Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer not on Rafael Nadal’s level

[Rattie]

Just because you post someone's opinion about your idol doesn't necessary it's a general consensus(SIGH...)

There are over 7 billion people on this planet, you know?

And one billion tennis fans apparently.

 

[mattennis]

Djokovic's adherence to pseudo-science and irrationality sealed (negatively) his fate wrt total slam titles. He only has himself to blame.

Of course in many other very important tennis metrics, he is way ahead of everyone else.

 

[GabeT]

Why are we even dividing them up, as if some slams are worth more than others.

22-20-20. All of them BO5, all of them two weeks, all of them 7 rounds, all of them with the whole elite playing.

Nadal won less of the other three, but is completely above the other two in his favourite slam. What was preventing RF from winning 14 Wimbys or 14 USOs, or Djokovic from having 14 AOs?

Just as you argue "RF has a better spread", you omit to argue "why is RF not as dominant on grass as Nadal is on clay?"

The logic goes both ways.

Because it depends on what analysis you are trying to do


if all you care about is the slam race then all you look at is the total number of slams


if you want to know who is “better” at the slams then each slam is a separate tournament. Being very good at one slam doesn’t tell you much about how good you are in another

 

[GabeT]

Of course they are, overall, but when we use "inferior" to describe the difference, I have to wonder if some people understand this word.

Well, we can debate the best way to phrase it. But the key point, for me, is that there is a clear surface related difference in these players. It’s true in the h2h as well, where the differences have become even more stark

 

[GabeT]

Djokovic's adherence to pseudo-science and irrationality sealed (negatively) his fate wrt total slam titles. He only has himself to blame.

Of course in many other very important tennis metrics, he is way ahead of everyone else.

Slam race isn’t over. But you are right that it was his choice that led to not playing in AO22 and likely not in USO22 and AO23. Sucks for me, as a fan

 

[UnderratedSlam]

And all that domination took place from 2008-14. Before and after that period, which can obviously be called Rafa's peak, he does not dominate Djokovic or Federer.

Fedal have never met at USO, and the last matches between them at AO and Wimbledon were Federer victories.

Yet we cling to this narrative that Fed always was and always will be Rafa's pigeon.

I never said RF was anyone's pigeon.

Nor do I single out eras. I count all the slam matches equally.

 

[Omega_7000]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL............................................................................No

 

[Sudacafan]

I love so much these exciting debates and highly stimulating exchanges of opinions.
We need more threads like this to remain mentally challenged. I can never get enough of them.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Because it depends on what analysis you are trying to do


if all you care about is the slam race then all you look at is the total number of slams


if you want to know who is “better” at the slams then each slam is a separate tournament. Being very good at one slam doesn’t tell you much about how good you are in another

In other words, it depends whether we decide to cherry-pick eras, surfaces and other aspects, or not. I choose not to.

 

[Sudacafan]

Universal truths come in bold text in large fonts.

 

[intrepidish]

Universal truths come in bold text in large fonts.

AGREED.

 

[GabeT]

In other words, it depends whether we decide to cherry-pick eras, surfaces and other aspects, or not. I choose not to.

No. slam race is one type of analysis. Looking at differences between surfaces is another. One doesn’t detract from the other.

I think this comes up as an issue because of the Nadal fans that equate winning the most slams with being GOAT. And if you are going to claim Nadal is GOAT it’s fair to ask how can that be when Federer is better at 3 of the 4 slams, at WTF and 2 of the 3 surfaces. And Novak is better at 2 of the 4 slams, WTF, masters, and 2 of the 3 surfaces. What kind of a GOAT is that?

 

[TMF]

A rule is never made irrelevant just because there are exceptions in it.

If you actually believe top pros don't care about their H2H against their biggest rivals, you'd better reconsider... "Who cares that I am down 6-15 vs this guy when I have better results overall". That's a fairy-tale. They do care. And for a reason. In a one-on-one sport especially.

Whether the top pro care or don't care at all, the only objective method to evaluate the player prowess is his performance/result at each of the surface. Fedovic take the cake everywhere...except clay

Nor did I ever claim H2H determines "who is better", I merely showed you that in H2H your claim of inferiority is completely false.

