[POLL] If Nadal hadn't existed, would 2015-2016 have been the norm for Djokovic on clay?

[Winner Sinner]

That is, getting to the end of all the most important tournaments on the surface, winning a good part of them.
In practice, if Nadal had not existed, today we would also be talking about Djokovic as the GOAT of clay?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Djokovic can't be the GOAT though , because Borg would be there.

At the end of the day, Djokovic has not had 60% game win rate for more than 5 years I think.

Post in thread 'ATGs and 60% years , including streaks'

Dec 3, 2024

Looking at clay, there are 51 player's seasons who had 60+ game win % on clay since 1990. This is 18 more than on HC.
Coincidentally there are 17 player's seasons with game % between 60 and 60.99. So removing those we get 34 almost like on HC.

Taking minimum of 10 matches as even Nadal has had only 10 matches in COVID 20.

Player	Year	Game Won %	Matches played
Courier	1992	62.26	19
Courier	1993	64.31	13
Bruguera	1993	61.23	53

...

• nolefam_2024

• 

I think Djokovic would win around 6 RG in this hypothetical. But Fed would win around 4 himself and then rest might be won by Stan/Thiem/Murray?/Soderling and such.

So clearly below Borg and I don't know this Raz guy might win 6 himself in this time period.

In general the discussion, if x didn't exist, I don't like it.

 

[nolefam_2024]

 

[Antonio Puente]

Would 2015-2016 have been the norm?

Choking vs. Stan in 2015 and beating clay god Murray in 2016 is the sign of the GOAT?

 

[Winner Sinner]

Would 2015-2016 have been the norm?

Choking vs. Stan in 2015 and beating clay god Murray in 2016 is the sign of the GOAT?

Against that Wawrinka I think a lot of ATGs on the surface would be strangled.

That said, my reference to the 2015-2016 two-year period was not so much in reference to his level of play but to the results obtained.
In that two-year period he reached the finals in every clay tournament between the Masters 1000 and Roland Garros, also due to the fact that Nadal temporarily disappeared.
Was it just a coincidence?

 

[nolefam_2024]

Against that Wawrinka I think a lot of ATGs on the surface would be strangled.

That said, my reference to the 2015-2016 two-year period was not so much in reference to his level of play but to the results obtained.
In that two-year period he reached the finals in every clay tournament between the Masters 1000 and Roland Garros, also due to the fact that Nadal temporarily disappeared.
Was it just a coincidence?

No it was no coincidence at all

There are some L members that will put losses in your face but not wins. Always ignore them. They will do that about sinner as well the same.

When you are dominant player like Federer/Djokovic and now Sinner , the few weak spots in the play are brought up again and again.
I think Nole wins 6 but doesn't dominate like Borg did winning 6 out of 7 in 1970s

 

[Antonio Puente]

Against that Wawrinka I think a lot of ATGs on the surface would be strangled.

Right. We saw what happened when Stanimal faced the real dude.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

If Nadal hadn't existed [...]

 

[Winner Sinner]

Djokovic can't be the GOAT though , because Borg would be there.

At the end of the day, Djokovic has not had 60% game win rate for more than 5 years I think.

Post in thread 'ATGs and 60% years , including streaks'

Dec 3, 2024

Looking at clay, there are 51 player's seasons who had 60+ game win % on clay since 1990. This is 18 more than on HC.
Coincidentally there are 17 player's seasons with game % between 60 and 60.99. So removing those we get 34 almost like on HC.

Taking minimum of 10 matches as even Nadal has had only 10 matches in COVID 20.

Player	Year	Game Won %	Matches played
Courier	1992	62.26	19
Courier	1993	64.31	13
Bruguera	1993	61.23	53

...

• nolefam_2024

• 

I think Djokovic would win around 6 RG in this hypothetical. But Fed would win around 4 himself and then rest might be won by Stan/Thiem/Murray?/Soderling and such.

So clearly below Borg and I don't know this Raz guy might win 6 himself in this time period.

In general the discussion, if x didn't exist, I don't like it.

One cannot decide to retire at 26 and assume that quality trumps quantity.
Otherwise, let's retire Nadal before the Hamburg 2007 final against Federer and still proclaim him the GOAT of the surface from the height of his streak of 81 consecutive victories.

No, in a hypothetical scenario where Nadal had never existed, if Djokovic had won more on clay than Borg, at that point he would have been at least a legitimate candidate for the status of GOAT of the surface.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Right. We saw what happened when Stanimal faced the real dude.

Nadal is not a surface ATG, Nadal on clay is the GOAT of all GOATs.
If you have to troll this is not the right thread.
The topic is serious.

