Nadal's match up advantage against Federer is a myth

[Lew II]

99-6 without Federer

I see why you conveniently selected those years. There was no great one hander other than Federer at the time. People talked about one-handed backhand going extinct before the rise of Wawrinka, Dimitrov and Thiem.

Highest ranked one hander other than Federer:

2008 - Blake #10
2009 - Gonzalez #11
2010 - Youzhny #10
2011 - Almagro #10
2012 - Gasquet #10
2013 - Wawrinka #8

 

[ForehandRF]

The left hand advantage is another myth.

Federer has a score of 31-1 in Slams against non-Nadal lefties.

No other lefty hits the forehand the way Nadal does.You can't consistently hit shoulder height backhands without making errors or giving the opponent an easy ball, especially with a 90 square inch racket.

 

[MichaelNadal]

No other lefty hits the forehand the way Nadal does.You can't consistently hit shoulder height backhands without making errors or giving the opponent an easy ball, especially with a 90 square inch racket.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I see why you conveniently selected those years. There was no great one hander other than Federer at the time. People talked about one-handed backhand going extinct before the rise of Wawrinka, Dimitrov and Thiem.

Highest ranked one hander other than Federer:

2008 - Blake #10
2009 - Gonzalez #11
2010 - Youzhny #10
2011 - Almagro #10
2012 - Gasquet #10
2013 - Wawrinka #8

So, in one post you point at the lack of a great level of a certain shot (great OHBHs) in the comparison, and in the other (just before it) you completely omitted mentioning the same lack of quality (great lefty FHs) when you made another comparison. No wonder that you "see" omissions. They are your bread and butter.

 

[ForehandCross]

So, in one post you point at the lack of a great level of a certain shot (great OHBHs) in the comparison, and in the other (just before it) you completely omitted mentioning the same lack of quality (great lefty FHs) when you made another comparison. No wonder that you "see" omissions. They are your bread and butter.

This is actually quite right, Nadal's FH is GOAT level, it has no synonym.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

This is actually quite right, Nadal's FH is GOAT level, it has no synonym.

We are not talking even about that level of competition. We are talking about no great lefty FH that has won a single Major.

 

[Bamoos]

A couple of other factors that make Nadal a rough match-up for Fed:

1. Federer strings his racquet soft in the 40s on open pattern for more power on his serve and fh weapons. But this allows the ball to pocket deeper in his stringbed. Deep pocketing is ok when returning flatter high-paced balls, but the Achilles heel of a soft stringbed is that it makes it hard to control heavy high-rpm incoming balls. The deeper pocketing creates a higher torque that twists the racquet more, causing the launch angle to be out of the player’s control. Players who string tight in the 60s on denser patterns, like Blake, Davydenko, Soderling, and Djokovic, are less bothered by heavy rpm spin, and these guys had matchup advantage agsinst nadal because of it.

2. Fed likes to use his slice bh for defense. But the Achilles heel for a slicer is an opponent who hits hard with enough topspin to have good margin when hitting knee-high low balls from below net height. Players that hit relatively harder and flatter are an easier matchup for a slicer, because the lower ball neutralizes the weapon. Santoro was 7-2 vs Safin, and beat every guy to reach #1 in his era except nadal.

Posts like this make reading these garbage threads tolerable. Thanks!

 

[Lew II]

So, in one post you point at the lack of a great level of a certain shot (great OHBHs) in the comparison, and in the other (just before it) you completely omitted mentioning the same lack of quality (great lefty FHs) when you made another comparison. No wonder that you "see" omissions. They are your bread and butter.

I don't see how being lefty is an advantage if Nadal was the only lefty to reach the top5 in the last 20 years

 

[Alfred Chicken]

Federer being way behind in the H2H is unremarkable ... everyone is who isn't called Djokovic.

But then again, average Federer's the only other player - apart from Djokovic, of course - to have scored wins against Nadal in double figures, by a large margin; hardly to be considered a marginal feat, innit?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I don't see how being lefty is an advantage if Nadal was the only lefty to reach the top5 in the last 20 years

The lefties spin and in general shots go in patterns completely counterintuitive to what the players are used to (due to the amount of "normal" players they play), so it is a matter of lacking practice and pattern memorising that is the problem with playing a lefty, whereas the lefties don't have that problem playing righties all the time.