Wouldn't matter to me what H2H is like because the performance/result against the playing field is that matters. You're entitled to your opinion. Do you take Davy vs. Nadal or Roddick vs. Novak H2H serious?

Even in terms of slams. Nadal winning 6 slams on HC compared to Djokovic's 12 is far less "inferior" than Djokovic's 2 clay slams compared to Nadal's 14.

You are correct. But don't agree with lumping everything together all say Nadal>Djokovic. Nadal is better on clay, Djokovic is better on hc

It goes both ways, nor can you pretend that clay is some ancient third-rate surface. It is the most demanding in terms of fitness, endurance and strategy. Unless you believe these three are irrelevant to sports...

Never said clay is irrelevant. Tennis is played throughout the year with clay season last over two months. Everything count

 

[TMF]

I didn't just post 'someone's opinion' I posted the opinion of noted tennis figures who were also Federer fans and who have spoken very positively about him in the past as opposed to you making personal assertions and claiming that anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot who knows nothing about tennis which is your usual line.

I can understand you feel this way because you are a RAFA fan. That's ok.

Everyone is entitled to agree/disagree, and I strongly disagree base on the big 3 resumes at every surface they accomplished

 

[TheNachoMan]

For Pete sake, is Nadal even in the top 10 on grass, hard court, and indoor ?

come on

He’s top 10 on HC, for sure.
Not grass or indoor.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

No. slam race is one type of analysis. Looking at differences between surfaces is another. One doesn’t detract from the other.

I think this comes up as an issue because of the Nadal fans that equate winning the most slams with being GOAT. And if you are going to claim Nadal is GOAT it’s fair to ask how can that be when Federer is better at 3 of the 4 slams, at WTF and 2 of the 3 surfaces. And Novak is better at 2 of the 4 slams, WTF, masters, and 2 of the 3 surfaces. What kind of a GOAT is that?

There is no such thing as GOAT.

But your argument is deeply flawed because you are accepting that the current surface slam distribution is fair.

It isn't.

A fair distribution would be 2 HC 2 clay slams, or in some strange 5-slam tour, 2 HC 2 clay 1 grass. With this set-up Nadal would have far better distribution not to mention would lead the race even more.

WTF is offset by so many more M1000s that Nadal has. My opinion of WTF and Olympics is they're overrated and no better than M1000s.

 

[intrepidish]

I can understand you feel this way because you are a RAFA fan. That's ok.

Everyone is entitled to agree/disagree, and I strongly disagree base on the big 3 resumes at every surface they accomplished

Again, there's not much of my own opinion here. I don't agree with you but I'm not claiming anyone who doesn't agree doesn't know anything about tennis like you do. I get why you're getting as defensive as this though now that more and more tennis figures who were also Federer fans are saying things like these guys:


KYRGIOS : 'Roger’s done as GOAT & he’s got really bad records against Nadal & Djokovic' or "Nadal is the best of the big three."


WAWRINKA: "For Wawrinka, no doubt, the GOAT is Nadal!" and Stan also says "I am not surprised because we know that he is well above everyone else. He's proved that he's able to do things throughout his career that others can't."

 

[Zara]

You can call me what you want, just call Nadal the GOAT

Goat baa baa baa...

 

[Zara]

'Junk clay' is the surface that 99% of the players cannot fathom.

And yet you can win it for a whopping 14 times!

 

[GabeT]

There is no such thing as GOAT.

But your argument is deeply flawed because you are accepting that the current surface slam distribution is fair.

It isn't.

A fair distribution would be 2 HC 2 clay slams, or in some strange 5-slam tour, 2 HC 2 clay 1 grass. With this set-up Nadal would have far better distribution not to mention would lead the race even more.

WTF is offset by so many more M1000s that Nadal has. My opinion of WTF and Olympics is they're overrated and no better than M1000s.

Ok, we agree there is no GOAT. So then my point about posters that claim the slam race proves Nadal is Goat doesn’t apply to you. but there are other posters after all.


as for surface distribution, don’t think this is an issue of “fairness”. Grass used to be most of the tour and 75% of the slams. No longer. The surface distribution is a given, set by the ATP and tournament organizers. players can only adapt to the distribution they must play in.

and WTF remains the tournament with the highest average competition, given how it’s structured. Don’t think pro players see it as just another masters as many of them have said over the years what an honor it is to qualify

 

[UnderratedSlam]

KYRGIOS : 'Roger’s done as GOAT & he’s got really bad records against Nadal & Djokovic' or "Nadal is the best of the big three."