 

[nolefam_2024]

One cannot decide to retire at 26 and assume that quality trumps quantity.
Otherwise, let's retire Nadal before the Hamburg 2007 final against Federer and still proclaim him the GOAT of the surface from the height of his streak of 81 consecutive victories.

No, in a hypothetical scenario where Nadal had never existed, if Djokovic had won more on clay than Borg, at that point he would have been at least a legitimate candidate for the status of GOAT of the surface.

Then I think the 2015/2016 type of 2 years would easily be norm for entirety of 2010, with djokovic winning 5 at least in this time and winning what 15 masters on clay in this time period. These are very easy numbers to achieve. Djokovic won 10 masters even with nadal in it between 2011 to 2021 and 2 slams. Adding 5 masters and 3 slams is simple. Then 2023. And 2008 can push to 7.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Nadal is not a surface ATG, Nadal on clay is the GOAT of all GOATs.
If you have to troll this is not the right thread.
The topic is serious.

Right, because Djoker losing means everyone else would surely have lost to Stan.

The Stanimal myth was strong for two years but died in 2017.

 

[helterskelter]

Triple digit slams for the RPIGB in this eventuality?

 

[Winner Sinner]

Right, because Djoker losing means everyone else would surely have lost to Stan.

The Stanimal myth was strong for two years but died in 2017.

I didn't say that Wawrinka would beat all the ATGs on the surface, but I didn't want to pass that defeat off as a humiliation for Djokovic like you're trying to do.

If you're not Nadal, you can also lose to that Wawrinka in a Roland Garros final.
Borg lost twice to Panatta in Paris, so should this be humiliating for him?

 

[nolefam_2024]

I didn't say that Wawrinka would beat all the ATGs on the surface, but I didn't want to pass that defeat off as a humiliation for Djokovic like you're trying to do.

If you're not Nadal, you can also lose to that Wawrinka in a Roland Garros final.
Borg lost twice to Panatta in Paris, so should this be humiliating for him?

Yes stan is very similar

he has heavy forehand , reaching 82 mph average on clay and heavy backhand. He demolished Fed in 2015 QF and beat Fed in 2014 MC as well.

 

[Winner Sinner]

How many winners did Wawrinka hit in that final?

But it must have been because Djokovic's defense wasn't waterproof.
After all, it's well known that Djokovic is a terrible defender, isn't it? LOL

 

[nolefam_2024]

How many winners did Wawrinka hit in that final?

But it must have been because Djokovic's defense wasn't waterproof.
After all, it's well known that Djokovic is a terrible defender, isn't it? LOL

60 winners in 4 sets , 30 on FH alone. He had very heavy forehand that day. Djokovic was slightly passive I think and if they played again, this could be different result.

 

[Winner Sinner]

60 winners in 4 sets , 30 on FH alone. He had very heavy forehand that day. Djokovic was slightly passive I think and if they played again, this could be different result.

60 winners on clay is a scary number, 60 winners against Djokovic is a surreal number.

 

[nolefam_2024]

60 winners on clay is a scary number, 60 winners against Djokovic is a surreal number.

So just checked ta, he had 57 winners and 36 on forehand. That day his forehand was unbelievable.

 

[Bill Lobsalot]

I live in the world as it exists, not fantasyland.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Musetti 60 winners I think he didn't even make them in the sum of his 6 matches of the last tournament in Monte Carlo.
Obviously I'm exaggerating but it's to give an idea.

 

[Antonio Puente]

I didn't say that Wawrinka would beat all the ATGs on the surface, but I didn't want to pass that defeat off as a humiliation for Djokovic like you're trying to do.

If you're not Nadal, you can also lose to that Wawrinka in a Roland Garros final.
Borg lost twice to Panatta in Paris, so should this be humiliating for him?

I never said it was humiliation. I certainly wouldn't, however, use 2015 as some sort of alternate reality evidence of clay GOATHOOD.

Humiliation? Djoker hadn't even won a French Open at that point in 2015, and had only taken Nadal to a 5th set once(prior to 2015), so in retrospect, the loss to Stan was just another loss.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Musetti 60 winners I think he didn't even make them in the sum of his 6 matches of the last tournament in Monte Carlo.
Obviously I'm exaggerating but it's to give an idea.

If Nadal doesn't exist, Stan likely becomes multi time slam winner. Maybe he wins 2/3 RG. I think Nole will be top dog and Fed before him in 2000s and Stan will likely be better than Thiem career wise.

 

[nolefam_2024]

 

[Lleytonstation]

I live in the world as it exists, not fantasyland.