You don't see it, because you don't know it. It is that simple.

 

[NoleFam]

A couple of other factors that make Nadal a rough match-up for Fed:

1. Federer strings his racquet soft in the 40s on open pattern for more power on his serve and fh weapons. But this allows the ball to pocket deeper in his stringbed. Deep pocketing is ok when returning flatter high-paced balls, but the Achilles heel of a soft stringbed is that it makes it hard to control heavy high-rpm incoming balls. The deeper pocketing creates a higher torque that twists the racquet more, causing the launch angle to be out of the player’s control. Players who string tight in the 60s on denser patterns, like Blake, Davydenko, Soderling, and Djokovic, are less bothered by heavy rpm spin, and these guys had matchup advantage agsinst nadal because of it.

2. Fed likes to use his slice bh for defense. But the Achilles heel for a slicer is an opponent who hits hard with enough topspin to have good margin when hitting knee-high low balls from below net height. Players that hit relatively harder and flatter are an easier matchup for a slicer, because the lower ball neutralizes the weapon. Santoro was 7-2 vs Safin, and beat every guy to reach #1 in his era except nadal.

You nailed it. I went and checked because I'm not very familiar with Federer racket specs but when he switched from the 90 to the 97, he had to change his racket tension as well. A lot of people think it's the size of the racket that is the cause of Federer's improved backhand but that's not quite it. It's the racket tension. If you look at his old matches you will notice he used to measure his backhand a lot more and then pick his moments before opening up his shoulders in fear the ball would fly on him but now he just opens his shoulders and swats away non-stop because the tension allows him more control. The trade off is he lost some power on his forehand which is why people often say his forehand is not as great as it once was. He used to string around 22-23 kgs (~48 lbs) and now strings around 27 kgs (~60 lbs).

To me, if Federer had changed his tension a long time ago, this rivalry would have been closer so I don't think it is a true matchup problem. He had a weakness in his backhand that Nadal exploited everytime they played and there is no weakness there with tighter tension.

 

[ForehandRF]

You nailed it. I went and checked because I'm not very familiar with Federer racket specs but when he switched from the 90 to the 97, he had to change his racket tension as well. A lot of people think it's the size of the racket that is the cause of Federer's improved backhand but that's not quite it. It's the racket tension. If you look at his old matches you will notice he used to measure his backhand a lot more and then pick his moments before opening up his shoulders in fear the ball would fly on him but now he just opens his shoulders and swats away non-stop because the tension allows him more control. The trade off is he lost some power on his forehand which is why people often say his forehand is not as great as it once was. He used to string around 22-23 kgs (~48 lbs) and now strings around 27 kgs (~60 lbs).

To me, if Federer had changed his tension a long time ago, this rivalry would have been closer so I don't think it is a true matchup problem. He had a weakness in his backhand that Nadal exploited everytime they played and there is no weakness there with tighter tension.

Still, the bounce is too high on clay and out of his confort zone.Could have Fed done better back in his hay day with the 97 ? That is the question.

 

[mike danny]

This is inherently true.

Federer in most of his infamous losses had strong stretches, but couldn't drive the advantage home.

The practical thing that none of Federer fans accept is that Federer many times can be outplayed. Federer himself doesn't believe that.

All arrogant comments about his matches with Nadal being on his racquet stems from same delusion.

Even Djokodal gets outplayed.

But what sets the H2H encounters apart,for Djokodal, is that when they get outplayed they inevitably keep themselves firm and took whatever opportunity that comes.


The big 3 are equals in my eyes, heck I think Federer has the greatest ability among them.

But Federer lacks the mental and strategic fortitude to go up against both.

Trust me if it was prime Nadal or Djokovic mounting the comeback at WB 2008 ,they would have won it.

Or I can never see Djokovic,Nadal losing 2010 or 2011 USO after getting to that point.


Nadal does have an advantage BUT it's also about Federer not being capable of accepting that someone can be better than him.

Like Nadal completed the comeback at AO 2012? Djokovic at USO 2012?

