Rafael Nadal: ´Novak Djokovic the Toughest Opponent I Ever Had´

[chjtennis]

But what is Fed gonna "correct" against Nadal? He has never figured Nadal out after 33 freakin matches.

For example, if they played on HC like 10 times during 2004-2007, I guess Federer could've won at least 7 times, maybe even more. That would've given Federer more confidence and the subsequent matches could've been quite different as well since tennis (or sports i general) is quite a psychological game. I would've picked Federer certainly at USO in those years.

 

[mattosgrant]

For example, if they played on HC like 10 times during 2004-2007, I guess Federer could've won at least 7 times, maybe even more. That would've given Federer more confidence and the subsequent matches could've been quite different as well since tennis (or sports i general) is quite a psychological game. I would've picked Federer certainly at USO in those years.

It is hard to say. If Nadal were reaching Federer that often it would likely mean he was a better player, particularly on hard courts, than he actually was. Given the match up as it already was, this would be a really scary and bad thing for Federer who already was on the verge of a straight sets loss to Nadal in the 2005 Miami final, lost in 3 sets despite playing well on a lightning fast Dubai court, and struggled to beat a novice Nadal in the 06 Wimbledon final, and even moreso with an improving Nadal in the 07 Wimbledon final. So facing Nadal who was actually better duuring 04-07 which he would have to be in order to be playing Fed this often, and given the match up issues, no I don't see Roger winning 7 of 10 at all.

 

[chjtennis]

It is hard to say. If Nadal were reaching Federer that often it would likely mean he was a better player, particularly on hard courts, than he actually was. Given the match up as it already was, this would be a really scary and bad thing for Federer who already was on the verge of a straight sets loss to Nadal in the 2005 Miami final, lost in 3 sets despite playing well on a lightning fast Dubai court, and struggled to beat a novice Nadal in the 06 Wimbledon final, and even moreso with an improving Nadal in the 07 Wimbledon final. So facing Nadal who was actually better duuring 04-07 which he would have to be in order to be playing Fed this often, and given the match up issues, no I don't see Roger winning 7 of 10 at all.

That certainly is a reasonable argument, but reaching to the final doesn't necessarily mean Nadal would've been as good as he was in 2008-2014. Djokovic and Murray was still good enough to beat everyone except Federer and Nadal before 2011. Nadal would've probably been about as good as that before entering his peak on HC.

 

[mattosgrant]

That certainly is a reasonable argument, but reaching to the final doesn't necessarily mean Nadal would've been as good as he was in 2008-2014. Djokovic and Murray was still good enough to beat everyone except Federer and Nadal before 2011. Nadal would've probably been about as good as that before entering his peak on HC.

I guess that is true but since 2005-2007 featured a whole bunch of flat ball hitters at their all time peak who were nightmarish match ups for Nadal and who he hated playing worse than Federer, I am thinking he would have to be scary good to be playing Federer that often on hard courts those few years. And it would not be a good situation for Federer if that were the case.

 

[chjtennis]

I guess that is true but since 2005-2007 featured a whole bunch of flat ball hitters at their all time peak who were nightmarish match ups for Nadal and who he hated playing worse than Federer, I am thinking he would have to be scary good to be playing Federer that often on hard courts those few years. And it would not be a good situation for Federer if that were the case.

I guess the point of such argument(that Federer would've beaten Nadal most of the times outside the clay in 2004-2007), is merely to counter the H2H argument between them which is often used against Federer rather harshly. While H2H is a valid way to compare players, there are exceptions where it cannot be used directly but should be considered in context. That's the whole point of the argument. I think in Federer v Nadal case, we should all read their H2H in context otherwise we can always fall into the mistake of just saying Nadal is far better and greater player than Federer. If Nadal was, he should've been the one who had dominance at no. 1 for all those period, but it was in fact Federer who held that position despite all the losses he suffered by the hands of Nadal. If you combine the two (H2H and rankings), you get more correct picture of the situation which is that Nadal was ultra dominant on clay but Federer was overall the most dominant payer(which means he was better on other surfaces thus he could've beaten Nadal there). Their H2H should be considered with these factors in mind - heavy preference towards clay for Nadal in his early years, and Federer's decline especially after 2012. If we factor those in, we come to conclusion that they are in fact very evenly matched despite the actual 23-10 results.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Rafael Nadal: ´Novak Djokovic the Toughest Opponent I Ever Had´

Nadal just stating the obvious here

 

[mattosgrant]

