Rafa held slams on all 3 surfaces TWICE

punterlad

Hall of Fame
Holding slams on all 3 surfaces TWICE > Nole weak era slam

GOLD OLYMPICS MEDAL > Wtf

9-2 vs Federer > 9-6 vs Federer

Rafole: 9 slam wins > 4 slam wins

14 slams > 12 slams

Winning 2 slams on each surface > Winning 1 slam on each surface

Etc. Etc. Etc. :rolleyes:
Great post except for the Novak weak era slam. Djokovic achieved something special and we should applaud him for that.

The one thing that strikes me from your excellent post is federer having a losing record against both his main rivals at the majors.
 
Sorry @nadalfan2013 broken streaks don't count. And you can't mix AO with USO and say it is HC.
The name of this thread should have been
"Nadal failed to win 4 in a row TWICE"
To Murray :D:D:D
The difference between most of Nadal's slams and most of Djokovic's slams is that one of these player's came in a very weak era. They don't count the same.
2015 is slightly stronger than 2010.
Djokovic only got it easier in 2016 and still he played his best at RG+a masterclass semi at AO to wins his Slams.
AO15 is the only Slam that can be argued as weak mainly because he should have lost the SF.;)
 

punterlad

Hall of Fame
He never won the NOLE SLAM. He never won WTF. He doesn't have the Masters record. He doesn't have a winning record vs Federer on grass. He is not undefeated vs Federer in Wimbledon finals. He doesn't have the Federer slam(beating him at all slams). He doesn't have the Nole Slam either. Djokovic has beaten both at every slam. Djokovic is GOAT?
I'd say Rafa is goat but your very good post does make a good argument for any goat debate to be between nadal and Djokovic in reality.

While nadal and Djokovic fans have this little spat and hurl stats a team one another supporting their player it seems to me the most damaged becomes federer...
 
Sorry @nadalfan2013 broken streaks don't count. And you can't mix AO with USO and say it is HC.
The name of this thread should have been
"Nadal failed to win 4 in a row TWICE"
To Murray :D:D:D

2015 is slightly stronger than 2010.
Djokovic only got it easier in 2016 and still he played his best at RG+a masterclass semi at AO to wins his Slams.
AO15 is the only Slam that can be argued as weak mainly because he should have lost the SF.;)
LOL no. Beating Ancienterer in Wimbledon these past few years in the final was a joke. Not even close to going head to head with the GOAT in 2007 and 2008.

If Nadal had been healthy he would have 20 slams by now.
 
LOL no. Beating Ancienterer in Wimbledon these past few years in the final was a joke. Not even close to going head to head with the GOAT in 2007 and 2008.
It is called match-up Rusty,Djokovic was also going toe to toe with Nadal in Queen's and Olympics. Nadal at his absolute best vs. a young Djoker years before his prime;)
Djokovic would wish to have such a good match up against Federer,but at the same time he was a good match up against Nadal hence his good record against him.

Strictly for grass I gave Nadal a slight edge,but they aren't worlds apart peak for peak.
The AO has been played on hard courts since 1988 and USO --- since 1978.
Right,but I made a different point.
If you lose AO you still have a chance to win a Slam on 3 surfaces at USO,while losing RG or Wimby means you don't get a 2nd chance.
So you can't just put AO and USO in the mix the way OP did.
 

Rafa the King

Hall of Fame
@InsideOut900 you are mad to think Nole 2008 is not part of his prime. It is a free hitting Nole with great movement and serve who would have won 3 slams had it not been for peak Rafa and prime Rog. 2008 is easily better than years such as 2012, 2013 and 2014. 2008 Nole wouldn't have done any worse at the majors this year, if anything he would have won USO too. Maybe you need to go and watch some highlights cause you obviously missed the live matches ;)
 
It is called match-up Rusty,Djokovic was also going toe to toe with Nadal in Queen's and Olympics. Nadal at his absolute best vs. a young Djoker years before his prime;)
Djokovic would wish to have such a good match up against Federer,but at the same time he was a good match up against Nadal hence his good record against him.

Strictly for grass I gave Nadal a slight edge,but they aren't worlds apart peak for peak.
Being worlds apart at the elite just doesn't happen. It's small margins that set the difference, even in cases where a player routs the other. And yes, matchup makes a difference. But to say "young" Djokovic was going toe to toe with Nadal is a little misleading. Yes, he was competitive. But in the slams he wasn't even close until 2011.