Why even mention 2010 and 2011 USOs? Fed wasn't at his absolute peak in those matches.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You nailed it. I went and checked because I'm not very familiar with Federer racket specs but when he switched from the 90 to the 97, he had to change his racket tension as well. A lot of people think it's the size of the racket that is the cause of Federer's improved backhand but that's not quite it. It's the racket tension. If you look at his old matches you will notice he used to measure his backhand a lot more and then pick his moments before opening up his shoulders in fear the ball would fly on him but now he just opens his shoulders and swats away non-stop because the tension allows him more control. The trade off is he lost some power on his forehand which is why people often say his forehand is not as great as it once was. He used to string around 22-23 kgs (~48 lbs) and now strings around 27 kgs (~60 lbs).

To me, if Federer had changed his tension a long time ago, this rivalry would have been closer so I don't think it is a true matchup problem. He had a weakness in his backhand that Nadal exploited everytime they played and there is no weakness there with tighter tension.

It is both, and these things go hand in hand.

 

[NoleFam]

Still, the bounce is too high on clay and out of his confort zone.Could have Fed done better back in his hay day with the 97 ? That is the question.

Well even two handers can barely do anything with Nadal on clay. lol. I guess the only thing we can say is that Thiem has had success against Nadal on clay with a one hander but then he's done nothing with him at RG where it matters most so not much we can draw from it.

 

[mike danny]

Is it possible that Nadal is just better than Federer on slow surfaces and Djokovic is better than him on almost all surfaces except the fastest low-bouncing ones?

You are absolutely reaching here.

They both handle Federer’s strengths like his serve, his short-slice BHs, his inside-out FH etc. way better than any other player and have better movement than him. Federer‘s BH can and has been exploited by these two players from the baseline while they both don’t have any weaknesses that Federer can easily exploit.

Why are you grouping Djokovic with Nadal? Yeah, you're right. Fed has never found any weaknesses in Djoker's game. Those 22 wins are just a myth and he has no idea how to beat Djoker. And Djoker exploiting Fed's BH like Nadal does? Ridiculous.

Federer used to beat them until they both developed the self-confidence that they were as good or better than him - it happened with Nadal early while it took Djokovic till late 2010 or 2011 to develop that confidence. Since then, Federer has never had the inner self-belief that he can consistently beat Djokovic

No, Djoker took over the rivalry starting from 2014 when Fed was 33. He had no problem beating Djoker before that.

I’ve believed for a long time that Federer is unbelievably good, but was unfortunate enough to play in an era where he had two rivals that were better than him for most of their rivalry. Some would argue that it is because he is older, but I think that is a copout as Federer has no problem destroying every other rival who is more than a decade younger than him.

Because none of the younger players after Djokodal are great players. It's why Djokodal have been winning every slam for the past 2 years virtually unchallenged. Comparing them to Djokodal is an absolute joke.

When a player has consistently lost close matches to another player for many years and he is out of ideas on what weakness he can exploit to change the trend, he will not suddenly be able to win close matches and it is common to ‘choke’ at crucial moments. This happens to all lower-seeded players against higher-seeded players in many matches where they cannot execute on break points, set points etc. when they are on the verge of an upset. Meanwhile, the higher seeded player expects to win and plays better under pressure. I think this is why Federer has lost many tough matches against Nadal and Djokovic because for a long time, he didn’t know what to do to beat them and his base game wasn’t good enough outside of fast courts. It is nice to see that he has turned the corner against Nadal and now, Nadal is the one without self-belief outside of clay. But, Djokovic has still proved to be a tough nut to crack on most surfaces.

Why are you grouping Djokovic with Nadal again? Djokovic has taken over the rivalry with Federer because of AGE, not some mythical superiority that Fed hasn't been able to solve.

80% of your post is a complete joke, sorry.

 

[Krish0608]

The left hand advantage is another myth.

Federer has a score of 31-1 in Slams against non-Nadal lefties.

