of the thing, which is that Nadal lost a chance at adding to his slam count because he lost to a journeyman. Just like Federer does when he loses to Djokovic or Nadal or Gulbis even. The point is not that Nadal will still lead a H2H, the point is that he's not winning any trophies regardless of what the H2H is if he's losing to the guys I mentioned.

It's only natural that Nadal won't have a losing record to some random player because they barely ever play, and most times when they do, Nadal will come out on top. The point is that Rosol cost Nadal Wimbledon in 2012, not that the H2H is 2-1 for Nadal. Or better yet, the H2H between Nadal and Wawrinka is 12-1, but Wawrinka cost him the AO in 2014 regardless.

Yes! This is right on the money, and this really ought clear to more people than it seems to be.

You mean like Fed losing to Delbonis and Stakhovsky?

Yes, like that. You get it. The point is that Federer avoided those kinds of losses enough times and at the right moments, and has thus achieved 17 slams and more than 300 weeks at #1.

 

[clayqueen]

Yes! This is right on the money, and this really ought clear to more people than it seems to be.



Yes, like that. You get it. The point is that Federer avoided those kinds of losses enough times and at the right moments, and has thus achieved 17 slams and more than 300 weeks at #1.

Fed is never injured, remember? We'll see where Rafa is at age 33.

 

[D.Nalby12]

H2H Record=

 

[Sysyphus]

Fed is never injured, remember? We'll see where Rafa is at age 33.

Staying injury free is a talent just like being able to strike the ball well.
But I agree with what I think you are implying – Nadal has a great chance to overtake many of Federer's current numbers. It'll be an exciting fight to witness.

 

[tennisaddict]

What matters end of the day is titles and world No.1

We all know the warrior is too good with safe guarding his h2h. Nice attempt to spin the same thing.

 

[TMF]

Nadal currently has won his last 4 slam matches vs. Djokovic.
Nadal currently has won his last 5 slam matches vs. Murray.
Nadal currently has won his last 6 slam matches vs. Federer.

Is Nadal the first man ever to simultaneously hold a 4+ slam winning streak over his 3 biggest rivals?

Federer never did.
Sampras ever?

But Nadal never skipped his pet slam but avoid other slams by either losing in the early round or not play at all. The streak would be meaningful had he was consistently face them in all 4 slam events. The stat is skewed just like his H2H against other players. Not to mention he's facing a 33 years old Federer.

 

[Russeljones]

I would have to agree to a certain extent with Chico here. Nadal has missed out on a couple of slams for whatever reason, and also had a few unexpected early round loses - Wimbledon comes to mind.

Yes, this is why I made that "failed to make the meeting in the draw" thread. Threads like this gloss over major flaws.

 

[tennis_commentator]

Quite fascinatingly, of Nadal's 4 straight slam wins over Djokovic, the most lopsided meeting was at the US Open (6-1 in the 4th set).

2014 Roland Garros was an extremely tight 4-setter, 2013 Roland Garros was a 5 set thriller, and Nadal was down a break in the 4th set of 2012 Roland Garros.

 

[TMF]

Another reason is Nadal is playing in a weak era. From 2010-present, the level of competition was nowhere near as stiff as 2004-2009.

 

[tennis_commentator]

This stat is a roundabout way of showing that Nadal is awesome against his rivals, but not the field. Hence the losses, to Rosol, Darcis, Krygios. and Wawrinka. Either that or he's been injured.

That's a grass issue, not a "field issue".

Apart from the Wawrinka AO loss, the losses to Rosol, Darcis, and Kyrgios were all in recent Wimbledons.
And Nadal has explained several times how much harder it is to bend his knees on grass (especially lower bounce on week one grass) in the last few years.

All that we can really say is that Nadal is injury-prone. And that's a compliment, because only one man in history has more slam titles despite Nadal being injury-prone.

 

[Krish872007]

Come on people, let's admit it's a very impressive H2H stat, albeit a very surprising one. It is a fact (whether you like it or not) - can't diminish a fact.
Let's hope he can muster enough energy/spirit to stage one final comeback in 2015!

 

[tennis_commentator]

Another reason is Nadal is playing in a weak era. From 2010-present, the level of competition was nowhere near as stiff as 2004-2009.

21-year-old Nadal took Federer to 5 sets at Wimbledon.
Maybe 2007 was also a weak era?

 

[TMF]

21-year-old Nadal took Federer to 5 sets at Wimbledon.
Maybe 2007 was also a weak era?

Better than Ferrer making 2013 RG final.

 

[tennis_commentator]

Better than Ferrer making 2013 RG final.

You don't think Ferrer would have won Roland Garros in the 90s?
I do, and perhaps more than one of them.
Players are fitter now than they were in the 90s, and clay was all about fitness back then.
And it may not seem like it compared to others today, but Ferrer hits hard on clay.

 

[Mustard]

Let's hope he can muster enough energy/spirit to stage one final comeback in 2015!

Nice pun, which would be 20 years after Muster himself dominated on clay

Nadal will want his La Decima, a 10th French Open title.

 

[Mustard]

Better than Ferrer making 2013 RG final.

Ferrer demolished Tsonga, which is more than what Federer managed to do at that event.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Another reason is Nadal is playing in a weak era. From 2010-present, the level of competition was nowhere near as stiff as 2004-2009.

2014 still better than 2013 in terms of competition but still way behind 2001-09 era with every year new promising player made breakthrough. Men's Tennis now has become 'dead sport' with no guy has made breakthrough since 2010. It'll be dead till new generation of Kyrgios, Coric, Zverev rises (hopefully!).

 

[britam25]

Two words. Pascal Maria.

This thread would not be possible if it was not for Pascal Maria's robbery on RG 2013.

Will not talk about other factors like sickness, rain, easy draws or favorable schedules now.

What "robbery" are you referring to? The net cord? My feelings about both Novak and Nadal are a matter of record, but however inconvenient it is to admit, it was the right call, made possible by Novak's extreme carelessness.

 

[TMF]

You don't think Ferrer would have won Roland Garros in the 90s?
I do, and perhaps more than one of them.
Players are fitter now than they were in the 90s, and clay was all about fitness back then.
And it may not seem like it compared to others today, but Ferrer hits hard on clay.

Probably, but I wasn't comparing 2010-2014 to the 90s.

 

[Mustard]

What "robbery" are you referring to? The net cord? My feelings about both Novak and Nadal are a matter of record, but however inconvenient it is to admit, it was the right call, made possible by Novak's extreme carelessness.

Some Djokovic fans like to moan about Pascal Maria refusing to agree to Djokovic's request that the court get watered at 6-6 in the fifth set.

 

[TMF]

Ferrer demolished Tsonga, which is more than what Federer managed to do at that event.

Yeah, beating a 32 years old Federer.

Funny how Federer gets little(if any) credit after beating a 29 years old Sampras at Wimbledon, which is his pet slam while Federer's worst surface is clay.