I guess the point of such argument(that Federer would've beaten Nadal most of the times outside the clay in 2004-2007), is merely to counter the H2H argument between them which is often used against Federer rather harshly. While H2H is a valid way to compare players, there are exceptions where it cannot be used directly but should be considered in context. That's the whole point of the argument. I think in Federer v Nadal case, we should all read their H2H in context otherwise we can always fall into the mistake of just saying Nadal is far better and greater player than Federer. If Nadal was, he should've been the one who had dominance at no. 1 for all those period, but it was in fact Federer who held that position despite all the losses he suffered by the hands of Nadal. If you combine the two (H2H and rankings), you get more correct picture of the situation which is that Nadal was ultra dominant on clay but Federer was overall the most dominant payer(which means he was better on other surfaces thus he could've beaten Nadal there). Their H2H should be considered with these factors in mind - heavy preference towards clay for Nadal in his early years, and Federer's decline especially after 2012. If we factor those in, we come to conclusion that they are in fact very evenly matched despite the actual 23-10 results.

and with all that being said Djokovic is still clearly a tougher opponent for Nadal than Federer is. There is really no argument to the contrary that can be made. Djokovic-Nadal h2h has a clay skew too anyway, and Djokovic is still going to overtake him if they so much as play 3 more times. I dont know how such a non starter of a topic has so many posts or why I have even bothered posting so many times in it.

It is one of those like "yeah of course, whatever" sort of titles.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

And those 2 victories must have been highly cherished by Federer, since Nadal was an old seasoned grasscourt player who practically grew up on grass, at the time?

So, you continue to pedal the old myth about Nadal never ever playing on grass and being a newbie on the surface?

Do you know anything at all about Nadal and grass prior to 2008?

 

[Chanwan]

That is true. I think without that insane Madrid match, Nadal quite possibly wins RG 2009 and maybe even Wimbledon 2009 (and that is not only 2 more slams but 2 less for Federer and a 4 slam swing). There are so many ways things could change. Also it could be argued he pushed himself so hard to get back on top of Djokovic again in early 2012 it led to his injuries that caused him to miss 2 slams.

Regarding the 2008 Australian Open I agree, and that was what I meant when I said 3 (before speculating on chain effects related to Djokovic like the ones above) would be best case for Nadal and worst for Federer. I do think Tsonga was playing a higher level than Roger at the 2008 Australian Open for sure, but he was arguably even playing at a higher level than Djokovic and still lost, and nerves were definitely a factor in that final. Obviously Federer had no chance of winning events like 2012 RG or 2010 U.S Open over Nadal, but you could argue he had a shot at the 2008 Australian Open and even 2011 U.S Open perhaps, along with the 3 fairly safe ones of 2011 Australian, 2014 Wimbledon, 2015 Wimbledon. Whereas with Nadal while he could well have won all 3 slams he lost to Djokovic in the final, you could argue Federer having a chance at the 2011 U.S Open and even Murray at the 2012 Australian Open. However since Nadal was a combined 4-0 vs Federer and Murray in slams from 2011 French Open-2012 Australian Open I would back him for those, but I guess one could argue atleast.

As for the last part, I don't think FO and AO are that good predictors for what would happen at the US between Fed-Rafa. Rafa being Rafa would obviously stand a chance, but I would give Fed a tiny edge in 2011 and Rafa a significant edge in 2010.
As for Murray, I would give him at least a 50-50 tbh. He got Lendl in his camp and it showed from the start, taking a 100 % fresh Novak every bit as far as Rafa took him in the final (and he was leading Djoko 2-1 in sets, whereas Rafa was kind of lucky (and good) to get the 4th and force a fifth. Also, there's the 2010 match between them, where Andy took Rafa to the wood shed.

As for the former, way too many intangibles. His parents divorce/separation seemed to play as big as a part in his dip that year as did his knees if not more. And the Sod beat him fair and square imo (though Rafa, Toni and pretty much every tennis pundit have put multiple asterisk's to it over the years)

I have to agree with this, after Wimbledon the debate was over. Djokovic has hurt Roger pretty badly.

Djokovic has prevented Federer from outright owning the record at AO, W and probaby even USO, considering how well Federer played in 2011.

Not gonna lie, I don't like the content of this post...

 

[mattosgrant]

As for the last part, I don't think FO and AO are that good predictors for what would happen at the US between Fed-Rafa. Rafa being Rafa would obviously stand a chance, but I would give Fed a tiny edge in 2011 and Rafa a significant edge in 2010.

Actually history indicates Nadal is better at the U.S Open than the Australian Open. So I dont think Federer would neccessarily stand a better shot against Nadal at the U.S Open than the Australian Open at all. The Australian Open should not be tied in with the French Open for Nadal. He only has 1 title there, and lost to Djokovic in 2012 even playing lights out.