Way to club all lefties in one bucket. Does every leftie hit their FH with as much RPM as Rafa? What a troll. A man who does not understand matchups knows nothing about Tennis. Most Djokotrolls like you, fall into this bucket. There is a reason Federer struggled against Rafa, Rafa struggled against Nole/Davy, Nole struggles against RBA/Wawrinka. It's called matchups

 

[BackhandDTL]

Agreed Nadal is simply the better player

 

[mike danny]

Santoro vs Safin is a match up problem. There is no explanation when looking at their careers as a whole that Santoro has a 7 - 2 lead in the H2H. Thinking about their games, you would imagine that Safin would blow Santoro off the court every time but clearly there is some kryptonite in Santoro's game that produced this anomaly.

But it is ridiculous to talk about match up problems when comparing equals. Nadal is no more a match up problem for Federer than Navratilova was for Evert. He has simply been the better player from Day 1 from the baseline on every surface. The only question has been how many cheap points can Federer get from a vastly superior serve and forecourt game. Indoors he can get tons so it has largely been no contest. On clay he can get hardly any so even when he is redlining his game e.g. Rome 2006, it might not be enough. On hardcourt and grass it is largely about who plays better on the day, and that has usually been Nadal.

Federer is the best player of all time against lefties ... not called Nadal. There is no match up problem. Nadal has been consistently over their careers been the better player. Nadal has the best W/L against the field of all time. Federer being way behind in the H2H is unremarkable ... everyone is who isn't called Djokovic.

Uhhh, Nadal is a nightmare for every 1 hander. Fed has done the best of the lot against Nadal because he is one of the best players ever, but he still has a one hander that is exploited by Rafa.

I also don't get the logic of your first part. If a much worse player like Santoro can be a bad match-up for a much better player like Safin, why couldn't a 10 times better player be a tough match-up for an equal?

 

[mike danny]

A couple of other factors that make Nadal a rough match-up for Fed:

1. Federer strings his racquet soft in the 40s on open pattern for more power on his serve and fh weapons. But this allows the ball to pocket deeper in his stringbed. Deep pocketing is ok when returning flatter high-paced balls, but the Achilles heel of a soft stringbed is that it makes it hard to control heavy high-rpm incoming balls. The deeper pocketing creates a higher torque that twists the racquet more, causing the launch angle to be out of the player’s control. Players who string tight in the 60s on denser patterns, like Blake, Davydenko, Soderling, and Djokovic, are less bothered by heavy rpm spin, and these guys had matchup advantage agsinst nadal because of it.

2. Fed likes to use his slice bh for defense. But the Achilles heel for a slicer is an opponent who hits hard with enough topspin to have good margin when hitting knee-high low balls from below net height. Players that hit relatively harder and flatter are an easier matchup for a slicer, because the lower ball neutralizes the weapon. Santoro was 7-2 vs Safin, and beat every guy to reach #1 in his era except nadal.

Ahhh, so this is how a quality post smells like.

 

[mike danny]

You nailed it. I went and checked because I'm not very familiar with Federer racket specs but when he switched from the 90 to the 97, he had to change his racket tension as well. A lot of people think it's the size of the racket that is the cause of Federer's improved backhand but that's not quite it. It's the racket tension. If you look at his old matches you will notice he used to measure his backhand a lot more and then pick his moments before opening up his shoulders in fear the ball would fly on him but now he just opens his shoulders and swats away non-stop because the tension allows him more control. The trade off is he lost some power on his forehand which is why people often say his forehand is not as great as it once was. He used to string around 22-23 kgs (~48 lbs) and now strings around 27 kgs (~60 lbs).

To me, if Federer had changed his tension a long time ago, this rivalry would have been closer so I don't think it is a true matchup problem. He had a weakness in his backhand that Nadal exploited everytime they played and there is no weakness there with tighter tension.

I agree with 90% of your post, but Nadal is still a nightmare match-up for every one hander, regardless of string tension.

Still, Fed was way too arrogant, thinking his usual game was enough to beat Nadal back when he was beating everyone else.

 

[mike danny]

Well even two handers can barely do anything with Nadal on clay. lol. I guess the only thing we can say is that Thiem has had success against Nadal on clay with a one hander but then he's done nothing with him at RG where it matters most so not much we can draw from it.

More like Thiem has done better against an older Nadal with a one hander. Fed would have also liked playing older Nadal on clay.

