Peak Nadal vs Peak Djokovic 10 match series at Wimbledon?

[RS]

Roddick is overrated by everyone including ME.

 

[abmk]

You keep citing Djokovic having more BPs in more BP games as evidence of lesser decline or whatever, which is obviously quite disingenuous. Why not evidence of superior game? The same goes for the first set, even if Nadal needed to adjust a bit but most credit lies with Djokovic's superior game, and for the 2nd and 4th sets, the credit surely lies as much with Nadal's boldness as with Djokovic's weaknesses (i.e. discredit to him), and Nadal's boldness itself reveals his mental advantage throughout. Extreme or not, it basically got him two sets. Again, hypothetically speaking a perfectly, robotically focused Djokovic would have won in straights. It was his weaknesses & mental doubts & Nadal's boldness getting those sets for Nadal. As usual, I might add, since winning sets where his opponent shows extra weakness and/or mugs up in some way is Nadal's mojo, that's what his game is mostly about at the highest level. That's what he did against Federer, fished for weak showings in spurts and he got those, helped by his unique skillset that others couldn't replicate but still that's a kinda worthless way to win for holistic hypotheticals where you only consider game levels since Federer was the better player by base game in those matches and should have won were it not for the mental difference, once again as usual.
Nadal making more medium-quick UEs is not a reflection of lacking shot tolerance per se, which would be tested in longer rallies and he came out just fine. I don't have an explanation for that currently, would require looking into the specifics of those points. Keep in mind the difference was amplified by the end of the match where Nadal finally cracked, before that it was barely significant.
so only point 1 changes and that's by not much of a difference. 2 and 3 still clear against Djokovic, preventing him from laying a proper spanking on Rafito. 5 is unclear with longer rallies being even, shorter points need a different explanation.

shot tolerance is basically keeping your errors at minimum as possible while being aggressive enough. Even medium rallies count in that.
nadal was meh in the 1st set - by himself. that much is clear. even if Djoko played very well. Whether you put it down to decline/roof, point remains that was meh.

superior play? Include mental game in this.
Put up Wim 11/Wim 14 finals djoko vs Wim 07/08 final nadal. Would you be confident in Djoko? I'd take nadal's play including mental as better.
Wim 15 djoko is the only one where you could be somewhat confident.
So yeah, djokovic having clearly more break chance games is one part of decline being lesser.

1 v 2 isn't much of an argument for a hypothetical ten-match series though xD
As I said I don't see why the Federer matches need to be given that much weight given that Nadal profited from the matchup and Federer mugging up considerably at various junctions. Unless you have a sadly low opinion of even Peakovic's mental focus and think the matchup advantage still won't save him from mugging up so much Nadal could realiably win. I would consider that quite disrespectful, sure you can call 2015 and even 2011 roflmao era compared to GOATerer's best years but not that much, huh?

yes, it has to be given sufficient weightage.
nadal didn't just show up to be able to exploit fed's weaknesses.
guy wasn't faring great vs fed's slice on grass in Wim 06 final. but look at what he did in Wim 07/08 finals. improved big time on that and ruthlessly punished the slices. Instead of giving Nadal credit for that, you focus on fed's faults.
One was against peak fed (07) and another against prime fed (08). both tougher opponents than anyone Djokovic beat or even took to 5 at Wim.

I don't think Wim 11/14 final djokovic showed enough reliability to win vs 07/08 final nadal that clearly.
only 15 Wim final did

so if you take top 3 vs top 3 over a 10 match series, yeah, it is close.

 

[NatF]

I would like to see Thiem back in form. That might motivate me.

Thiem is done I think, would be a welcome addition though.

Who played better Federer USO 05 final or Djokovic AO 15 final?

Federer on aggregate IMO. Higher highs and the lower lows with the second set.

 

[NatF]

Roddick is overrated by everyone including ME.

Losing in five to 2011'ovic is overrated?

 

[RS]

Losing in five to 2011'ovic is overrated?

I mean how we keep talking about him lol not the 11 vs 04.

 

[abmk]

Bit of a weird situation where if you compare the sets side by side Roddick's play in 3 out of the 4 sets was probably better, but I would expect Djokovic to raise his game and mental flucuations to ultimately favour him over five sets.

in a 1 match situation, I'd give A-Rod the slight edge. Over a series, A-Rod's ground game being low% means djoko edges series out.