Djokovic's most impressive feat to date is 2011, no matter what anyone says. I'm still figuring out how he pulled it out. Really impressive stuff. Because, while Nadal wasn't at his absolute peak, he was definitely in his prime and playing well (except against Djokovic).

All I'm saying is the real GOAT, that mythical creature conjured by trolls in dark and stormy nights to terrorize children in every continent, doesn't really exist. The real GOAT would have been Nadal without injuries. ;)
 
Sure...but any of Federer's uso draws were tougher than Nadal's in 2010.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
This is patently false, as nothing is tough for the GOAT. ;)

Therefore, being a GOAT is an unfair advantage, as it makes every achievement too easy, which means he should be stripped of his GOAT title.

If you think this is solid logic then you are an outstanding human bean.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
TBH though your point doesn't fit here as it's a very very narrow argument brought up by some of the more one eyed Djokovic fans.

Personally I think it's a stupid debate over who had a better record at an event where both have same number of victories!! But as some people insist on trying to argue two is more than two then the globes are off so to speak!

The problem with people like that cockney bloke or girl is that when at Wimbledon nadal and Djokovic were two wins apiece some federer and Djokovic fans were saying Djokovic had the better Wimbledon record as h2h at Wimbledon it was 1-0 Djokovic as the nadal win was only because Novak was injured.

So it is highly ironic that when the tables are turned at USO suddenly being the best runner up is significant! That wasn't the case before Wimbledon 2015.

As u are well aware I have nothing but admiration for Djokovic . Most of his fans are Brilliant as well , far more level headed than many federer fans.

I don't know how u feel though, personally I think the USO and FO are the most disappointing in Djokovic career as actually he is much better at those venues than at Wimbledon where he has hugely over achieved .

Djokovic 2 titles + 5 finals. Sorry mate but no way in hell does one h2h Victory over djoko at uso make up for Nadal. Sry m8
 

S'in-net

Semi-Pro
Holding slams on all 3 surfaces TWICE > Nole weak era slam
GOLD OLYMPICS MEDAL > Wtf
9-2 vs Federer > 9-6 vs Federer
Rafole: 9 slam wins > 4 slam wins
14 slams > 12 slams
Winning 2 slams on each surface > Winning 1 slam on each surface

Etc. Etc. Etc. :rolleyes:

Here's the Etc. Etc. Etc. part :

Just for a moment subtract Federer off of his weakest grand slam surface (clay), not knocking clay here
just seeing how Federer's greatest rivals perform against him in grand slams minus his weakest surface
And you have this :
Eight losses to Djokovic at all the other GS's
Four losses to Nadal at all the other GS's

Reverse the performance zone and now keep Federer's favourite grand slam surface (grass)
whilst subtracting all the other surfaces to see how Federer's greatest rivals perform against him in grand slams, on Federer's strongest surface
And you have this :
Two losses to Djokovic at his favourite surface slam (the only player to have beaten Federer twice at AELTC)
One loss to Nadal...

Now go to the middle ground and only keep all grand slams played on hard court surfaces
to see how Federer's greatest rivals perform against him, in grand slams, on hard court surfaces
And you have this :
Six losses to Djokovic
Three losses to Nadal

Now compare the big three in finals aggregated against each other :

Nadal leads Federer in finals 14/7
Djokovic leads Federer in finals 11/6 (+ a withdrawal)
Djokovic leads Nadal in finals 14/10

Overall :
Djokovic 25/16 = + 9 (+ a withdrawal)
Nadal 24/21 = + 3
Federer 13/25 = - 12

+ 9 Djokovic is symbolic : (if you put Nadal/Federer together you get - 9) :p
 

punterlad

Hall of Fame
Djokovic 2 titles + 5 finals. Sorry mate but no way in hell does one h2h Victory over djoko at uso make up for Nadal. Sry m8
Of course it does!! It's the absolute crucial tie breaker....a fact federer and Djokovic fans used against nadal when nadal and Djokovic were 2-2 at wimbledon! Unfortunately you guys can't have it both ways. U made the rules...now you have to play by them. Nadal has a better USO record than Djokovic according to federer and Djokovic fans own criteria!
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Great post except for the Novak weak era slam. Djokovic achieved something special and we should applaud him for that.

The one thing that strikes me from your excellent post is federer having a losing record against both his main rivals at the majors.

