Rafael Nadal is 19-10 vs Fedovic at Slams

Eren

Professional
But the difference is just in their results against Federer/Djokovic in the matches I mentioned:

2005-06 Nadal vs Federer 6-4
2014-15 Federer vs Djokovic 1-8

You can't say 14-15 Djokovic had an easier opponent than 05-06 Federer just because he dealt better with it. In fact 14-15 Federer's results against the rest of the field were better than 05-06 Nadal's results against the rest of the field.
No you're right. So we should compare 05-06 Federer to 14-15 Federer to see how these two versions did against the rest of the field.

Let's see, Federer in 14 lost to Gulbis and Cilic (in fu**ing straight sets), 15 Federer lost to some chump at AO and RG.

Now compare that to 05 Federer: Uhm one loss to goating Safin, Nadal at RG (duh), two Slam wins, WTF champ
06 Federer: wins AO, RG final, Wimbledon champ, USO Champ, WTF champ beating Nadal on the way, and having a 92-5 (???) record

I don't know for sure yet, but my hunch is that that guy in 05-06 is somehow a little bit better against the rest of the field than 14-15 Federer.
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
Yes, but I'm talking about number of wins here.

And Fedal hace sinply never played at the USO, so not really Fed's problem here.

And he never faced 2015 Nadal at RG either.
Not Djokovic problem either. He beat a player who would have beat every other player and won the title. Win is a win.
 
Unprovable.
The logic of RF-18. Nadal in 2015 lost to any player who could keep the ball in play for more than 3 shots, didn't reach a slam semifinal, didn't win anything above 500 level tournaments (and even there he struggled against nobodies), was getting physically tired after an hour and a half of play, hit double faults on break points all the time, couldn't hit a forehand behind the service line...But he was going to win a slam without Djokovic. LMAO. This is why Djokovic trolls are so much disliked here. For example, I can't imagine a Nadal troll writing that Djokovic was going to win RG 2006 without Nadal.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
The logic of RF-18. Nadal in 2015 lost to any player who could keep the ball in play for more than 3 shots, didn't reach a slam semifinal, didn't win anything above 500 level tournaments (and even there he struggled against nobodies), was getting physically tired after an hour and a half of play, hit double faults on break points all the time, couldn't hit a forehand behind the service line...But he was going to win a slam without Djokovic. LMAO. This is why Djokovic trolls are so much disliked here. For example, I can't imagine a Nadal troll writing that Djokovic was going to win RG 2006 without Nadal.
Why was he getting more physically tired at the age of 29 than he is at 33?
 
Why was he getting more physically tired at the age of 29 than he is at 33?
Because he was at his worst form that year? It's a fact Nadal had big physical problems in 2014-2016 for whatever reason. Djokovic also had periods when he had physical problems, while now he hardly gets tired. And Federer in 2013 was physically weaker than in 2019.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I never said he was the GOAT, so there goes that. I don't care about him being the GOAT. I am a fan of his regardless.

My point is simple. 32-present year old Federer is significantly worse than 20s Federer. That's it. Just like 20s Nadal is significantly better than 30s Nadal.

We'll see though.

20s Federer: 16 Slams
20s Nadal: 14 Slams
20s Djokovic: 12 Slams

Now let's see if the 30s versions of these players can beat these records.
Are you sure you are using the word "significantly" properly?

The difference isn't big at all.
 

swordtennis

Legend
Because he was at his worst form that year? It's a fact Nadal had big physical problems in 2014-2016 for whatever reason. Djokovic also had periods when he had physical problems, while now he hardly gets tired. And Federer in 2013 was physically weaker than in 2019.
USO 13 does not count. Erase it. Excuses far outweigh nadals win. Illegitimate win.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
But the difference is just in their results against Federer/Djokovic in the matches I mentioned:

2005-06 Nadal vs Federer 6-4
2014-15 Federer vs Djokovic 1-8

You can't say 14-15 Djokovic had an easier opponent than 05-06 Federer just because he dealt better with it. In fact 14-15 Federer's results against the rest of the field were better than 05-06 Nadal's results against the rest of the field.
Boy we're discussing them as opponents for Federer/Djokovic.

2005-06 Nadal had more slam titles just because Federer allowed him more than Djokovic allowed 2014-15 Federer.
2014/2015 Federer on grass/HC is nowhere near 2005/2006 Nadal on clay.

2005/2006 nadal was invincible on clay. He only lost in a 250 event in 2005 I believe?

2014/2015 Federer lost on HCs to Nishikori, Tsonga, Cilic, Raonic, Seppi, Ramos-Vinolas and Isner.