 

[RS]

What’s confusing how Roddick USO 07 QF is considered better than the best Fedovic matches at RG vs Nadal. And Roddick didn’t even get a set.

 

[NatF]

I mean how we keep talking about him lol not the 11 vs 04.

People like you keep bringing him up? Him being a finalist for Fed also makes him a benchmark when talking about Fed's form as well.

in a 1 match situation, I'd give A-Rod the slight edge. Over a series, A-Rod's ground game being low% means djoko edges series out.

Fair enough.

What’s confusing how Roddick USO 07 QF is considered better than the best Fedovic matches at RG vs Nadal. And Roddick didn’t even get a set.

Is it really?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

yes, Wim 12 semi serving from fed better than Wim 08 final serving from fed, but nadal returned fed's serve better than Djoko did.
fed was clearly better from the baseline in the longer rallies in Wim 08 vs a better player and a tougher matchup
7+ shot rallies in Wim 12 semi: 13/33 (39.4%)
7+ shot rallies in Wim 08 final: 37/82 (45.12%)
yes,returning was worse in Wim 08 final because it was nadal/circumstances. Put the same Nadal vs fed in Wim 12 and he'd return worse than he did vs Djoko IMO.

but still this would make the performances in themselves close enough. fed being able to play at a high level longer in Wim 08 than in Wim 12 is a factor that clinches it for Wim 08 final fed.

A funny occasion where a player with better serve-return complex loses to one with better ground game, quite antithetic for grass but yes I can see that here lol.

 

[RS]

People like you keep bringing him up? Him being a finalist for Fed also makes him a benchmark when talking about Fed's form as well.



Fair enough.



Is it really?

Yes it is confusing. It implies with similar form Roddick would do better than Fedovic did as well. Or that Fed peaked higher than Nadal at RG by a seeable margin.

Everyone brings Roddick up which I was slating myself for lol.

 

[Biotic]

What’s confusing how Roddick USO 07 QF is considered better than the best Fedovic matches at RG vs Nadal. And Roddick didn’t even get a set.

Considered better by few federinas =/= considered better

 

[RS]

Thiem is done I think, would be a welcome addition though.
Federer on aggregate IMO. Higher highs and the lower lows with the second set.

Peak Djokovic has the better serve and the better return, significantly. They are almost equal off the baseline at their peaks and peak Nadal is a better volleyer than peak Djokovic. Djokovic became a better volleyer as he got older. Really, the serve/return combo for Djokovic is the dagger. Nadal would be fighting an uphill battle against him because of that, and you can see why based on how all their matches on grass have played out.

Slumping Djokovic with an average return, non-explosive movement and not a powerful ground game used mainly his serve and guile to take down a highly confident Nadal in 2018, who killed him from the baseline and at the net. Sampras and Federer have better serves than Djokovic so they would be much harder for him to deal with.

So 6-4 or 7-3 Djokovic?

 

[abmk]

A funny occasion where a player with better serve-return complex loses to one with better ground game, quite antithetic for grass but yes I can see that here lol.

Meant to mention, but missed it. fed did win 30 of the 4-6 shot rallies to djoko's 22. So difference in baseline game is not as much as 7+ shot rallies show.
But the 7+ shot rallies showed fed's age, as great as he played.

 

[RS]

Considered better by few federinas =/= considered better

Don’t want take digs since everybody has a opinion but it was not just a 1-2 posters. Not a huge huge mass but some.

It’s not a super majority like 11-12 was the strongest era ever or 08 Nadal at RG had the highest peak ever it something like that.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

shot tolerance is basically keeping your errors at minimum as possible while being aggressive enough. Even medium rallies count in that.
nadal was meh in the 1st set - by himself. that much is clear. even if Djoko played very well. Whether you put it down to decline/roof, point remains that was meh.

He wasn't as good but Djokovic's strong service game made him look worse. Kinda uncertain in rallies though, that I can agree with. A stark contrast to the rest of the match sadly. The overall match trend is still clear.

superior play? Include mental game in this.
Put up Wim 11/Wim 14 finals djoko vs Wim 07/08 final nadal. Would you be confident in Djoko? I'd take nadal's play including mental as better.
Wim 15 djoko is the only one where you could be somewhat confident.
So yeah, djokovic having clearly more break chance games is one part of decline being lesser.