WAWRINKA: "For Wawrinka, no doubt, the GOAT is Nadal!" and Stan also says "I am not surprised because we know that he is well above everyone else. He's proved that he's able to do things throughout his career that others can't."

It's a little baffling that Stan would say this, and not pick RF or stay neutral. Are the two Swiss champs in good relations, is this simply Stan choosing to be honest?

 

[Zara]

Universal truths come in bold text in large fonts.

FINALLY

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Ok, we agree there is no GOAT. So then my point about posters that claim the slam race proves Nadal is Goat doesn’t apply to you. but there are other posters after all.

as for surface distribution, don’t think this is an issue of “fairness”. Grass used to be most of the tour and 75% of the slams. No longer. The surface distribution is a given, set by the ATP and tournament organizers. players can only adapt to the distribution they must play in.

and WTF remains the tournament with the highest average competition, given how it’s structured. Don’t think pro players see it as just another masters as many of them have said over the years what an honor it is to qualify

GOAT discussions are pointless, at best we can argue over who "wins" the Big 3 era. But even there, the three are so close in achievements I'd feel silly picking one.

Grass is gone forever, being too expensive and difficult to maintain in a way that satisfies the standards of modern tennis, and because it has become too impractical for modern tennis that is way too fast for it. Clay being slower is actually even more a surface of the future.

Players find prestige in qualifying for the WTF, and I believe that qualifying for this overrated event is the key goal. Whoever wins the trophy is usually the freshest guy, or the guy who happened to catch the best form that week, not because he is "best of the year" or some such nonsense.

 

[clayqueen]

And yet you can win it for a whopping 14 times!

As I said, 99% of the tour have no clue how to play on it.

 

[clayqueen]

GOAT discussions are pointless, at best we can argue over who "wins" the Big 3 era. But even there, the three are so close in achievements I'd feel silly picking one.

Grass is gone forever, being too expensive and difficult to maintain in a way that satisfies the standards of modern tennis, and because it has become too impractical for modern tennis that is way too fast for it. Clay being slower is actually even more a surface of the future.

Players find prestige in qualifying for the WTF, and I believe that qualifying for this overrated event is the key goal. Whoever wins the trophy is usually the freshest guy, or the guy who happened to catch the best form that week, not because he is "best of the year" or some such nonsense.

You are coming round to my way of thinking. At last!

 

[intrepidish]

It's a little baffling that Stan would say this, and not pick RF or stay neutral. Are the two Swiss champs in good relations or is this simply Stan choosing to be honest?

Well, some of the recent quotes from Stan about Nadal come from a podcast this year L'Équipe did. Stan sounded fairly candid there actually, a lot more than in the English language interviews he gives, and he seemed to feel this about Nadal fairly strongly, almost like it was simply a fact and not something to be debated.

Perhaps one might also wonder how Stan took that whole incident at the tour finals when Mirka was trying to rattle him from the stands and Roger didn't intervene to have her stop. It hasn't ever really been discussed at any length.

 

[Alfred Chicken]

Again, there's not much of my own opinion here. I don't agree with you but I'm not claiming anyone who doesn't agree doesn't know anything about tennis like you do. I get why you're getting as defensive as this though now that more and more tennis figures who were also Federer fans are saying things like these guys:

Yet you keep posting the same old quotations from the same two blokes over and over again sif it was part of a less well-off radio station's heavy rotation...

 

[Sudacafan]

AGREED

FINALLY

LOL

 

[UnderratedSlam]

You are coming round to my way of thinking. At last!

I've had that opinion for many years.

As I said, 99% of the tour have no clue how to play on it.

This was never true.

Clay is a widespread surface and as such there will always be a number of experts and players who understand it.

Just because Nadal won 14 FOs doesn't mean the others are "clueless". Then Borg's era was hopeless at clay too, using this line of reasoning. Or every time someone wins FO without losing a set this means that the rest are very bad. Not so.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Well, some of the recent quotes from Stan about Nadal come from a podcast this year L'Équipe did. Stan sounded fairly candid there actually, a lot more than in the English language interviews he gives, and he seemed to feel this about Nadal fairly strongly, almost like it was simply a fact and not something to be debated.