 

[mike danny]

Way to club all lefties in one bucket. Does every leftie hit their FH with as much RPM as Rafa? What a troll. A man who does not understand matchups knows nothing about Tennis. Most Djokotrolls like you, fall into this bucket. There is a reason Federer struggled against Rafa, Rafa struggled against Nole/Davy, Nole struggles against RBA/Wawrinka. It's called matchups

Sampras against Krajicek too.

The biggest difference here is that Fed's toughest match-up is a GOAT candidate, unlike with the other players. Truly unlucky. Why couldn't he get a lesser player as his toughest match-up when everyone else got away with it?

 

[travlerajm]

To be honest, the biggest difference between Federer’s racquet pre- and post- switch is not the tension - it’s the swingweight.

He played through his prime years with 355sw. Now he’s at 340sw. The lighter sw helped him maintain his serve prowess as he aged. But the improved serve came at the cost of less mass to counter heavy balls. The ATP Serve Rating and Return Rating stats reveal that his serve stats actually slightly improved vs the field after the switch, but his return stats, not coincidently, considering his significantly lower sw, went into the tank, far below his career average.

If you plot Return Rating in general for all ATP pros as a function of sw, you’ll find that there is a direct correlation.

Anyway, Federer’s current racquet wouldn’t help him much in his matchup vs Nadal unless he were to string it at 70 lbs, because it has an extremely open pattern compared to the dense 18x20 patterns on smaller heads used by a Djokovic, Blake, and Soderling. And if he were to do that, his weapons might lose their sting, and he wouldn’t be Fed anymore.

 

[Krish0608]

Sampras against Krajicek too.

The biggest difference here is that Fed's toughest match-up is a GOAT candidate, unlike with the other players. Truly unlucky. Why couldn't he get a lesser player as his toughest match-up when everyone else got away with it?

Exactly!. The guy who troubled Nadal the most before Nole matured were Davy and Blake. By the time Djokovic came along in 2011, Rafa was already an ATG. Federer did not have that luxury. Of course I am not taking anything away from Rafa. he has earned everything that he has got today. He deserves everything absolutely. But to actually not see something as obvious as a matchup advantage in the rivalry, is pure trolling.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Exactly!. The guy who troubled Nadal the most before Nole matured were Davy and Blake. By the time Djokovic came along in 2011, Rafa was already an ATG. Federer did not have that luxury. Of course I am not taking anything away from Rafa. he has earned everything that he has got today. He deserves everything absolutely. But to actually not see something as obvious as a matchup advantage in the rivalry, is pure trolling.

“Unlucky”, “Luxury”

Fed had the even better “luxury.” Feast on titles against metal hip Hewitt, declined Roddick, Philippousis, Baghdatis, choker Nalbandian.

 

[StrongRule]

Exactly!. The guy who troubled Nadal the most before Nole matured were Davy and Blake. By the time Djokovic came along in 2011, Rafa was already an ATG. Federer did not have that luxury. Of course I am not taking anything away from Rafa. he has earned everything that he has got today. He deserves everything absolutely. But to actually not see something as obvious as a matchup advantage in the rivalry, is pure trolling.

So you want to tell me Davydenko and Blake were Nadal's biggest rivals before 2011? Right, I guess they were the players who stopped him from winning Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007. And I guess Nadal's wins in Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 final were very easy...Nadal had to face prime Federer for a few years, and after that he had prime Djokovic. And if we are using your logic, Federer also didn't have to face Nadal from the beginning of his career. Nadal wasn't relevant in hardcourt slams until 2008.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Nadal has a match up advantage against Federer. But Federer also has a match up advantage against Djokovic and that's why the Serb struggled against him even at his peak.

Some Fed fans often seem to ignore the 2nd part.

 

[aldeayeah]

No other lefty hits the forehand the way Nadal does.

Verdasco kinda does, but he's Verdasco.

(also he only played Fed on clay a couple times, and it was peak Clayerer in Hamburg so it doesn't count)

 

[mike danny]

So you want to tell me Davydenko and Blake were Nadal's biggest rivals before 2011? Right, I guess they were the players who stopped him from winning Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007. And I guess Nadal's wins in Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 final were very easy...Nadal had to face prime Federer for a few years, and after that he had prime Djokovic. And if we are using your logic, Federer also didn't have to face Nadal from the beginning of his career. Nadal wasn't relevant in hardcourt slams until 2008.

