Lew II
Hall of Fame
Do you think that Thiem leading slam h2h with Djokovic is due to the fact that they only met at RG?
Rafael Nadal is 19-10 vs Fedovic at Slams
- Thread starter King No1e
- Start date
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
It's amusing that you pretend Novak doesn't have to hold up his end in order to validate your claims.
King No1e
Legend
20-10 is astounding. Goes to show you that ability and shot variety isn't everything. Tennis has become a game of endurance, grit, and baseline consistency.
I fear not the man who can hit 10,000 different shots. I fear the man who can hit the same high topspin FH 10,000 times.
Lew II
Hall of Fame
Eren
Professional
Yeah I know you think that's the case. So from 2011 to 2016, when Federer was in his 30s. Can you please mention how many 30 year olds won Slams during that time frame. Fedr had an age disadvantage in that time period.
Because that is your logic. "Oh 13 players in 30s won a slam so no age disadvantage" Apply your logic to 2011-2016.
Sport
Legend
Lleytonstation
Legend
Odd. Sampras got me into tennis, and was the reason I liked Fed.
Lew II
Hall of Fame
2005-16 Federer should've done to younger players what Big3 are doing to younger players in 2017-19.
Eren
Professional
According to your logic age disadvantage and that was what we were discussing.
About 2005-2010 Federer, he did much more to younger players than the Big3 now.
About 2015-2016 Federer, both Djokovic and Nadal aren't that age yet so we'll see.
Lew II
Hall of Fame
Federer played nearly half of his matches (13/30) against Big3 when they were the same gen as the players of Next Gen finals (2005 RG to 2009 AO).
Come on, it's not because of age if Federer had it hard with them or Murray. He actually improved his h2h since 2014.
Eren
Professional
We can go on and on. But if age is meaningless why doesn't Zidane play instead of coach. Why are Iniesta and Xavi downgraded to Asia/America in their mid-30s if you get better and better.
Why do Sampras, Agassi or even Laver not play instead of watch. Age is a factor. You honestly think 2004 Federer would have lost to Tsitsipas in a BO5 on HC? Or lose to Robredo, Cilic, Millman, Dimitrov at UO from 04-08. No way.
About Murray, that guy got burned alive in almost every Slam final they played.
Combining H2H is lol, before 30s Fedr was up 5-2 against Djokovic, but was down like 2-7 against Nadal (losing 5 at FO).
Lew II
Hall of Fame
Age is not meaningless but saying that in your 30s you can't play your best tennis is wrong.
Djokovic, Federer and Nadal are still playing their best tennis, it makes no sense to me to think they're winning 12 slams in a row without playing their best tennis.
Eren
Professional
In 30s, occasionally you can play your best tennis, but not consistently otherwise Djokovic 2015 would have mopped the floor with Thiem at RG and would win in 3 to 4 sets against Fred at Wimbledon.
Even within a tournament the variance is pretty large. Federer playing great at USO and then good and bad moments against Dimitrov. Playing good at AO and then getting owned by Tsitsipas.
Federer playing his best tennis this year and losing to freaking Thiem at IW? Nah I don't think so. He didn't even reach a single SF at a HC Slam since ages. I think it matters more than you think.
If only a future ATG would step up, then you would see lol.
I agree Federer had a problem with Nadal, especially since 2008 (his own slight decline matched with Nadal peaking)
However he never had a problem with Djokovic until 2014, aged 32, they were evenly matched up until then. And no, Djokovic didn’t become too good, Federer wasn’t the same player he was in <2012,
Federer hasn’t consistently played his best tennis for years. Closest he got recently would be IW 2017 where he was GOATing.
Lew II
Hall of Fame
Can you tell what do you think of Federer playing 13/30 slam matches with Big3 at the age of 23-27 while they were 19-22?
Wasn't that a big advantage?
King No1e
Legend
Oh really? So Agassi should've dominated the tour in 2003-06? And Lendl in 1991-94? And Connors in 1983-87?