Sir, this is a TTW thread.

 

[Winner Sinner]

I never said it was humiliation. I certainly wouldn't, however, use 2015 as some sort of alternate reality evidence of clay GOATHOOD.

Humiliation? Djoker hadn't even won a French Open at that point in 2015, and had only taken Nadal to a 5th set once(prior to 2015), so in retrospect, the loss to Stan was just another loss.

Too bad this thread asks what Djokovic would have been on clay if Nadal hadn't existed.
You tell me that in 2015 he had never won a single Roland Garros and that all things considered that defeat with Wawrinka was nothing more than one of the many defeats accumulated in that tournament.

So, always trying to stay on topic of the thread, until 2015 Djokovic at Roland Garros had never faced Nadal?

And I thought they had already faced each other several times...

It seems clear and evident to me that you have not understood the pretext of the thread, or more simply you pretend not to understand it.

 

[The Blond Blur]

In a world without RAFA I see a mono free Sod being the dominant force at RG actually.

 

[MichaelNadal]

In a world without RAFA I see a mono free Sod being the dominant force at RG actually.

Crispyling

 

[GoatNo1]

we, nole fans, like to stand in the real world. it is pretty satisfying like it is. we don't need any hypothetical parallel universes. and, our guy is pretty bad in those hypothetical matches anyway that every poll with such tema can show. let fedals fans have their hipotetikal wins and titles we can stick to the real ones. it is just fine as it is.

 

[mehdimike]

Djokovic can't be the GOAT though , because Borg would be there.

At the end of the day, Djokovic has not had 60% game win rate for more than 5 years I think.

Post in thread 'ATGs and 60% years , including streaks'

Dec 3, 2024

Looking at clay, there are 51 player's seasons who had 60+ game win % on clay since 1990. This is 18 more than on HC.
Coincidentally there are 17 player's seasons with game % between 60 and 60.99. So removing those we get 34 almost like on HC.

Taking minimum of 10 matches as even Nadal has had only 10 matches in COVID 20.

Player	Year	Game Won %	Matches played
Courier	1992	62.26	19
Courier	1993	64.31	13
Bruguera	1993	61.23	53

...

• nolefam_2024

• 

I think Djokovic would win around 6 RG in this hypothetical. But Fed would win around 4 himself and then rest might be won by Stan/Thiem/Murray?/Soderling and such.

So clearly below Borg and I don't know this Raz guy might win 6 himself in this time period.

In general the discussion, if x didn't exist, I don't like it.

Fed only 4?
2005-06-07-08-09-11 are all for Roger, IMO. And that would be 6 titles at RG.

 

[roysid]

Djokovic can't be the GOAT though , because Borg would be there.

At the end of the day, Djokovic has not had 60% game win rate for more than 5 years I think.

Post in thread 'ATGs and 60% years , including streaks'

Dec 3, 2024

Looking at clay, there are 51 player's seasons who had 60+ game win % on clay since 1990. This is 18 more than on HC.
Coincidentally there are 17 player's seasons with game % between 60 and 60.99. So removing those we get 34 almost like on HC.

Taking minimum of 10 matches as even Nadal has had only 10 matches in COVID 20.

Player	Year	Game Won %	Matches played
Courier	1992	62.26	19
Courier	1993	64.31	13
Bruguera	1993	61.23	53

...

• nolefam_2024

• 

I think Djokovic would win around 6 RG in this hypothetical. But Fed would win around 4 himself and then rest might be won by Stan/Thiem/Murray?/Soderling and such.

So clearly below Borg and I don't know this Raz guy might win 6 himself in this time period.

In general the discussion, if x didn't exist, I don't like it.

I agree. Those 'If' threads are all hypothesis and hence meaningless. Lets stick to the facts.
So many examples of 'if'
If there was no Nadal, Roger wins everything in 2006 and 2007.
If there was no Nadal, Djokovic wins this many Roland garros.
If there was no Djokovic, roger wins 5+ more slams and so on..

Its pointless. It doesn't happen. Players don't disappear unless you do a 'Gunther parche'

 

[NatF]

It would have been the worst clay field of all-time without Nadal.

 

[RS]

I don't agree with taking Nadal out but yeah if you did he wins more on clay.

I don't think he would reach 10 like he did at AO though.

 

[Hitman]

Without Nadal, Djokovic doesn't become the player he is. He is that good on clay because of his battles with Nadal.

 

[StrongRule]

Without Nadal, Djokovic doesn't become the player he is. He is that good on clay because of his battles with Nadal.

So if Nadal wouldn't exist, Djokovic wouldn't be able to beat the likes of collapsing Murray or Ruud? I doubt you actually believe that.