We are talking about toughest match-ups, not rivals.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal has a match up advantage against Federer. But Federer also has a match up advantage against Djokovic and that's why the Serb struggled against him even at his peak.

Some Fed fans often seem to ignore the 2nd part.

I don't think that is the case at all. They were evenly matched. Fed simply had his strengths, while ?Djokovic had his.

 

[Bamoos]

You are absolutely reaching here.


Why are you grouping Djokovic with Nadal? Yeah, you're right. Fed has never found any weaknesses in Djoker's game. Those 22 wins are just a myth and he has no idea how to beat Djoker. And Djoker exploiting Fed's BH like Nadal does? Ridiculous.


No, Djoker took over the rivalry starting from 2014 when Fed was 33. He had no problem beating Djoker before that.


Because none of the younger players after Djokodal are great players. It's why Djokodal have been winning every slam for the past 2 years virtually unchallenged. Comparing them to Djokodal is an absolute joke.


Why are you grouping Djokovic with Nadal again? Djokovic has taken over the rivalry with Federer because of AGE, not some mythical superiority that Fed hasn't been able to solve.

80% of your post is a complete joke, sorry.

Yeah that post was reaching a lot.

Nadal had Fed’s number more often than not from 08-14... but Djokovic only took over since 14.

 

[Bamoos]

“Unlucky”, “Luxury”

Fed had the even better “luxury.” Feast on titles against metal hip Hewitt, declined Roddick, Philippousis, Baghdatis, choker Nalbandian.

Nadal had the even better luxury of having literally no competition at his favourite slam outside of a couple of years.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah that post was reaching a lot.

Nadal had Fed’s number more often than not from 08-14... but Djokovic only took over since 14.

I don't really count 2013-early 2014 in the Fedal rivalry. Nadal had Fed's number in that period when everyone else did.

To me, it's 2008-2012, not 2008-2014.

 

[Phoenix1983]

If Nadal's advantage with Federer is hitting the topspin forehand to the one handed backhand, how come Nadal troubled Federer a lot on grass where the bounce is low?

2006-08 Federer at Wimbledon dropped 1 set in 17 matches before the final, and 6 sets in 3 matches against Nadal.

And how come Nadal has a higher win percentage against two-handers than he does against one-handers (even excluding matches vs Federer/Djokovic)?

85.1% vs non-Federer one handers
85.9% vs non-Djokovic two handers

I think the reason Federer lost a lot of matches to Nadal is psychological: he was scared to play someone of his level.

It's the same reason he also lost the arguably 5 closest Slam matches against Djokovic: UO10, UO11, WI14, UO15, WI19.

We know that Federer is the weakest of the three mentally. He's still the GOAT at present though.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Federer being the GOAT is a myth.

It's certainly not Novak Djokovic for sure.

 

[mike danny]

To be honest, the biggest difference between Federer’s racquet pre- and post- switch is not the tension - it’s the swingweight.

He played through his prime years with 355sw. Now he’s at 340sw. The lighter sw helped him maintain his serve prowess as he aged. But the improved serve came at the cost of less mass to counter heavy balls. The ATP Serve Rating and Return Rating stats reveal that his serve stats actually slightly improved vs the field after the switch, but his return stats, not coincidently, considering his significantly lower sw, went into the tank, far below his career average.

If you plot Return Rating in general for all ATP pros as a function of sw, you’ll find that there is a direct correlation.

Anyway, Federer’s current racquet wouldn’t help him much in his matchup vs Nadal unless he were to string it at 70 lbs, because it has an extremely open pattern compared to the dense 18x20 patterns on smaller heads used by a Djokovic, Blake, and Soderling. And if he were to do that, his weapons might lose their sting, and he wouldn’t be Fed anymore.

Fed would lose the Fearhand, but he would probably be a slightly more solid player from the baseline if he started out with his new racquet.

Basically, a one-handed Djokovic. Or close to it. He would be less entertaining to watch, but more effective.

 

[BackhandDTL]

We know that Federer is the weakest of the three mentally. He's still the GOAT at present though.