I don't believe Nadal would necessarily have the superior mental game against peak Djokovic given the matchup giving Djo confidence. He might, but that doesn't seem too likely. I do expect Peakovic to raise his game appropriately, he should find it easier than against Federer or even Wawrinka.

yes, it has to be given sufficient weightage.
nadal didn't just show up to be able to exploit fed's weaknesses.
guy wasn't faring great vs fed's slice on grass in Wim 06 final. but look at what he did in Wim 07/08 finals. improved big time on that and ruthlessly punished the slices. Instead of giving Nadal credit for that, you focus on fed's faults.
One was against peak fed (07) and another against prime fed (08). both tougher opponents than anyone Djokovic beat or even took to 5 at Wim.

Nadal exploiting Fed's slice is kind of a negative for the rest of the tour including Djokovic, isn't it? Yes it was properly difficult but still doable as Nadal showed. I feel there's a significant distinction between very good play that can still be countered and play that cannot be countered at all (the basic example is obviously a powerful ace on the line, then we go to commanding 1-2 combos and beyond and it gets murky quickly but you get the drift). Peak Federer being BOAT should mean he played in a way that cannot be countered, his slice being 'counterable' detracts from his case. Isn't that the gist of those brilliant winners from anywhere on court Fed was so known for, "I can kill the point from any position and you cannot do anything about that", now that's BOATness.
Anyway, bit of a rant here, point is that if Nadal exploits something that's a weakness in this particular matchup anyway. No other way for him to win since Fed's game was bigger, always has been in terms of power and shotmaking, so Nadal needed to do his hit-to-BH routine.

I don't think Wim 11/14 final djokovic showed enough reliability to win vs 07/08 final nadal that clearly.
only 15 Wim final did

The '14 final saw Djokovic melt quite poorly in the fourth set *and* be less than stellar in the fifth, he ended up outsteadying Federer who lost the last break with errors, rather than outhitting him. You could say the same of the '11 final but he was already two sets up before that started. How Djokovic would perform in a hypothetical fifth set against Peakdal is entirely debatable, he could raise his game or he could wilt given that there's precedent for both. I believe the former based on his base game advantage, and obviously 2011 Dominatovic had ample reason to be far more confident than 2014 Slamlessovic.

so if you take top 3 vs top 3 over a 10 match series, yeah, it is close.

If that's how you approach the peak debates that makes sense. There are different ways though.

 

[RS]

Another good topic. Could Stan at AO be a tougher matchup for Djokovic than Nadal at Wim?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

in a 1 match situation, I'd give A-Rod the slight edge. Over a series, A-Rod's ground game being low% means djoko edges series out.

Roddick has the higher peak and Djokovic can only win by virtue of said peak being less sustainable, then? What an overinflated bozo this Djokovic guy is.

 

[Biotic]

Don’t want take digs since everybody has a opinion but it was not just a 1-2 posters. Not a huge huge mass but some.

It’s not a super majority like 11-12 was the strongest era ever or 08 Nadal at RG had the highest peak ever it something like that.

It was started by a few fednatics. Whoever wanted to make Fred and his competition look better joined in later.

 

[abmk]

Roddick has the higher peak and Djokovic can only win by virtue of said peak being less sustainable, then? What an overinflated bozo this Djokovic guy is.

I'd take Djoko's Wim 15 peak over Roddick's Wim 04 peak.
But not Wim 11 peak.

 

[RS]

Laver and Gonzales and Ken are the real big 3. Played in a harder era with more matches and wooden rackets and still achieved more with no modern stuff to make then last longer.

Maybe Borg would have been greater too but he hung up early.

 

[NonP]

You think 12 Fed wins in 4?

You mean vs. '07 Bull? Possibly, though it comes with the assumption that Fred would be playing with so much freedom to begin with. Obviously that ain't a given when he's just lost to his nemesis for the 1697th time - I've made this observation before but Fred really looked resigned to perpetual 2nd-class status after that '07 FO F - and the gap between the two even on his best surface is narrowing by the day.

That's another reason why these hypos are so tricky. We like to think we can somehow transplant this or that player in another event/scenario with everything intact, but tennis IRL is more complicated.

Well, Nadal of Wim 14/17 also has a decent shot at winning Wim 21.
But anyways even if you throw in Wim 07 for Djoko, that makes it 9 to 7
Again, never denied Djoko does have edge, but enough for 6 to 2? No frickin way.