Perhaps one might also wonder how Stan took that whole incident at the tour finals when Mirka was trying to rattle him from the stands and Roger didn't intervene to have her stop. It hasn't ever really been discussed at any length.

That should be a good interview.

The WTF incident is still st very unusual and baffling. She isn't known for this kind of behaviour, and we have no clue still why she'd choose to do this with Stan, of all people, a Davis Cup teammate.

 

[Zara]

As I said, 99% of the tour have no clue how to play on it.

Even the clay courters! I mean it's pretty much an one man's show.

But it's all the more reason for this particular surface to become obsolete. It's just not playable as you mentioned.

 

[intrepidish]

Yet you keep posting the same old quotations from the same two blokes over and over again sif it was part of a less well-off radio station's heavy rotation...

It's not just the same 2 pros or former pros of course; there are many such people these days. I referenced 3 people in this thread in fact and that poster has yet to acknowledge them or the fact that they were previously convinced about Roger so I will keep on referencing them for the moment.

It's a lot more common these days for people in general to say that while Federer is obviously one of the greatest players, there are reasons to think one or both of his rivals should be considered greater.

That's obviously a question of opinion, but the main criterion, which used to simply be announced in an undifferentiated manner was the number of slams won, period.

Now that Roger seems likely not to add to his totals and both of his rivals will likely retire with more than he, the conversation has changed for some odd reason to an endless array of never ending claims.

 

[Zara]

LOL

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!

 

[Sudacafan]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!

I haven’t read more than a couple of posts in this thread, and I’m planning to never do so.

 

[Federev]

Actually the full interview is even more emphatic:


"Si a Roger le gusta el tenis puede pasárselo bien con 40 años, pero no creo que tenga la capacidad de ser realmente competitivo. Incluso, dirá que corre el peligro de hacer el ridículo"


"If Roger likes tennis he can enjoy himself at age 40 but I don't think he has the capacity to really be competitive. I'd even say he runs the risk of appearing ridiculous"

Entrevista a Ion Tiriac - CLAY TENIS

"¿Nadal? Yo lo veo morir en una cancha de tenis", grafica el ex entrenador de Guillermo Vilas y Boris Becker.

www.claytenis.com

He’s probably coming back only cause he knows at least he still has a shot at continuing his dominance over Nadal since 2014.

His old age has been fruitful in that regard at least.

Maybe he’ll close the H2H gap a little more?

 

[Topspin_80]

‘No. 1 forever!’ – Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer not on Rafael Nadal’s level, says Ion Tiriac

Rafael Nadal is the best player to ever play the game of tennis, that is according to former player Ion Tiriac. The once French Open quarter-finalist says that Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic are not comparable to the Spaniard. "Rafael Nadal is the best of all. Neither Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer are on his level," said Tiriac, as reported by Eurosport Spain.

‘No. 1 forever!’ – Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer not on Rafael Nadal’s level, says Ion Tiriac

Rafael Nadal is the best men's player to play the game, that is according to tennis legend Ion Tiriac.

www.eurosport.co.uk

Someone had to say it, I'm glad it was you!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Zara]

I haven’t read more than a couple of posts in this thread, and I’m planning to never do so.

And were those two posts 'LOL'?

Warning: intrepidish is busy repeating his stuff again so you might want to wise up on that too.

 

[intrepidish]

That should be a good interview.

The WTF incident is still st very unusual and baffling. She isn't known for this kind of behaviour, and we have no clue still why she'd choose to do this with Stan, of all people, a Davis Cup teammate.

It was a very good interview. They let Stan speak at length about that and about his approach to life and tennis more generally. He was pretty thoughtful and touched on a wide variety of topics. Nadal had won Australia a bit before that so it came up naturally.

Yea, the Mirka incident at the tour finals with Stan has never been adequately addressed by any of the parties involved. Not only was Stan a Davis Cup teammate but also a friend in theory. There were rumors that Stan really didn't take it very well.