They are not even in the same league. Nadal was way better vs the field on clay than Fed on HC/grass.
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
The logic of RF-18. Nadal in 2015 lost to any player who could keep the ball in play for more than 3 shots, didn't reach a slam semifinal, didn't win anything above 500 level tournaments (and even there he struggled against nobodies), was getting physically tired after an hour and a half of play, hit double faults on break points all the time, couldn't hit a forehand behind the service line...But he was going to win a slam without Djokovic. LMAO. This is why Djokovic trolls are so much disliked here. For example, I can't imagine a Nadal troll writing that Djokovic was going to win RG 2006 without Nadal.
Who would have beaten him? Wawrinka? LOL! Murray would be the best bet but even there I doubt he'd do it in bo5 vs Nadal at Chatrier. I can't see it. I'm gonna go with the most probable bet and that is the guy who held a 66-1 record at the time of that tournament and 70-1 before that QF. It's really a joke that you throw a hissy fit because I think a guy with such dominance was gonna win the tournament.

and lol at mentioning Djokovic at RG 2006. What a garbage comparison.
 

Eren

Professional
Who would have beaten him? Wawrinka? LOL! Murray would be the best bet but even there I doubt he'd do it in bo5 vs Nadal at Chatrier. I can't see it. I'm gonna go with the most probable bet and that is the guy who held a 66-1 record at the time of that tournament and 70-1 before that QF. It's really a joke that you throw a hissy fit because I think a guy with such dominance was gonna win the tournament.

and lol at mentioning Djokovic at RG 2006. What a garbage comparison.
Why not?

Nadal sucked and Wawrinka gave Djokovic a beating with his BH from set 2 to 4.
 

King No1e

Legend
USO 13 does not count. Erase it. Excuses far outweigh nadals win. Illegitimate win.
LOL. What?
I hope you're trolling. Nadal won that match fair and square. Sure Djokovic choked in the 4th but that doesn't take anything away from Nadal's win.
The Fed fans let the Safin AO05 loss go, I think we can let this one go too.
 

King No1e

Legend
Who would have beaten him? Wawrinka? LOL! Murray would be the best bet but even there I doubt he'd do it in bo5 vs Nadal at Chatrier. I can't see it. I'm gonna go with the most probable bet and that is the guy who held a 66-1 record at the time of that tournament and 70-1 before that QF. It's really a joke that you throw a hissy fit because I think a guy with such dominance was gonna win the tournament.

and lol at mentioning Djokovic at RG 2006. What a garbage comparison.
It wouldn't have been a gimme for Nadal even without Djokovic. He lost a set to Jack Sock.
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
LOL. What?
I hope you're trolling. Nadal won that match fair and square. Sure Djokovic choked in the 4th but that doesn't take anything away from Nadal's win.
The Fed fans let the Safin AO05 loss go, I think we can let this one go too.
He is being sarcastic cause StrongRule does Everything he can to erase Djokovic win vs Nadal at RG every time you mention that encounter.
 

swordtennis

Legend
He is being sarcastic cause StrongRule does Everything he can to erase Djokovic win vs Nadal at RG every time you mention that encounter.
Actually if you read TTW every major title djokovic has is erased on here. 2008 AO was a fluke. All of 2011 2012 AO. It was not 2010 Nadal and old fed. The schtick is a bit stale at this point as the kid keeps winning.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Who would have beaten him? Wawrinka? LOL! Murray would be the best bet but even there I doubt he'd do it in bo5 vs Nadal at Chatrier. I can't see it. I'm gonna go with the most probable bet and that is the guy who held a 66-1 record at the time of that tournament and 70-1 before that QF. It's really a joke that you throw a hissy fit because I think a guy with such dominance was gonna win the tournament.

and lol at mentioning Djokovic at RG 2006. What a garbage comparison.
I'm sure back in 2009 many people had the same reaction as you at the thought of Soderling beating Nadal at RG and yet it happened. The same guy who had got trashed 1 and 0 at Rome that same year by Nadal.

In 2015, Nadal's previous record at RG meant diddly squat. You may have a point if the loss to Djokovic was close, but Novak annihilated him. Such a result doesn't indicate a title win against anyone else, especially not against Wawrinka.

2015 was the year Stan defeated Nadal in straights twice, one of them on clay. Outside of the AO 2014 injury win, at no other time has Nadal lost even a set to Stan. It really was an anomaly of a year for Nadal, so RG was not going to happen for him that year. He is a horrible match-up for Stan, but given how deplotable his form was, it wouldn't have mattered. Nadal in that crappy form wouldn't be able to beat a GOATING Stan since his poor form would nullify the bad match-up situation.