 

[Hitman]

So if Nadal wouldn't exist, Djokovic wouldn't be able to beat the likes of collapsing Murray or Ruud? I doubt you actually believe that.

We don't know what kind of a player he would have become. Would he have fixed his gluten intolerance issue? Would he have felt compelled to up his fitness, stamina, and ball tolerance that much more? He states himself that he needed Nadal to become the player he would go onto to be, without Nadal honestly, I don't know what he achieves.

 

[Bill Lobsalot]

Sir, this is a TTW thread.

What was I thinking?

 

[Angrybirdstar]

That is, getting to the end of all the most important tournaments on the surface, winning a good part of them.

for the sake of comparing to other years, if we interpret success as "making it to Nadal OR the final" (because of wacky seeding and Nadal very rarely failing)

'11-'14 Djokovic failed twice vs Federer, once vs Tipsarevic on blue clay, and twice vs Dimitrov and Berdych in the '13 Masters (following his upset of Nadal to win Monte Carlo), while succeeding nine times

'19-'23 Djokovic failed vs Medvedev, Thiem, Evans, ADF, Alcaraz, Musetti, and Rune (seven times), while succeeding nine times

i'd say the '15-'16 consistency wouldn't have been the norm even without Nadal, for the simple reason that it wasn't quite the case in the rest of his prime and definitely not the case in his post-prime (even when Nadal was at similar non-dominating levels to '15-'16)

In practice, if Nadal had not existed, today we would also be talking about Djokovic as the GOAT of clay?

definitely not. didn't dominate the field enough

Against that Wawrinka I think a lot of ATGs on the surface would be strangled.

not many RG winners would have allowed '15 Wawrinka to wreak havoc in the way Djokovic did. basically just Gaudio, Kafelnikov, and Lendl in the OE afaict

One cannot decide to retire at 26 and assume that quality trumps quantity.

in a hypothetical scenario where Nadal had never existed, if Djokovic had won more on clay than Borg, at that point he would have been at least a legitimate candidate for the status of GOAT of the surface.

Borg had plenty of quantity to go with his vastly higher quality lol. as it is their (official) win counts on clay are practically identical!

How many winners did Wawrinka hit in that final?

how many errors did Djokovic hit in that final?

In a world without RAFA I see a mono free Sod being the dominant force at RG actually.

are you trolling, or are you thinking of a 1D basher, with a 2-22 h2h vs Fedole and no clay Masters SFs, as the next coming of Kuerten? never mind Soderling's mental health and his struggles with anxiety?

It would have been the worst clay field of all-time without Nadal.

how would you rank '05-'10 vs '11-'16 vs '17-'20 vs '21-'24? what ~4-6 year stretch post-'72 would be 5th worst?

 

[insideoutforehanders]

No. Djokovic is the player he is in large part due to Federer and Nadal, and the clay courter he is largely due to Nadal. Without Nadal he would not be as good and not win all the hypothetical titles (7 or 8 max as it is) without Nadal. And without Nadal, it would be hands down the worst clay field in history, it is a terrible one as it is even with Nadal and Djokovic both in it, and his acheivements would at best be roughly on par with Borg but in a 10 times worse field, and with Borg retiring at 26. Pretty easy to see who would still be considered superior of those two.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

So if Nadal wouldn't exist, Djokovic wouldn't be able to beat the likes of collapsing Murray or Ruud? I doubt you actually believe that.

Well beating the likes of Murray (on clay) and Ruud for most of his RG titles would not make him considered the clay GOAT by anyone anyway, especialy not over Borg, so the point is moot regardless.

 

[The Blond Blur]

are you trolling, or are you thinking of a 1D basher, with a 2-22 h2h vs Fedole and no clay Masters SFs, as the next coming of Kuerten? never mind Soderling's mental health and his struggles with anxiety?

Ok, pause. You do realize Sod made back to back RG Fs and has beaten both Fedal at RG, right? Who knows what winning RG in 2010 (he had already taken out Fed and there’s no RAFA now) would have done for his confidence. He had another deep run in 2011, but he was stopped by, you guessed it RAFA. He then unfortunately got mono later that year iirc and was basically retired smack dab in the middle of his prime/peak years. It’s not out of this world to think he could have won multiple RG’s in a RAFAless universe. He was basically Stan 1.0 and would only bother showing up for the schlems.

 

[NatF]

how would you rank '05-'10 vs '11-'16 vs '17-'20 vs '21-'24? what ~4-6 year stretch post-'72 would be 5th worst?