You should also factor in Nadal's H2H with Fed being heavily clay/AO plexicushion skewed, with Nadal not good enough to reach Fed at USO/AO during his peak. With 2 of those wins coming vs Grandad Fed and coincidentally at two of his best AO runs in 2012/2014.

You also forgot that Djokovic's grand slam 9-6 literally includes 7 wins at his peak vs a grandad. If we take out Fed's 07 AO win too for fairness (vs Djokovic not yet a top 3 player) then Fed is 5-2 at grand slams.
 

punterlad

Hall of Fame
You should also factor in Nadal's H2H with Fed being heavily clay/AO plexicushion skewed, with Nadal not good enough to reach Fed at USO/AO during his peak. With 2 of those wins coming vs Grandad Fed and coincidentally at two of his best AO runs in 2012/2014.

You also forgot that Djokovic's grand slam 9-6 literally includes 7 wins at his peak vs a grandad. If we take out Fed's 07 AO win too for fairness (vs Djokovic not yet a top 3 player) then Fed is 5-2 at grand slams.
Both times nadal won USO federer lost to djokovic in semi final i think?

Point taken about federer v Djokovic. Truth is they have never played peak v peak. 6 year age gap was too big a gap.

I would say nadal v federer is significant for nadals win over federer at w 2008 (although federer even then probably past his peak) and AO 2009 as federer was close enough to his peak to have tagged Rafa in one of those matches . As for nadals other two AO wins I don't place huge significance on them as federer was way past his best then. Equally though same has to be said for Djokovic win over nadal at FO 2015. Actually I think part of Djokovic sudden decline is because although he won the FO finally it probably has hit him that he did it after nadal had declined. While I think Djokovic deserves load she of credit, from what we see if Djokovic I suspect in his mind winning the FO didn't mean quite as much as it would had he done it beating peak nadal which deep down he knows he was good enough to have done at least once
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Take away AO plexicushion, clay and grass and let's see the H2H:

7-6 Fed

And that includes a couple of 2013 resurgent Nadal wins vs broken back Grandad Fed.

The H2H is a meaningless nothing stat, inflated by fortunate circumstances and Nadal's inability to reach Fed at his favourite tournaments with any frequency.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Both times nadal won USO federer lost to djokovic in semi final i think?

Point taken about federer v Djokovic. Truth is they have never played peak v peak. 6 year age gap was too big a gap.

I would say nadal v federer is significant for nadals win over federer at w 2008 (although federer even then probably past his peak) and AO 2009 as federer was close enough to his peak to have tagged Rafa in one of those matches . As for nadals other two AO wins I don't place huge significance on them as federer was way past his best then. Equally though same has to be said for Djokovic win over nadal at FO 2015. Actually I think part of Djokovic sudden decline is because although he won the FO finally it probably has hit him that he did it after nadal had declined. While I think Djokovic deserves load she of credit, from what we see if Djokovic I suspect in his mind winning the FO didn't mean quite as much as it would had he done it beating peak nadal which deep down he knows he was good enough to have done at least once


The only matches I really look at in the Fedal debate are Rome 06, W07/08, AO09, WTF10/11 which show a real close competitive rivalry.

I don't really pay attention to numerous clay wins for Nadal, including a few wins vs broken back grampa Fed in 2013. 13-2 to be precise.

Fed has already proved and sealed his superiority over Djokovic with his RG 2011 and W 2012 SF win. Way past his prime entering Grandad age and owns Peak Djokovic, and also dominates and held MPs at USO. Those matches sealed the deal and any post 2012 Djokovic superiority is pretty irrelevant considering it's a 32+ year old playing vs a brick wall / robot who makes few errors and is in his absolute prime.

We can deduce that peak Fed would have wiped the floor with djokovic based on those matches. 03-07 Fed would've straight setted Djokovic at 14/15 W/USO.
 

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
Yet another proof that Nadal is better than Djokovic, yet the Non-Calendar Slam rates a bit higher for me than holding 3 slams on 3 different surfaces. Winning 3 straight Slams in a calendar year like Rafa in 2010 is something we're not going to see in a long time. But for me, the Nadal from Hamburg 2008 to Madrid 2009 was the best Nadal version I've ever seen, 3 slams on 3 dif. surfaces, 5 M1000s, Olympic Gold on a fast court, dethroning the All Mighty Roger Federer is a thing of just one person.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Of course it does!! It's the absolute crucial tie breaker....a fact federer and Djokovic fans used against nadal when nadal and Djokovic were 2-2 at wimbledon! Unfortunately you guys can't have it both ways. U made the rules...now you have to play by them. Nadal has a better USO record than Djokovic according to federer and Djokovic fans own criteria!