As for Murray, I would give him at least a 50-50 tbh. He got Lendl in his camp and it showed from the start, taking a 100 % fresh Novak every bit as far as Rafa took him in the final (and he was leading Djoko 2-1 in sets, whereas Rafa was kind of lucky (and good) to get the 4th and force a fifth. Also, there's the 2010 match between them, where Andy took Rafa to the wood shed.

I dont agree. Nadal had beaten Murray in 3 straight slam semis, and was playing really well at the 2012 Australian Open, far better than either of the 2 slams he has ever lost to Murray at. It just shows what a nightmare for him Djokovic had become that he still couldnt beat him. Yeah the semi was a similar match but Djokovic was not the hurdle for Murray that he was for Nadal at that point. I see Murray winning as not impossible, but unlikely.

PS- I agree Soderling beat Nadal at Roland Garros. However there was probably some fatigue that contributed to the performances of both Nadal and Djokovic (who lost in straight sets to freaking Kohlschreiber) at RG after that Madrid marathon, regardless whether Nadal was injured or not. I still would agree, especialy as I have no doubt Nadal would have gone on to win the event if he won that match. Losing Roland Garros not surprisingly stripped his confidence completely and showed in his performance the rest of the year, although I do think his missing Wimbledon was with a legit injury that probably started with the Madrid marathon.

 

[Chanwan]

Actually history indicates Nadal is better at the U.S Open than the Australian Open. So I dont think Federer would neccessarily stand a better shot against Nadal at the U.S Open than the Australian Open at all. The Australian Open should not be tied in with the French Open for Nadal. He only has 1 title there, and lost to Djokovic in 2012 even playing lights out.


I dont agree. Nadal had beaten Murray in 3 straight slam semis, and was playing really well at the 2012 Australian Open, far better than either of the 2 slams he has ever lost to Murray at. It just shows what a nightmare for him Djokovic had become that he still couldnt beat him. Yeah the semi was a similar match but Djokovic was not the hurdle for Murray that he was for Nadal at that point. I see Murray winning as not impossible, but unlikely.

I meant specifically in the Fed-Rafa matchup. We haven't seen them play at the US Open, but I'd say it's not even an argument that the US HC should be 'better' for Fed than the AO surface in this matchup. Whether better is enough is a different matter. I also don't think it's straight forward that Rafa's better at the US than at the AO. Vs. Djoko, yes, but Djoko's clearly much better at the AO than anywhere else.

As for Murray, good point on the 3 straight semis. That could tip the scales a bit in Rafa's favor I guess. Still, the Murray who came out and took Novak to 5-7 in the fifth was already a Lendl-influenced Murray imo - at least mentally. I think he would have been a much tougher match for Rafa than he was at the US Open. Also, there's an argument for AO being Murray's best major despite never winning it (4? finals as well as that final like semi).
Anyhow - not that important.

It's all hypothetical ;-)

 

[RF20Lennon]

No argument there. Novak is his toughest rival BY FAR since 2009. And his toughest rival in his career.

 

[chjtennis]

and with all that being said Djokovic is still clearly a tougher opponent for Nadal than Federer is. There is really no argument to the contrary that can be made. Djokovic-Nadal h2h has a clay skew too anyway, and Djokovic is still going to overtake him if they so much as play 3 more times. I dont know how such a non starter of a topic has so many posts or why I have even bothered posting so many times in it.

It is one of those like "yeah of course, whatever" sort of titles.

It only started when certain member brought up the same old argument that Federer is crap v Nadal everywhere, peak for peak, which is absolutely not true. There's no one really arguing against the fact that Djokovic is tougher match up than Federer to Nadal.

About the H2H skew, though, Djokovic v Nadal match up doesn't get affect much by the conditions like court types, whereas Federer v Nadal match up is heavily under the influence of those factors due to their styles. Federer and Nadal are about as far apart in style as North Pole is to South, whereas Nadal and Djokovic is much closer, which magnifies the importance of court conditions for Fedal match up. Peak Federer couldn't handle Nadal on clay. Federer in his worst shape gave a lot of problems to Nadal who was having is best American HC season back in 2013, in Cincinnati. And that is exactly what's reflected on H2H of those players.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Rafa was just being honest. H2H is misleading but it can't be denied that Djoker has been tougher competition for Rafa than Fed. That's because [1] peak Djoker is pretty much as good as anyone ever and [2] Djoker plays a style thats harder for Rafa than Fed.

 

[chjtennis]

Yes. There is nothing really to delve into in Nadal's honest comments. He is correctly acknowledging Djokovic has been tougher to him, but he was not saying Djokovic is better than Federer or something.