Again we're talking careers here, not peaks or even primes. The fact that Rafa failed to advance beyond the 4th round from 2012-17 when he was winning Slams and making the finals off grass? That's on him. Talk about vulturing all you want but Novak was there to take advantage while Bull went AWOL for 6 yrs straight. You don't get to choose your best years or your opponents IRL and that's why 6-2 is hardly outlandish if we're taking the long view.

That was to to show you prime Nadal would do in Djokovic's place.
08 Wim final ~ 07 Wim final.
08 Wim final beat 08 Wim final fed and that fed was better than 12 Wim fed.
So 07 Wim final nadal beats 12 Wim fed. saying 12 wim fed doesn't lose to any nadal is just smh.

even in your given case, Nadal takes Wim 12/Wim 13 and has his shot at Wim 15/Wim 16.

But that's not a fair comparison cuz Novak was the eventual champ 6 times. In these cases you have to pick the closest challenger, which is why Rafa takes Novak's place only for '07 vs. 12 and '08 vs. '13 (for '11 vs. '16 he replaces Milos). Removing Novak from the draw for his championship years gives Rafa an unfair advantage.

More on '12 Fed below but even if I give Bull '12 we're still looking at his current total of 2. I don't see '10 Bull besting Novak's (likely) best version or '11 Bull doing his usual thing vs. '16 Muzz given how Ahn-dee flat-out dismantled the Raonic serve.

only Wim 15 djoko qualifies then.
because he certainly had drop in focus in Wim 11/Wim 14 later rounds as well.

Well that's still 1 more than I give Bull, so there!

07 Wim final fed > Wim 12 fed by such a margin that its not even close
Wim 07/08 final nadal was straight up better than Wim 12 final fed. You are vastly over-rating Wim 12 fed.
Wim 12 semi fed is closer, but nadal would edge him out at his peak.

I know what I saw, and I saw '12 Fred playing with such a spring in his step it really reminded me of his prime. Not to mention he came in more in 4 sets than in '07's 5. Granted he was playing Muzz, but then he also converted almost 80% of his net points vs. under 60% in both the '07 and '08 finals so that can't be chalked up to Rafa's superior passing shots. Not to mention 63.2% was his 3rd highest Wimby GW% ever.

I'll give you '07 but '08 beating '12 strikes me as far-fetched. And I certainly don't see '07 Bull besting '12 Fed by this margin when Rafa needed 5 sets to get past Sod and Misha - both baseliners, not a Kendrick or Petzschner who could catch a still grooving Nadal off guard with his constant forays to the net. Of course not even '12 Fed would be that aggressive, but then a tiny bit could mean the difference between W and L at this level.

And there's the psychological angle to consider, which also favors '12 Fed (see above). I'll grant '08 Bull would have a real chance due to his strong(er) SG, but we're still looking at a 5-setter. And he'd be playing not '12 Fed but '13 Muzz in your own scenario.

All of which is a long way of saying 2 for Bull is just about right, especially when you consider the fact that Boris has only 1 more and Jimbo and Edberg are sitting with the same # of trophies. 4 would be a big stretch for Nadal in any era, yes even this one.

 

[RS]

It was started by a few fednatics. Whoever wanted to make Fred and his competition look better joined in later.

It was better than some Federer Djokovic efforts vs at RG Nadal tbh.

Think it was 2020 which the match started to come up a lot in discussion.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I'd take Djoko's Wim 15 peak over Roddick's Wim 04 peak.
But not Wim 11 peak.

Comparing two matches that occurred isn't the same as a hypothetical H2H encounter though. I do imagine 04 Federer would beat 11 Djokovic easier than he beat 04 Roddick, funny as it sounds. Doesn't mean 04 Roddick beats 11 Djokovic if they square off agsinst each other.

 

[RS]

Comparing two matches that occurred isn't the same as a hypothetical H2H encounter though. I do imagine 04 Federer would beat 11 Djokovic easier than he beat 04 Roddick, funny as it sounds. Doesn't mean 04 Roddick beats 11 Djokovic if they square off agsinst each other.

04 Fed beats 11 Djok in 4 tight sets to maybe 5 . 15 Djokovic is a tossup IMO honestly.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I'd like to see Federer USO 07 QF vs Djokovic 11 USO SF. If Federer does beat Djokovic in straights, that instantly ruins all of the Djoko propaganda. I kind of doubt that, sadly enough, but would be great to see if that's a real hypothetical outcome (lol tautology).