Lew II
Hall of Fame
Last 13 slam winners were 31+ years old. The majority of top100 are over 28 years old. Under22 years old are competing for an exhibition called Next Gen Finals instead of the real YEC.
Did things like this happen at the during Agassi's, Lendl's or Connors' career?
You should notice how times change.
Lew II
Hall of Fame
@Eren
In his losses to Federer, Djokovic had an average ranking of 3.12
In his losses to Djokovic, Federer had an average ranking of 2.42.
In his losses to Federer, Nadal had an average ranking of 2.90.
In his losses to Nadal, Federer had an average ranking of 1.70.
So Federer had a higher ranking. Woah wasn't he always old and Djokovic/Nadal always peak? How is it possible?
In his losses to Federer, Djokovic had an average ranking of 3.12
In his losses to Djokovic, Federer had an average ranking of 2.42.
In his losses to Federer, Nadal had an average ranking of 2.90.
In his losses to Nadal, Federer had an average ranking of 1.70.
So Federer had a higher ranking. Woah wasn't he always old and Djokovic/Nadal always peak? How is it possible?
Third Serve
Hall of Fame
I promise you: If Zverev and Thiem were transported back to 2005-2016, Federer would crush them. It's amusing that you penalize Federer for dealing with two up-and-coming ATGs (heck, Murray too) but you count the likes of this sorry excuse of a next gen (as of 2019) as indicators of Nadal and Djokovic's greatness.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Us Djokovic fans feel exactly the same about Indian Wells and Miami.
StrongRule
Legend
I don't remember Djokovic losing Indian Wells and Miami when the only players in the draw were Fognini and Lajovic. You will have to try VERY hard in order to find an example of Djokovic missing a title in such a pathetic way.
It was a decent advantage he had in 2007-2009. Hence why he edged the H2H with Djokovic and went 4-1 at slams.
Nadal is a different story. He peaked on clay aged 19 onward so Fed never had any advantage, Nadal didn’t reach him at HC slams either.
NoleFam
G.O.A.T.
Zverev made 3 Masters finals last year and won a Masters before winning the WTF final. He is nowhere near as good this year with only one top 10 win all year.
Mededev is clearly the #1 threat in Nadal's group. Did you not gather anything from the USO final? Tsitsipas has already beaten him so he would be the #2 threat. Zverev had a great tournament in Shanghai but got destroyed by Medvedev. I see him being last in this group when it's said and done.
King No1e
Legend
5/8 of the WTF players are under 24.
StrongRule
Legend
All Zverev's masters finals in 2018 were in the first half. How were they relevant to WTF? He actually lost 6-1 6-2 to Khachanov in Paris. Before that he lost to Copil in Basel.
LOL, Tsitsipas beat a terrible Nadal in Madrid and that means he will always be a threat? Using your logic Kohlschreiber should always be considered a threat to Djokovic because he beat him in IW. It looks like you don't watch matches but just look at the results. Zverev in some of his meetings against Nadal played much better than Tsitsipas did in that Madrid 2019 semifinal. Unfortunately for Zverev he just faced better versions of Nadal.
Last edited:
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
Fraud's face is rightfully expressionless, because really how could one express themselves in face of such a pitiful record?
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Yeah? That's a sensible argument in your mind?
Chadalina
Legend
Nadal only plays when he is 100%, yet beats djok and fed when they are 80%.
Imagine if fed ducked nadal everytime he wasnt feeling good, they would of rarely played
NoleFam
G.O.A.T.
Didn't he just lose 6-1 6-4 to Medvedev? The difference in 2018 is he only had two bad Masters tournaments in the fall after having 4 really good ones. This year his entire year was below par except for a decent run in Shanghai.
Where did I say Tsits will always be a threat? He certainly is more now than Zverev is. You obviously don't understand what's the significance of being in form versus struggling. Tsits has beaten Djokovic, Federer and Nadal this year. Besides a win against Federer in Shanghai, what good wins has Zverev had this year?... So now 2016 Nadal was a better Nadal than 2019? I thought that was the worst Nadal ever? Your views change as fast as the wind direction does.