You are good at generelizing. Why do you keep using you, meaning everyone? Nadal was held as the better Wimbledon player as he had two titles just as Djokovic but he had 3 additional wimbledin finals. The majority held rafa higher at Wimbledon, and polls here have proven that, UNTIL, Djokovic won his 3rd Wimbledon. So Sorry m8 u are wrong yet again.
 

Tennease

Legend
DuII is the only tennis player in the history of mankind who picked butt and sniffed it on 3 different surfaces.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
DuII is the only tennis player in the history of mankind who picked butt and sniffed it on 3 different surfaces.

And you're the only hater who's seen more footage of Nadal than his biggest fangirls :D

qMOKX.gif
 

Luckydog

Professional
Here's the Etc. Etc. Etc. part :

Just for a moment subtract Federer off of his weakest grand slam surface (clay), not knocking clay here
just seeing how Federer's greatest rivals perform against him in grand slams minus his weakest surface
And you have this :
Eight losses to Djokovic at all the other GS's
Four losses to Nadal at all the other GS's

Reverse the performance zone and now keep Federer's favourite grand slam surface (grass)
whilst subtracting all the other surfaces to see how Federer's greatest rivals perform against him in grand slams, on Federer's strongest surface
And you have this :
Two losses to Djokovic at his favourite surface slam (the only player to have beaten Federer twice at AELTC)
One loss to Nadal...

Now go to the middle ground and only keep all grand slams played on hard court surfaces
to see how Federer's greatest rivals perform against him, in grand slams, on hard court surfaces
And you have this :
Six losses to Djokovic
Three losses to Nadal

Now compare the big three in finals aggregated against each other :

Nadal leads Federer in finals 14/7
Djokovic leads Federer in finals 11/6 (+ a withdrawal)
Djokovic leads Nadal in finals 14/10

Overall :
Djokovic 25/16 = + 9 (+ a withdrawal)
Nadal 24/21 = + 3
Federer 13/25 = - 12

+ 9 Djokovic is symbolic : (if you put Nadal/Federer together you get - 9) :p
Defeating old men is great glory,no?:rolleyes:
 

punterlad

Hall of Fame
You are good at generelizing. Why do you keep using you, meaning everyone? Nadal was held as the better Wimbledon player as he had two titles just as Djokovic but he had 3 additional wimbledin finals. The majority held rafa higher at Wimbledon, and polls here have proven that, UNTIL, Djokovic won his 3rd Wimbledon. So Sorry m8 u are wrong yet again.
Now you just making stuff up! All I ever read on here was nadals 2-3 Wimbledon record was less impressive than Djokovic 2-1 record!!!

Problem with jealous Rafa haters is they end up contradicting themselves time and time again
 

punterlad

Hall of Fame
The only matches I really look at in the Fedal debate are Rome 06, W07/08, AO09, WTF10/11 which show a real close competitive rivalry.

I don't really pay attention to numerous clay wins for Nadal, including a few wins vs broken back grampa Fed in 2013. 13-2 to be precise.

Fed has already proved and sealed his superiority over Djokovic with his RG 2011 and W 2012 SF win. Way past his prime entering Grandad age and owns Peak Djokovic, and also dominates and held MPs at USO. Those matches sealed the deal and any post 2012 Djokovic superiority is pretty irrelevant considering it's a 32+ year old playing vs a brick wall / robot who makes few errors and is in his absolute prime.

We can deduce that peak Fed would have wiped the floor with djokovic based on those matches. 03-07 Fed would've straight setted Djokovic at 14/15 W/USO.
I think it's all about match ups. I'm a huge admire of Djokovic but I tend to agree that peak federer v peak Djokovic is going to go the way of federer . Their dynamic is a. It like the Sampras Agassi dynamic where Sampras at his best just had too much game. I think the fact Djokovic struggles with wawrinka who lets be honest is not in the same league as peak federer tends to support your analysis.

Nadal clearly had a style of game that exposed a weakness in federers game. Similarly the likes of del Porto, tsonga and soderling all exposed a flaw in the nadal game. Play lights out tennis rather than percentage tennis and you can hit him off court as he stands too far back too often.