 

[abmk]

He wasn't as good but Djokovic's strong service game made him look worse. Kinda uncertain in rallies though, that I can agree with. A stark contrast to the rest of the match sadly. The overall match trend is still clear.

either way 1st set makes djoko's play closer to prime and nadal's further away.

I don't believe Nadal would necessarily have the superior mental game against peak Djokovic given the matchup giving Djo confidence. He might, but that doesn't seem too likely. I do expect Peakovic to raise his game appropriately, he should find it easier than against Federer or even Wawrinka.

I just think the matchup would be close enough on grass for nadal to have a slight edge mentally.

Nadal exploiting Fed's slice is kind of a negative for the rest of the tour including Djokovic, isn't it? Yes it was properly difficult but still doable as Nadal showed. I feel there's a significant distinction between very good play that can still be countered and play that cannot be countered at all (the basic example is obviously a powerful ace on the line, then we go to commanding 1-2 combos and beyond and it gets murky quickly but you get the drift). Peak Federer being BOAT should mean he played in a way that cannot be countered, his slice being 'counterable' detracts from his case. Isn't that the gist of those brilliant winners from anywhere on court Fed was so known for, "I can kill the point from any position and you cannot do anything about that", now that's BOATness.
Anyway, bit of a rant here, point is that if Nadal exploits something that's a weakness in this particular matchup anyway. No other way for him to win since Fed's game was bigger, always has been in terms of power and shotmaking, so Nadal needed to do his hit-to-BH routine.

BOAT doesn't mean best in everything. just better than anyone else.

The '14 final saw Djokovic melt quite poorly in the fourth set *and* be less than stellar in the fifth, he ended up outsteadying Federer who lost the last break with errors, rather than outhitting him. You could say the same of the '11 final but he was already two sets up before that started. How Djokovic would perform in a hypothetical fifth set against Peakdal is entirely debatable, he could raise his game or he could wilt given that there's precedent for both. I believe the former based on his base game advantage, and obviously 2011 Dominatovic had ample reason to be far more confident than 2014 Slamlessovic.

no such dip for Djoko in Wim 14 final till serving for it though. that's a longer period of sustanence than Wim 11 final frankly.

If that's how you approach the peak debates that makes sense. There are different ways though.

yes, I've stated that multiple times in this very thread itself.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

04 Fed beats 11 Djok in 4 tight sets to maybe 5 . 15 Djokovic is a tossup IMO honestly.

Nah, Djokovic is confined to vulturing a set when Fed is a bit off. Sad but unquestionable true as acknowledged by all objective tennis observers that are not biased propagandists.

 

[RS]

Federer USO 07 QF 9.75/10
Djokovic USO 11 SF 9/10 to 9.25/10

But 11 Fed > 07 Roddick to cut the gap. I guess it should be Fed in 5 sets.

 

[NatF]

Yes it is confusing. It implies with similar form Roddick would do better than Fedovic did as well. Or that Fed peaked higher than Nadal at RG by a seeable margin.

Everyone brings Roddick up which I was slating myself for lol.

You're probably the biggest culprit for bringing up Roddick, Fed fans then address your comments and get called out for it when you started it lol.

I certainly think Fed in certain matches at Wimbledon/USO was better than Nadal in certain matches at the FO, that shouldn't be hard to believe. But again I don't think USO 2007 QF Roddick being better than the best of Fedovic at the FO in all their matches with Nadal is a common opinion. Most people don't have the willingless or the capability to judge these matches on their merits that's the problem. The USO 2007 QF was a high quality match that didn't really have any sizeable dips because it was a straight sets affair, rather ironically if Fed was a little worse in one of the first two sets and dropped one yet ran away with it in the 3rd and 4th it would probably be viewed as less mythical because surely Roddick couldn't sustain that level of play. It ultimately was two players who were virtually unbreakable behind their serves in the first two sets by playing hard hitting first strike tennis. It's hard to extrapolate beyond that. It's certainly true IMO that no Fedovic match versus Nadal mustered quite that level of play in the opening two sets (maybe you could argue 2007/2011 Fed did?) but that doesn't make them worse by default. Fed peaked highly in set one of the 2006 final which enabled him to take the match to four sets, likewise Djokovic started slow in 2013 but peaked strongly in sets 2 and 4 to take the match to five etc...Considering the dips before or after is that better or worse than the 7-6-7-6 scoreline from Roddick? There's a lot of nuance to discussing these tennis matches that goes missing, simpleton approaches like giving everything scores out of 10 don't capture everything.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

BOAT doesn't mean best in everything. just better than anyone else.