Nope. The guy who is 0-3 in his pet slam final against one of his main rivals on his worst surface has capitulated that title a long time ago.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Nope. The guy who is 0-3 in his pet slam final against one of his main rivals on his worst surface has capitulated that title a long time ago.

Grass ain't Novak Djokovic's worst surface LOL. How you can claim that about a 5-time Wimbledon champ is beyond me.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Grass ain't Novak Djokovic's worst surface LOL. How you can claim that about a 5-time Wimbledon champ is beyond me.

anyone with half a brain can see that clay is his 2nd best surface. The guy can’t volley, hit an overhead, or hit with any variety.

because Djokovic could beat his pigeon on grass but not the god of clay, he’s better on grass?

bahaha.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Grass ain't Novak Djokovic's worst surface LOL. How you can claim that about a 5-time Wimbledon champ is beyond me.

But he never won Queen's.

 

[Phoenix1983]

anyone with half a brain can see that clay is his 2nd best surface. The guy can’t volley, hit an overhead, or hit with any variety.

because Djokovic could beat his pigeon on grass but not the god of clay, he’s better on grass?

bahaha.

I have a whole brain, which is far larger than yours. And I can see that a man who has won five Wimbledon titles - the equal of Borg - cannot be portrayed as having that surface as his weakest. The skills of which you speak (volleying etc.) are not needed on modern grass, as you should know.

Essentially post-prime Federer fell only to a champion of Borg's stature on grass, generally in five sets, and once holding match points against the man.

What a GOAT Federer truly is.

 

[mike danny]

But he never won Queen's.

Very troubling.

 

[PilotPete]

What about Nadal's matchup disadvantage against players ranked lower than 100 at Wimbledon?

 

[Bamoos]

I don't really count 2013-early 2014 in the Fedal rivalry. Nadal had Fed's number in that period when everyone else did.

To me, it's 2008-2012, not 2008-2014.

Good point. 2004-2007 was even. 2008-2012 Nadal dominated. 2015-2019 Fed returned favour 6-1. Shame they never met more in Nadal’s worst year 2015.

 

[BackhandDTL]

I have a whole brain, which is far larger than yours. And I can see that a man who has won five Wimbledon titles - the equal of Borg - cannot be portrayed as having that surface as his weakest. The skills of which you speak (volleying etc.) are not needed on modern grass, as you should know.

Essentially post-prime Federer fell only to a champion of Borg's stature on grass, generally in five sets, and once holding match points against the man.

What a GOAT Federer truly is.

Bahahaha. This is gold.

Djokovic vultured 60% of his grass titles against a pigeon with 0 mental fortitude and suddenly he’s Borg? Ahahaha. It really speaks to how hopeless Fed truly is against his main rivals.

clay grass hard court carpet ice, he’d still find a way to choke it away.

 

[mike danny]

Good point. 2004-2007 was even. 2008-2012 Nadal dominated. 2015-2019 Fed returned favour 6-1. Shame they never met more in Nadal’s worst year 2015.

Nadal, like clockwork, dodged Fed 3 times in 2015 when they were 1 match away from meeting each other.

Also dodged Fed at 2019 IW.

And people wonder why the H2H is the way it is.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Nadal, like clockwork, dodged Fed 3 times in 2015 when they were 1 match away from meeting each other.

Also dodged Fed at 2019 IW.

And people wonder why the H2H is the way it is.

fed completely skipped the clay season for years because he didn’t want to get torn a new one by Nadal every time.

 

[Bamoos]

fed completely skipped the clay season for years because he didn’t want to get torn a new one by Nadal every time.

they already played enough on clay lol. Isn’t enough that over half their 05-10 matches were on the dirt? Despite clay only representing a 3rd of the tour.

 

[BackhandDTL]

I have a whole brain, which is far larger than yours. And I can see that a man who has won five Wimbledon titles - the equal of Borg - cannot be portrayed as having that surface as his weakest. The skills of which you speak (volleying etc.) are not needed on modern grass, as you should know.

Essentially post-prime Federer fell only to a champion of Borg's stature on grass, generally in five sets, and once holding match points against the man.

What a GOAT Federer truly is.

First thread that popped up about Djokovic’s worst surface, and take a look at the approver of post #3. Like clockwork

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/what-is-djokovics-worst-surface.568230/