Probably...17-20 > 21-24 because there was still a prime'ish Nadal. Not sure about whether I'd put 05-10 over 11-16, or the other way around. I think 2005-2010 had the higher floor as even though I consider 2006/2007 very lackluster years on clay as far as depth goes there was still a strong top 2 which I think put it's over years like 2015 and especially 2016. But 2011-2013 were pretty good years in terms of the top players and depth, and they were consecutive as well so that's a bit of a bonus versus 2005-2010 which had some good years like 2005, 2008/2009 but they weren't grouped together. I would tend to 2005-2010 because Nadal was better in that period but I think either is fine.

 

[Third Serve]

Nadal was the only thing keeping this field from being the worst of all time, so sure Djokovic would win a lot without him but you’d need to weigh those achievements appropriately against those of Borg and Lendl.

 

[Racquet_smash]

It would have been the worst clay field of all-time without Nadal.

The current ones disagrees.

 

[NatF]

The current ones disagrees.

The current era is it's own thing, can't be compared to normal era's as it's defacto the worst in every way.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

You do realize Sod made back to back RG Fs and has beaten both Fedal at RG, right?

needed non-finals, diminished Nadal, and rain-deadened courts to fluke those wins. order was restored to the universe when even light balls couldn't get him a set against '11 Nadal. even got outpeaked by del Potro at YEC '09, so let's not act like this mythical peak was easily accessible even in favorable conditions when it came to big matches

Who knows what winning RG in 2010 (he had already taken out Fed and there’s no RAFA now) would have done for his confidence.

who knows what winning RG 3-5 times would have done for Federer's confidence going into RG '10? who knows what not getting to beat Nadal at RG '09 and facing a reshuffled RG '10 draw does to Soderling's chances of finding Federer at the right time to beat him and win RG '10?

It’s not out of this world to think he could have won multiple RG’s in a RAFAless universe. He was basically Stan 1.0

Wawrinka could actually rally to earn his winners, thus why he made 9 QFs in 3 years to Soderling's 6. 1-6 vs Djokovic isn't too promising!

Probably...17-20 > 21-24 because there was still a prime'ish Nadal. Not sure about whether I'd put 05-10 over 11-16, or the other way around. I think 2005-2010 had the higher floor as even though I consider 2006/2007 very lackluster years on clay as far as depth goes there was still a strong top 2 which I think put it's over years like 2015 and especially 2016. But 2011-2013 were pretty good years in terms of the top players and depth, and they were consecutive as well so that's a bit of a bonus versus 2005-2010 which had some good years like 2005, 2008/2009 but they weren't grouped together. I would tend to 2005-2010 because Nadal was better in that period but I think either is fine.

oh all good to know, but i was wondering about all those years' fields Without Nadal, and then what you'd say the next weakest was

@Third Serve feel free to chip in as well

 

[The Blond Blur]

needed non-finals, diminished Nadal, and rain-deadened courts to fluke those wins. order was restored to the universe when even light balls couldn't get him a set against '11 Nadal. even got outpeaked by del Potro at YEC '09, so let's not act like this mythical peak was easily accessible even in favorable conditions when it came to big matches

who knows what winning RG 3-5 times would have done for Federer's confidence going into RG '10? who knows what not getting to beat Nadal at RG '09 and facing a reshuffled RG '10 draw does to Soderling's chances of finding Federer at the right time to beat him and win RG '10?

Wawrinka could actually rally to earn his winners, thus why he made 9 QFs in 3 years to Soderling's 6. 1-6 vs Djokovic isn't too promising!

oh all good to know, but i was wondering about all those years' fields Without Nadal, and then what you'd say the next weakest was

@Third Serve feel free to chip in as well

Did he need ideal conditions and a physically hampered RAFA get the win in 09? Yeah, but he also played damn good ball that day and fortnight to make the F. His win over Fed the following year was even more impressive. Fed’s clay game was only getting worse as he aged going into the 2010’s and it wasn’t like he was lacking in confidence. He just came off of winning the title in 09, lol. Fed would have been the dominant guy in the 00’s, but considering the OP specifically mentioned 2015-2016 I’m taking it to mean he’d be referring to the 2010’s being Joker’s clay era. And Stan was 2-15 vs Joker before AO 14, lol. That didn’t stop him from pasting Joker in the 2015 F.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

12 slams for Tim Henman.

 

[RS]

Yeah as for Soderling I can see him winning RG in a hypothetical time frame but I wouldn't think he would clean up even at RG.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Yeah as for Soderling I can see him winning RG in a hypothetical time frame but I wouldn't think he would clean up even at RG.

Hypothetical time frame. lol