There has never been a player without weakness and that's why every player in history has had a type of player they struggle with.
 

nadalfan2013

Professional
No I was taking away their favoured surfaces to see their H2H on neutral ground. The H2H is irrelevant for a number of reasons.

yeah cause AO plexicussion is their favorite surface. You just took it out to help Federer. Stop being a troll you are embarrassing yourself :rolleyes:
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
yeah cause AO plexicussion is their favorite surface. You just took it out to help Federer. Stop being a troll you are embarrassing yourself :rolleyes:

Its a better surface for Rafa than Fed yes. Add to that fact Fed was 30 then 32 and playing Rafa during two of his best runs which once again is lucky for Rafa in terms of H2H.

The only ones embarrassing themselves are anyone who claims the H2H has any significance.
 

nadalfan2013

Professional
Its a better surface for Rafa than Fed yes. Add to that fact Fed was 30 then 32 and playing Rafa during two of his best runs which once again is lucky for Rafa in terms of H2H.

The only ones embarrassing themselves are anyone who claims the H2H has any significance.

And indoor such as Basel and WTF also are better surfaces for Roger so we should take them away too. At the rate you're taking away surfaces, there will be no tennis left. Like I said, stop embarrassing yourself :rolleyes:
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
And indoor such as Basel and WTF also are better surfaces for Roger so we should take them away too. At the rate you're taking away surfaces, there will be no tennis left. Like I said, stop embarrassing yourself :rolleyes:

And Fed is 5-1 on indoor... compared to Rafa being 13-2 on clay.

The point being, Rafa was fortunate to play Fed more times on HIS favoured surfaces, but wasn't good enough to reach Fed more times on indoor surfaces.... which has skewed the H2H in Rafa's favour.

Imagine if Halle was a masters and Rafa reached Fed there at like 5 finals just like Fed reaching multiple Monte Carlo / Rome finals? That's another 4-1 or 5-0 for Fed.

H2H is a completely irrelevant pointless stat. Stop embarrassing yourself.
 

nadalfan2013

Professional
And Fed is 5-1 on indoor... compared to Rafa being 13-2 on clay.

The point being, Rafa was fortunate to play Fed more times on HIS favoured surfaces, but wasn't good enough to reach Fed more times on indoor surfaces.... which has skewed the H2H in Rafa's favour.

Imagine if Halle was a masters and Rafa reached Fed there at like 5 finals just like Fed reaching multiple Monte Carlo / Rome finals? That's another 4-1 or 5-0 for Fed.

H2H is a completely irrelevant pointless stat. Stop embarrassing yourself.

The H2h is relevant. Rafa leads Federer 4-2 in slams even when you eliminate clay. But you want to talk about slams? Both Federer and Djokovic have the advantage to have 2 out of 4 slams on hardcourt which is their best surface (if you add grass it becomes 3 out of 4), while Rafa has the disadvantage of only having 1 out of 4 slams on clay his best surface. DESPITE that disadvantage, Rafa is up there with the slams tally. If that doesn't open your eyes how Rafa is the GOAT, then you are blind. If all surfaces were equal in the slams, Rafa would have the slams record.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Let's extrapolate and say they played each other 15 times on grass and indoor as well as clay, and outdoor HC for fairness.

Grass : 11-4 Fed
Indoor: 12-3 Fed
Clay: 13-2 Nadal
Outdoor HC: 11-4 Nadal

Overall H2H Federer 29 - 31 Nadal

A close fair H2H
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
The H2h is relevant. Rafa leads Federer 4-2 in slams even when you eliminate clay. But you want to talk about slams? Both Federer and Djokovic have the advantage to have 2 out of 4 slams on hardcourt which is their best surface (if you add grass it becomes 3 out of 4), while Rafa has the disadvantage of only having 1 out of 4 slams on clay his best surface. DESPITE that disadvantage, Rafa is up there with the slams tally. If that doesn't open your eyes how Rafa is the GOAT, then you are blind. If all surfaces were equal in the slams, Rafa would have the slams record.

2 of those non clay wins were vs grandad Fed in 2012 and 2014 so he has a huge age advantage there.


Rafa's peak AO level in 09 is the highest plexicushion level ever and he has 2 USO titles so is no mug there. So Fedavic have no advantage there over Nadal when all are capable on the surface.

Quite embarrassing you want to mention grass as some kind of Nadal weakness, considering his excellent 06-10 performances there.

I don't need to open my eyes to anything :D Fed is the GOAT and will remain so until surpassed. Nadal is top 3 though for sure.

Only in the eyes of deluded trolls like yourself is an Olympics singles gold more significant than WTF.
 
Top