Is the best player just a king of weakness by virtue of being less weak than everyone else? A philosophical question to ponder indeed. How much respect do tennis players deserve in the first place, hmm. And how much of that respect goes to the one and only BOAT and how little to the rest of the inferior bunch, quite a poignant question this.

 

[RS]

You're probably the biggest culprit for bringing up Roddick, Fed fans then address your comments and get called out for it when you started it lol.

I certainly think Fed in certain matches at Wimbledon/USO was better than Nadal in certain matches at the FO, that shouldn't be hard to believe. But again I don't think USO 2007 QF Roddick being better than the best of Fedovic at the FO in all their matches with Nadal is a common opinion. Most people don't have the willingless or the capability to judge these matches on their merits that's the problem. The USO 2007 QF was a high quality match that didn't really have any sizeable dips because it was a straight sets affair, rather ironically if Fed was a little worse in one of the first two sets and dropped one yet ran away with it in the 3rd and 4th it would probably be viewed as less mythical because surely Roddick couldn't sustain that level of play. It ultimately was two players who were virtually unbreakable behind their serves in the first two sets by playing hard hitting first strike tennis. It's hard to extrapolate beyond that. It's certainly true IMO that no Fedovic match versus Nadal mustered quite that level of play in the opening two sets (maybe you could argue 2007/2011 Fed did?) but that doesn't make them worse by default. Fed peaked highly in set one of the 2006 final which enabled him to take the match to four sets, likewise Djokovic started slow in 2013 but peaked strongly in sets 2 and 4 to take the match to five etc...Considering the dips before or after is that better or worse than the 7-6-7-6 scoreline from Roddick? There's a lot of nuance to discussing these tennis matches that goes missing, simpleton approaches like giving everything scores out of 10 don't capture everything.

Did you miss the fights before I joined and started posting as much lol?

Good points going to make a post responding to it a little later. I do think Roddick was better some versions btw.

 

[RS]

This out of 10 stuff is so shaky.

Fed RG 08 final best example. He would be no where near that bad vs another player. Even if it was a good showing. In fact he would probably have played at least at a 8/10 level.

 

[RS]

Federer USO 07 QF 9.75/10
Djokovic USO 11 SF 9/10 to 9.25/10

But 11 Fed > 07 Roddick to cut the gap. I guess it should be Fed in 5 sets.

If you believe in the inflation era then both are 11/10 to a 10/10 I guess.

 

[NatF]

Did you miss the fights before a joined and started posting as much lol?

Good points going to make a post responding to it a little later. I do think Roddick was better some versions btw.

I used to fight more back in 2013-2015 probably. These days I ignore a lot lol.

 

[NatF]

This out of 10 stuff is so shaky.

Fed RG 08 final best example. He would be no where near that bad vs another player. Even if it was a good showing. In fact he would probably have played at least at a 8/10 level.

Best example is Hewitt USO 2004 final

 

[Mivic]

Sad indictment of the era that 2007 Djokovic probably wins Wimbledon in 2021, even tertiary players from 07 like Gasquet/Roddick/Hewitt/Baghdatis would at least be finalists and arguably win the whole thing.

I mean not really tbh. If it weren't for the scheduling screwing him over 2007 Djokovic would have had a decent chance of taking out arguably Fraud's best ever opponent in a Wimbledon final imo after rewatching the first set of that one again recently. I wouldn't call it a likely outcome but its honestly not outside of the realms of possibility imo. Still don't know if I'd favour him in a H2H against modern day Djokovic though.

 

[abmk]

You mean vs. '07 Bull? Possibly, though it comes with the assumption that Fred would be playing with so much freedom to begin with. Obviously that ain't a given when he's just lost to his nemesis for the 1697th time - I've made this observation before but Fred really looked resigned to perpetual 2nd-class status after that '07 FO F - and the gap between the two even on his best surface is narrowing by the day.

That's another reason why these hypos are so tricky. We like to think we can somehow transplant this or that player in another event/scenario with everything intact, but tennis IRL is more complicated.

eh, fed had beaten nadal on clay for the first time. Until nadal showed it in Wim 07 final, gap was closer on grass than on clay.

fed also went 3-2 vs nadal in 07

Again we're talking careers here, not peaks or even primes. The fact that Rafa failed to advance beyond the 4th round from 2012-17 when he was winning Slams and making the finals off grass? That's on him. Talk about vulturing all you want but Novak was there to take advantage while Bull went AWOL for 6 yrs straight. You don't get to choose your best years or your opponents IRL and that's why 6-2 is hardly outlandish if we're taking the long view.