 

[intrepidish]

He’s probably coming back only cause he knows at least he still has a shot at [PLAYING] Nadal

I don't think Roger or Rafael are motivated by that sort of thing when it comes to each other in the slightest. I'll take the rest of your post in the tongue in cheek manner in which I trust it was intended...

 

[clayqueen]

Someone had to say it, I'm glad it was you!!!!!!!!!!

It was Tiriac.

 

[clayqueen]

Even the clay courters! I mean it's pretty much an one man's show.

But it's all the more reason for this particular surface to become obsolete. It's just not playable as you mentioned.

It's good to have something unassailable so players can dream on.

 

[Topspin_80]

He was the director of Madrid Open until recently and may have still some tennis-related businesses in Spain, so I am not sure how honest this may be.

He was never the director of Madrid Open, he was the owner, capisce??

He and Nadal didn't get along, Nadal made him change his blue clay in Madrid, something Tiriac didn't like.

You didn't know that because you are new in tennis. Old fans remember that episode.

 

[Topspin_80]

It was Tiriac.

Yes, it was Tiriac, but Tiriac didn't say it in this forum, it was you!!

To the chagrin of Djokovic and Fed fans!!!

 

[Federev]

I don't think Roger or Rafael are motivated by that sort of thing when it comes to each other in the slightest. I'll take the rest of your post in the tongue in cheek manner in which I trust it was intended...

Yeah. I’m just joking around.

I don’t think Fed will stay very long if it turns out to be what the interviewer says for him.

I’d honestly be surprised if he came back at all of his team didn’t think he could make a fair showing.

And I’d think they’d have some capacity to not make a blind guess - wether it’s how he does in training blocks with other pros or comparative metrics on speed and strength.

And apart from the re-injury last year, his return showed he could still play pro tennis on a competitive level.

I doubt it will be that much different this year.

But who knows?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I can understand you feel this way because you are a RAFA fan. That's ok.

Everyone is entitled to agree/disagree, and I strongly disagree base on the big 3 resumes at every surface they accomplished

You are repeating over and over again your argument with the 3/4 surfaces so to make it simple: what exactly would Nadal need to do for you to admit that he is ahead of Fed? Win one more slam? Two more? Would 25 be enough (even assuming all additional three are FOs)? Or do you say Federer will always be ahead no matter how many mire slams Nadal wins as long as he is ahead at 3/4?

 

[The Fedfather]

Tiriac to anyone if he had managed to win a Slam or reach world #1:

 

[Zara]

It's good to have something unassailable so players can dream on.

Not fair to other players. Doesn't support the game either and makes things lopsided including the race.

 

[intrepidish]

Yeah. I’m just joking around.

I don’t think Fed will stay very long if it turns out to be what the interviewer says for him.

I’d honestly be surprised if he came back at all of his team didn’t think he could make a fair showing.

And I’d think they’d have some capacity to not make a blind guess - wether it’s how he does in training blocks with other pros or comparative metrics on speed and strength.

And apart from the re-injury last year, his return showed he could still play pro tennis on a competitive level.

I doubt it will be that much different this year.

But who knows?

All TTW jousting aside, I hope Roger comes back and has a nice run and above all, doesn't get reinjured, which is a common problem for older players returning from inactivity. You stress other body parts more than you realize (like Nadal with the rib and Roger himself last year) while fighting to make the jump back.

I don't think it's far-fetched to say Roger can play matches at a pretty competitive level with much of the tour at least some of the time and I agree we did see that last time around. However, the real issue is holding together for 4 or 5 matches in a row when you really can't fully replicate that kind of stress in training.

 

[thrust]

I’m sure Nadal himself is very ashamed and embarrassed by his idiotic fans on TTW. He will soon issue a statement to distance himself from whatever is said about him on TTW.

I sincerely hope and doubt that neither Rafa, Novak or Roger would read or care what is written about them here.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

It was a very good interview. They let Stan speak at length about that and about his approach to life and tennis more generally. He was pretty thoughtful and touched on a wide variety of topics. Nadal had won Australia a bit before that so it came up naturally.

Yea, the Mirka incident at the tour finals with Stan has never been adequately addressed by any of the parties involved. Not only was Stan a Davis Cup teammate but also a friend in theory. There were rumors that Stan really didn't take it very well.

I can't seem to find this interview...