This
If Fed ducked out in 2013 (worst year since 2002) the H2H would be 20-17 for Nadal.
StrongRule
Legend
IW 2016 was a very low quality match, but I think it's still obvious Zverev is a tough matchup for Nadal on hardcourt. He has all the weapons to hurt him. So yes, I definitely think he can be a threat to a possibly injured Nadal on an indoor hardcourt. (by the way, Zverev played very well in Shanghai until the final. There he ruined everything with these 2 double faults in the end of the first set)
King No1e
Legend
ROFLMAO imagine being so desperate you include walkovers in the H2H
Gives Nole an extra win in 2014 too (YEC)ROFLMAO imagine being so desperate you include walkovers in the H2H
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Evidence?
If you honestly believe that, not sure what to tell you. That is among the most ridiculous takes imaginable, i'll give you that.
King No1e
Legend
That's not a win.
That's like saying Granollers beat Nadal at RG16. Greatest upset of all time if it really happened.
Slightly different scenario, Nadal clearly ducked Fed at IW.
Third Serve
Hall of Fame
How is that any more provable than Nadal ducking Granollers?
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Proof?
Apun94
Hall of Fame
Lol you are so delusional. If anything, Nadal takes more rest between tournaments, to PROLONG his tennis career.
Nadal was the one who was practicing 2 days after his wedding lmao
They were about to play and he pulled out last minute with a niggle. Fed on the other hand played through injury in 2013 at the same venue.
BeatlesFan
Talk Tennis Guru
@Robert Baratheon You are completely misrepresenting what I said. Rafa's achievements at RG are unreal. I respect him and respect his FO accomplishments tremendously. My post simply pointed out that without clay, both Djokovic and Federer's H2H's against Rafa in slams looks a hell of a lot better. Nobody can dispute that.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Whocares what Fed did in 2013? All athletes play through injury, that's nothing to pat Fed on the back for. I'm still waiting for any evidence from you that Rafa was fine and should have played. I don't doubt that you are convinced of your position but to a person who doesn't share your bias, what is your compelling evidence?
BeatlesFan
Talk Tennis Guru
Fed fans freely admit his endless chokes. When has a Nadal fan admitted a choke? He's had far fewer than Roger, to his credit. Djokovic fans won't even admit that the net cord choke at the FO against Nadal was a choke. They're intransigent and haven't the slightest grasp of tennis history, since they all starting watching the sport in the 2010's.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
It's a nonsensical position because there is no reality in which clay didn't exist on the tour. If you want to make an argument to downplay Rafa's success, you should do it in the context of things that occurred, rather than having to make up an alternate reality.
Rafa isn’t 100% or has a niggle he rarely ever faces Federer, or Djokovic.
OTOH Fed has been nowhere near top form and faced Nadal many times.
titoelcolombiano
Hall of Fame
Rafa v Fed
AO: Rafa (3-1)
WIM: Fed (3-1)
RG: Rafa (6-0)
USO: N/A
Verdict: Rafa leads the overall slam H2H by quite some way and also has Fed's measure at two of the three slams they have met at.
Rafa v Djoker
AO: Djoker (2-0)
RG: Rafa (6-1)
WIM: Djoker (2-1)
USO: Rafa (2-1)
Verdict: Rafa leads the overall H2H with them sharing the upper hand at the four slams between them two a piece.
AO: Rafa (3-1)
WIM: Fed (3-1)
RG: Rafa (6-0)
USO: N/A
Verdict: Rafa leads the overall slam H2H by quite some way and also has Fed's measure at two of the three slams they have met at.
Rafa v Djoker
AO: Djoker (2-0)
RG: Rafa (6-1)
WIM: Djoker (2-1)
USO: Rafa (2-1)
Verdict: Rafa leads the overall H2H with them sharing the upper hand at the four slams between them two a piece.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Repeating your claim doesn't make it any more credible. You aren't even in a position to know what you are talking about. If it makes you feel better about the h2h so be it but it's got no basis in reality.