I'm counting careers.
firstly its 5, not 6 given nadal was absent in 16.
like I said 4R losses to kyrgios/mueller were no worse than djoko's in 09/10 to haas/birdman. You are focussing too much on rounds

which leaves us with 12 Rosol, 13 darcis, 15 brown compared to 08 Safin, 16 Querrey for Djoko.
(ignoring 17 retirement to Birdman just as I ignored nadal missing Wim 16)

But that's not a fair comparison cuz Novak was the eventual champ 6 times. In these cases you have to pick the closest challenger, which is why Rafa takes Novak's place only for '07 vs. 12 and '08 vs. '13 (for '11 vs. '16 he replaces Milos). Removing Novak from the draw for his championship years gives Rafa an unfair advantage.

More on '12 Fed below but even if I give Bull '12 we're still looking at his current total of 2. I don't see '10 Bull besting Novak's (likely) best version or '11 Bull doing his usual thing vs. '16 Muzz given how Ahn-dee flat-out dismantled the Raonic serve.

for all the dismantling of the Raonic first serve, Murray still got only 1 break total due to not doing so good vs 2nd serve plus not clustering well enough.
I'm putting Nadal in Djoko's place so he goes up Djoko's competition.

making 10 nadal face off vs 15 djoko is more unfair than my scenario since difference b/w 10 nadal and 15 djoko isn't much, but clearly more so wrt to 15 fed.

Well that's still 1 more than I give Bull, so there!

nah, nadal had that in both Wim 07/08 2nd week.

I know what I saw, and I saw '12 Fred playing with such a spring in his step it really reminded me of his prime. Not to mention he came in more in 4 sets than in '07's 5. Granted he was playing Muzz, but then he also converted almost 80% of his net points vs. under 60% in both the '07 and '08 finals so that can't be chalked up to Rafa's superior passing shots. Not to mention 63.2% was his 3rd highest Wimby GW% ever.

I'll give you '07 but '08 beating '12 strikes me as far-fetched. And I certainly don't see '07 Bull besting '12 Fed by this margin when Rafa needed 5 sets to get past Sod and Misha - both baseliners, not a Kendrick or Petzschner who could catch a still grooving Nadal off guard with his constant forays to the net. Of course not even '12 Fed would be that aggressive, but then a tiny bit could mean the difference between W and L at this level.

And there's the psychological angle to consider, which also favors '12 Fed (see above). I'll grant '08 Bull would have a real chance due to his strong(er) SG, but we're still looking at a 5-setter. And he'd be playing not '12 Fed but '13 Muzz in your own scenario.

All of which is a long way of saying 2 for Bull is just about right, especially when you consider the fact that Boris has only 1 more and Jimbo and Edberg are sitting with the same # of trophies. 4 would be a big stretch for Nadal in any era, yes even this one.

eh, net play is a lesser component compared to baseline play. half the difference is due to nadal's superior passing, half due to fed being better at net in Wim 12.
and fed served clearly better in Wim 08 final than in Wim 12 final.
Look at fed winning only 40% of 6+ shot rallies vs a weaker+easier matchup in 12 djoko compared to 45% vs nadal in 2008 Wim final.

I've watched all 3 finals and 12 djoko semi multiple times. There is no question 07/08 fed was faster/more explosive.

As far as 07 Nadal is concerned, that's in the 1st 4 rounds grass. soderling's hitting and youzhny's all court play were not easy in 1st week.
nadal dominated berdych in the QF (who was a tough matchup for him until then) and played the best baseline tennis (bar fed) in this century in the final.
with good setup serving, though not as good as Wim 08 final serving.

Wim 07 final nadal ~ Wim 08 final nadal (better ground game in 07, better serving in 08)

I'm fine with Nadal having 2. and djoko 4.
2 for nadal to 3 for djokovic prime to prime and djoko having 1 more outside of prime (better careerwise)
6 is a big leap

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I mean not really tbh. If it weren't for the scheduling screwing him over 2007 Djokovic would have had a decent chance of taking out arguably Fraud's best ever opponent in a Wimbledon final imo after rewatching the first set of that one again recently. Still don't know if I'd favour him in a H2H against current Djokovic though.