I LOL'd at Murray having the best chance and not Stan. Keep up your comedian skills ;)

You're just making more of that win than it is. It was simply a perfect timing or opportunistic kind of win and it would have been embarrassing for Novak to still not win in those circumstances ;)

Novak himself didn't even win RG that year LOL. So it was more Nadal sucking than Djokovic actually GOATING.
 
Last edited:

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
I'm sure back in 2009 many people had the same reaction as you at the thought of Soderling beating Nadal at RG and yet it happened. The same guy who had got trashed 1 and 0 at Rome that same year by Nadal.

In 2015, Nadal's previous record at RG meant diddly squat. You may have a point if the loss to Djokovic was close, but Novak annihilated him. Such a result doesn't indicate a title win against anyone else, especially not against Wawrinka.

2015 was the year Stan defeated Nadal in straights twice, one of them on clay. Outside of the AO 2014 injury win, at no other time has Nadal lost even a set to Stan. It really was an anomaly of a year for Nadal, so RG was not going to happen for him that year. He is a horrible match-up for Stan, but given how deplotable his form was, it wouldn't have mattered. Nadal in that crappy form wouldn't be able to beat a GOATING Stan since his poor form would nullify the bad match-up situation.

I LOL'd at Murray having the best chance and not Stan. Keep up your comedian skills ;)

You're just making more of that win than it is. It was simply a perfect timing kind of win and it would have been embarrassing for Novak to still not win in those circumstances ;)

Novak himself didn't even win RG that year LOL. So it was more Nadal sucking than Djokovic actually GOATING.
The Soderling example is quite weak. That was Nadals only loss at RG.

What Nadal does before RG has been established to have little to no relevance at all and you know that. When RG arrives it doesn't matter if he lost matches Before that, RG is something different and Nadal turns up for it. Djokovic has many times beaten Nadal Before meeting at RG and everytime there was a sense of a Djokovic victory there but everytime Nadal put the hammer down until 2015.

Nadal was struggling in 2015 and I'm not denying that, even on clay that year he did look more vurnable than he has ever before but he still made the QF with loss of just a set. He was not good enough to take on a vengeful and hungry Djokovic but excluding him I still wouldn't bet my money on Wawrinka and Murray taking him down in bo5. There is no chance I'd put hope on Wawrinka and Murray on clay against Nadal in bo5. Nadal it is. It's easy for you to say all this now like the afterwise guy you are. I bet at the time of that QF you put all of your hope on Djokovic to beat him cause there wasn't any other you would have believed in to do the job. But sure you probably were thinking at the time that even if Djokovic lost Wawrinka would take him down anyway so you weren't too worried :-D
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The Soderling example is quite weak. That was Nadals only loss at RG.

What Nadal does before RG has been established to have little to no relevance at all and you know that. When RG arrives it doesn't matter if he lost matches Before that, RG is something different and Nadal turns up for it. Djokovic has many times beaten Nadal Before meeting at RG and everytime there was a sense of a Djokovic victory there but everytime Nadal put the hammer down until 2015.

Nadal was struggling in 2015 and I'm not denying that, even on clay that year he did look more vurnable than he has ever before but he still made the QF with loss of just a set. He was not good enough to take on a vengeful and hungry Djokovic but excluding him I still wouldn't bet my money on Wawrinka and Murray taking him down in bo5. There is no chance I'd put hope on Wawrinka and Murray on clay against Nadal in bo5. Nadal it is. It's easy for you to say all this now like the afterwise guy you are. I bet at the time of that QF you put all of your hope on Djokovic to beat him cause there wasn't any other you would have believed in to do the job. But sure you probably were thinking at the time that even if Djokovic lost Wawrinka would take him down anyway so you weren't too worried :-D
Look, Soderling is a perfect example since literally no one expected him to beat Nadal at RG. And yet he did. So I don't see why Wawrinka wouldn't do it too. If it happened once, I don't see why it would be damn impossible to happen a second time, especially since Nadal sucked:laughing:

The Djokovic match was not even close. Nadal was annihilated. I don't see how that would translate to a title win against anybody else. The way he was playing, he wouldn't have been good enough to beat Stan.

Nadal usually turns it up at RG, but in 2015 it wasn't the case. Nadal's record at RG speaks for itself, but he always needed to play well to win each title. He never won a RG title by playing absolutely sh*tty tennis like he was in 2015. Even Nadal himself isn't a guarantee at RG if he outright sucks.:-D

As for your last point:

1. Had there been Wawrinka instead of Djokovic in that QF, Nadal still would not have won. He was playing too bad to beat a GOATING Wawrinka.