 

[timnz]

Fed wasn't playing great at the 2010 US Open at all. He made 65 unforced errors or something in the semis vs Djokovic, which was necessary for him to lose to Djokovic having his worst year he has still had from 2007 onwards and low on confidence. I don't remember all his other matches, but I don't remember thinking he was playing that well. Nadal was serving 135 mph (which for him is outrageous) frequenly on the 1st serve and playing probably his best hard court tennis ever there. Federer was never winning that one.

I agree he had some shot in 2011.

I am confident Federer would have won the title in 2011. Basically if you compare 2010 to 2011:-

Nadal playing better in 2010 than 2011
Federer playing better in 2011 than 2010

So if Federer had made the final both year - then in 2010 it would have been a Nadal victory (60% chance), in 2011 it would have been a Federer victory (65-70% chance).

 

[BringBackSV]

I'm just curious, how exactly do you feel the game has evolved?

Nadal's game has undeniably dropped, that's the ranking difference. From tactics, to serve, to forehand, to mental edge, to endurance, to strength and size... Everything about 15 nadal is weaker. I'm not even close to a fan of his, but c'mon now.

Sabby is just trolling. This is actually mostly about Hewitt for him/her if you wade past the bull.

 

[BringBackSV]

I am confident Federer would have won the title in 2011. Basically if you compare 2010 to 2011:-

Nadal playing better in 2010 than 2011
Federer playing better in 2011 than 2010

So if Federer had made the final both year - then in 2010 it would have been a Nadal victory (60% chance), in 2011 it would have been a Federer victory (65-70% chance).

Yeah right, Fed would lose in 3 in 11 and in 2 in 10 (would retire from the emarrassment from eating 2 bagels). Your being confident that Rafa's number 1 pigeon beats him at USO11 is pure comedy.

 

[RanchDressing]

Sabby is just trolling. This is actually mostly about Hewitt for him/her if you wade past the bull.

Must be. Guys 10 years ago were pretty fit too. Agassi was very fit. There were also guys who just relied on their offensive capabilities to win too though just like there has been as of late. Ultimately the best guys also tend to be the fittest. Davydenko and Ferrer are prime examples of guys who used their legs to win. Now that the courts have changed, players can't win with just a big serve and forehand. You have to be able to grind too basically, and overall guys are more punished for going for big shots because they don't penetrate and can get retrieved, leaving them often times out of position... So I wouldn't call any of it an evolution. More like an adaptation to slower/bouncier courts.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

who is this guy talking? any relation to the 8th in the world?

 

[timnz]

Yeah right, Fed would lose in 3 in 11 and in 2 in 10 (would retire from the emarrassment from eating 2 bagels). Your being confident that Rafa's number 1 pigeon beats him at USO11 is pure comedy.

They have never played at the US Open. Given it isn't quite as slow as the Australian Open - I like his chances in 2011. Djokovic only got past Roger by the skin of his teeth. Roger had the form. I don't believe Nadal's form was as good as the previous years. It adds up to a Probable Federer victory.

 

[AngryBirds]

They have never played at the US Open. Given it isn't quite as slow as the Australian Open - I like his chances in 2011. Djokovic only got past Roger by the skin of his teeth. Roger had the form. I don't believe Nadal's form was as good as the previous years. It adds up to a Probable Federer victory.

3-0 on hard court slam says it all. A slightly faster hard court is not going to make a difference.

 

[BringBackSV]

They have never played at the US Open. Given it isn't quite as slow as the Australian Open - I like his chances in 2011. Djokovic only got past Roger by the skin of his teeth. Roger had the form. I don't believe Nadal's form was as good as the previous years. It adds up to a Probable Federer victory.

Roger matches up better against Novak than Rafa. Novak was also in Rafa's head that year while Fed has never been. I'd give Fed a slim chance at best in the final of USO11. Roger would have been essentially handing Rafa the trophy by beating Novak.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Roger matches up better against Novak than Rafa. Novak was also in Rafa's head that year while Fed has never been. I'd give Fed a slim chance at best in the final of USO11. Roger would have been essentially handing Rafa the trophy by beating Novak.

That damn shot. Ugh.

 

[mattosgrant]

I am confident Federer would have won the title in 2011. Basically if you compare 2010 to 2011:-

Nadal playing better in 2010 than 2011
Federer playing better in 2011 than 2010

So if Federer had made the final both year - then in 2010 it would have been a Nadal victory (60% chance), in 2011 it would have been a Federer victory (65-70% chance).

Thinking Federer had a 40% chance in 2010 is funny in itself. At the very least Federer would have had very little chance in 2010, and 2011 would have been a toss up in best case scenario for Federer. Your assessment is about on par from someone I would expect who runs that horrid number one tennis players by year wikipedia site full of balogna though.