Wait, are you suggesting 2021 Djokovic > 2007 Nadal at Wimbledon? I guess 2006 Ancic > 2021 Djokovic is no longer outlandish if this is fine.
The first set doesn't mean too much anyway. Lopez took the first set over Federer at 2007 USO by a break, and then we know what happened.

 

[MichaelNadal]

RS has had way too much fun here

 

[NeutralFan]

Nice profile pic.

Nice profile pic.

tough to dislike Cachavacha even for the haters.

It's depressing how the schedule screwed Embryovic back in 2007 (Nadal too, but it didn't affect him nearly as much). Else we could be looking back at him finishing what Soderling/Youzhny started.

Lol you must be fun at the parties.

 

[Biotic]

It was better than some Federer Djokovic efforts vs at RG Nadal tbh.

Think it was 2020 which the match started to come up a lot in discussion.

Better than 2006/2007 RG Djoko or 2008/2019 Fred no doubt. A couple more up for debate.

It started once "20>...>..." brigade resorted to "eye test peak level" in fear of incoming dethronement, but soon realized the desolation among the soon to be former king's prime exploits (on HC first and foremost).

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Better than 2006/2007 RG Djoko or 2008/2019 Fred no doubt. A couple more up for debate.

It started once "20>...>..." brigade resorted to "eye test peak level" in fear of incoming dethronement, but soon realized the desolation among the soon to be former king's prime exploits (on HC first and foremost).

You really watch Djokovic and think he's the best. When will delusion be realised?

 

[NeutralFan]

I mean not really tbh. If it weren't for the scheduling screwing him over 2007 Djokovic would have had a decent chance of taking out arguably Fraud's best ever opponent in a Wimbledon final imo after rewatching the first set of that one again recently. I wouldn't call it a likely outcome but its honestly not outside of the realms of possibility imo. Still don't know if I'd favour him in a H2H against modern day Djokovic though.

Pre 2011 Djokovic was at best a good player on grass in one or two Wimbledon ,i mean i have seen bad arguments full of bias but this one is just beyond laughable. 2007 Djokovic was not beating 2007 Nadal , give me the stuff you are smoking.

 

[Beerus]

If peak Grass-dull is 2008 Nadal, why is this even a question?

Prime Novak couldn’t even beat 2012 Roger.

Like any version of WB Novak is going to beat 2008 peak Bull on grass.

LOL.

Does 2008 Nadal straight-set 2015 Djokovic?

 

[TheNachoMan]

You really watch Djokovic and think he's the best.

Yes

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yes

Fedr>>>
Laver>>>
PANCHO>>>>
sad! but not really, actually amazing.

 

[abmk]

Better than 2006/2007 RG Djoko or 2008/2019 Fred no doubt. A couple more up for debate.

It started once "20>...>..." brigade resorted to "eye test peak level" in fear of incoming dethronement, but soon realized the desolation among the soon to be former king's prime exploits (on HC first and foremost).

LOL @ 2020 RG Djokovic being worse than 2007 USO QF Roddick being up for debate.
Its like a big competition b/w VB and a big chunk of Djokonatics - who can make up more delusionallly delusional stuff.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Fedr>>>
Laver>>>
PANCHO>>>>
sad! but not really, actually amazing.

Never watched Laver or Pancho aside from grainy clips so can’t comment.

 

[NoleFam]

I normally don't respond to you, because there's no point, and this is a stupid discussion anyways because I judge players by their best not their worst, but Safin in straights, Berdych twice in straights, Querrey, all of these just terrible performances. Haas loss wasn't terrible but not really any worse than 14 or 17 from nadal. That makes 5 substandard losses compared to Nadal's whopping...5.

Well I normally don't reply to you for the same reason so I guess we are on the same page. Lol. If you judge players by their best, why are you talking about matches where he clearly wasn't at his best? And Berdych didn't beat him in straights twice. He retired with injury in the 2nd set in 2017, and you're bringing up losses in 2009 and 2010 when he made the QF and SF when Nadal wasn't even making it out the 4th round from 2012-2017. None of this has anything to do with Nadal being a more natural grass court player or Djokovic not being a better grass court player, which he clearly is. Djokovic, in his career, has only lost 4 times before the QF at Wimbledon in 16 editions. Nadal has 7 times out of 14, which is half, but he's a more natural grass court player and equal to Djokovic? On Mars maybe.

 

[RS]

Best example is Hewitt USO 2004 final

Sure why not. It is up there anyway.