2. I don't see why my view before the QF should matter. My opinion changed in retrospective because I saw how deplorable Nadal was and how great Stan was, which weren't 100% clear before the QF. No sh*t I changed my opinion after witnessing these 2 things:-D
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
2014/2015 Federer on grass/HC is nowhere near 2005/2006 Nadal on clay.

2005/2006 nadal was invincible on clay. He only lost in a 250 event in 2005 I believe?

2014/2015 Federer lost on HCs to Nishikori, Tsonga, Cilic, Raonic, Seppi, Ramos-Vinolas and Isner.

They are not even in the same league. Nadal was way better vs the field on clay than Fed on HC/grass.
Different sample size. Or I could say that Fed was unbeaten on grass.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
It wouldn't have been a gimme for Nadal even without Djokovic. He lost a set to Jack Sock.
Nadal at 2015 RG was out of form.
Federer since 2014 was old.
Djokovic before 2011 was a baby.

Etc.

We can make excuse for any loss. At the end of the day Djokovic was the only to beat other Big3 at all slams.
 

ForumMember

Hall of Fame
Who would have beaten him? Wawrinka? LOL! Murray would be the best bet but even there I doubt he'd do it in bo5 vs Nadal at Chatrier. I can't see it. I'm gonna go with the most probable bet and that is the guy who held a 66-1 record at the time of that tournament and 70-1 before that QF. It's really a joke that you throw a hissy fit because I think a guy with such dominance was gonna win the tournament.

and lol at mentioning Djokovic at RG 2006. What a garbage comparison.
Just curious when he can lost to Djokovic despite having 70-1, why he can't lose to Murray or wawrinka after having 70-1? while we know Murray and Waw both played very close or may be even better to the level of Djokovic.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
No you're right. Losing to seppi gulbis, getting thrashed by cilic tsitsipas. Avoiding clay to preserve the body.

Almost peak for sure.
So 00s Federer never lost to anyone? Gulbis sucks? Winning 5 slams means the player is garbage?

Interesting...
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Just curious when he can lost to Djokovic despite having 70-1, why he can't lose to Murray or wawrinka after having 70-1? while we know Murray and Waw both played very close or may be even better to the level of Djokovic.
Well Stan even beat Djoker. Sure the Nadal Wawrinka matchup is completely different to Nadal Djokovic, but as others have said, the fact that Djokovic annihilated Nadal and Stan beat him before the French on clay (which he never could in any other year) makes me believe, that even with his tremendous match up advantage he was simply not good enough in 2015. I also favor Murray over Rafa, since while not exactly on the level of Stan that year, he does not have this matchup issue with Rafa and could have very well beaten him.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
2005-06 Nadal against top10 other than Federer --> 10-3

2014-15 Federer against top10 other than Djokovic ---> 26-4
Your point being? Nadal on clay was still much better than 14/15 Fed on grass/HC, hence 2 slams > 0 and near invincible win rate.
 

Eren

Professional
So 00s Federer never lost to anyone? Gulbis sucks? Winning 5 slams means the player is garbage?

Interesting...
Interesting indeed. so 04-09 Federer lost in straight sets to mugs in Slams the way he did against Cilic. He also lost to Gulbis, Raonic (come on lol) and Wawrinka (weak era mug from Fed's weak era)

So Federer winning 4 Slams in his 30 means he won 5. Interesting indeed.

But no need to do the talking, let the players do that.

20s Federer: 16 Slams
20s Nadal: 14 Slams
20s Djokovic: 12 Slams

Now let's see if the 30s versions of these players can beat these records. Since the difference isn't big at all, they'll show us right?
 
Last edited:

Eren

Professional
Just curious when he can lost to Djokovic despite having 70-1, why he can't lose to Murray or wawrinka after having 70-1? while we know Murray and Waw both played very close or may be even better to the level of Djokovic.
It doesn't fit the agenda, that's why.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Oh yes, the classic 'leave out the stats that don't suit me' tactic.
And what are the stats that don't suit me?

Slam titles? I explained in the following post why it doesn't matter if we are rating their value as opponents for Federer/Djokovic.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Interesting indeed. so 04-09 Federer lost in straight sets to mugs in Slams the way he did against Cilic. He also lost to Gulbis, Raonic (come on lol) and Wawrinka (weak era mug from Fed's weak era)

So Federer winning 4 Slams in his 30 means he won 5. Interesting indeed.

But no need to do the talking, let the players do that.

20s Federer: 16 Slams
20s Nadal: 14 Slams
20s Djokovic: 12 Slams

Now let's see if the 30s versions of these players can beat these records. Since the difference isn't big at all, they'll show us right?
He won 5 slams in this decade.

Kinda obvious I wuz referring to that...
 
Top