Rafael Nadal : 'It would have been tough to defeat Novak Djokovic had he beat Federer'

[Deleted member 780630]

If Djokovic played like he did in Rome, I'd favor him. But he wasn't as good at RG, so Nadal takes it in 5 probably.

 

[Third Serve]

I still would have backed Nadal to win honestly.

If Novak brought his Madrid-Rome level, that would tilt the scale a bit, but I think he played noticeably worse at RG (but still very good). And while Nadal wasn’t perfect at RG, I think he was still better than he was in the clay court Masters.

Of course, you’ve gotta leave room for the mental aspect as well, and that muddies the waters a bit. Would Nadal over-perform on the occasion like he did in 2020 when lots of people were calling Novak to win? Or would he stay in that big hole Novak dug for him in 2011?

But I can’t bet against Nadal knowing how the matches turned out.

 

[Sunny014]

A better question is if Novak could not beat Federer then how would he have beaten Nadal after facing Fed?

Even in a game of matchup, if you cannot subdue Federer on clay then you most certainly cannot subdue to the next opponent Nadal in a final because it is not like Federer would not have dried him out even if Novak won in 5 sets, Novak would be tired and in a best case scenario for Novak ... Nadal would still have taken 5 sets but would win, like Tony Nadal said, Rafael is a fighter, he will fight and not give up no matter what. If Nadal and Djokovic met in the semis then it could have been a DJokovic win and a 2nd french open for Federer, however that was not the case.

 

[Sunny014]

2011 was one of Federer's highest levels on clay but sadly he could not have won because beating Novak+Rafa back to back might happen on Grass or even on a HC but that ain't happening on clay

Novak vs Rafa should have happened in the semis

 

[Tony48]

Djokovic has beaten Nadal twice at RG. He absolutely would have won if he made the final. Djokovic was riding high on momentum, form and confidence. Federer had to conjure up one of the greatest matches of his career to take down Djokovic.

 

[Tony48]

A young ATG at his peak is not supposed to lose to an old AGE who is 29-30 or more

Is this a rule written down or something you just made up?

 

[Sunny014]

Is this a rule written down or something you just made up?

It is understood, at your peak you have to be dominant against oldies beyond doubt because those oldies are past their prime, if Fed at peak loses to past his prime agassi then it is a black mark because then people would say Agassi of 95 stomps Federer, it is an argument which has no counter. Hence BO5 losses cannot afford to happen to oldies....

 

[Tony48]

It is understood, at your peak you have to be dominant against oldies beyond doubt because those oldies are past their prime, if Fed at peak loses to past his prime agassi then it is a black mark because then people would say Agassi of 95 stomps Federer, it is an argument which has no counter. Hence BO5 losses cannot afford to happen to oldies....

So it's not a rule and you made it up. OK.

Let me tweak your "rule" and make up one of my own:

"A young ATG at his peak is not supposed to lose to an old, washed up, past-prime 27-29 who isn't even a top 25 seed, especially in straight sets, and who hasn't been past the 4th round of a slam in 2 years."

2004 RG R3: (28)Kuerten def. (1)Federer 6-4, 6-4, 6-4

 

[Sunny014]

So it's not a rule and you made it up. OK.

Let me tweak your "rule" and make up one of my own:

"A young ATG at his peak is not supposed to lose to an old, washed up, past-prime 27-29 who isn't even a top 25 seed, especially in straight sets, and who hasn't been past the 4th round of a slam in 2 years."

2004 RG R3: (28)Kuerten def. (1)Federer 6-4, 6-4, 6-4

Clay was worst surface for Roger even in 2004, no harm in losing ... plus Kuerten is ATG on clay, I have no problem accepting that Gustavo is superior to Fed on clay ....

 

[King No1e]

Same, he played an insanely good final against a Fed that was crispy af. One of the most underrated matches.

FWIW, I do think he would've found a way to break Djokovic's spirit had he beaten Fed. I'm thinking something along the lines of the Verdasco match.

The actual final was great, but we still missed out on something epic. Roger just had to be that third wheel....

 

[Sunny014]

FWIW, I do think he would've found a way to break Djokovic's spirit had he beaten Fed. I'm thinking something along the lines of the Verdasco match.

The actual final was great, but we still missed out on something epic. Roger just had to be that third wheel....

Logic suggests that Fed cannot beat Nadal+Novak back to back on clay, let alone beat Rafa,
Logic suggests that Nole can beat Nadal/Roger standalone on clay but back to back? Naa...
That leaves Rafa, he can and he has beaten Nole+Roger back to back to win Roland Garros.

So it is advantage Nadal no matter who reaches the final.

 

[Tony48]

Clay was worst surface for Roger even in 2004, no harm in losing ... plus Kuerten is ATG on clay, I have no problem accepting that Gustavo is superior to Fed on clay ....

Sorry. No excuses. As you said, it's "understood." Federer broke the rule. Now his entire career is tainted.

 

[Sunny014]

Sorry. No excuses. As you said, it's "understood." Federer broke the rule. Now his entire career is tainted.

No rule is not broken.
I accepted that Kuerten is superior on clay to Federer peak to peak.
So Nole losing to Fed at wimbledon in 2012, french at 2011 all raises questions too you know...

 

[The Blond Blur]

2011 was one of Federer's highest levels on clay but sadly he could not have won because beating Novak+Rafa back to back might happen on Grass or even on a HC but that ain't happening on clay

Novak vs Rafa should have happened in the semis

Not possible, they were 1-2 seeds.

 

[Tony48]

No rule is not broken.
I accepted that Kuerten is superior on clay to Federer peak to peak.
So Nole losing to Fed at wimbledon in 2012, french at 2011 all raises questions too you know...

Doesn’t matter what you “accept.” You made the rule. No young ATGs at their peak losing to past-prime players. Now you want to change it when you apply the rule to Federer.

See what happens when you make things up?

 

[bnjkn]

Yeah, what if? Probably there was a mental edge that could be important. But so much for the "unreachable level" that couldn't beat Federer to reach the final.

 

[platypus50]

Such a shame the 2011 RG final wasn't Nadal vs Djokovic - I was really keen to see if Djokovic actually would have won against Nadal if that match had occurred (especially after the Madrid and Rome wins by Djokovic in the lead-up to it).

Full credit to Federer though for playing possibly his best clay court match against Djokovic in the 2011 RG semi.

 

[abmk]

I have a feeling Federer was gonna get outplayed the longer the match went. Similar to AO 12 semifinal.

The 3rd set felt more like a last effort to not lose in straights, rather than a genuine attempt to push it 5 sets, so the match likely plays different if Fed takes the 1st set.

Its possible fed gets outplayed/outlasted. But if he wins the 1st set, he probably takes another 1 of set 2/3/4 IMO with Nadal's confidence not being as high as compared to previous seasons.

 

[zagor]

Pretty sure Nads pulled some foot tape BS at some point in the first. Not atypical, of course.

He asked for an MTO before Fed's serve IIRC. The most humble athlete to ever walk the earth. Nadal really did always get way too much of a pass for all his bush league crap. From the media, fans, players etc. etc.

Of course part of that is just tennis being tennis, in an actual contact sport Nadal wouln't dare pulling his BS as often.

 

[mike danny]

Also Fed was 29. I always liked Fed but couldn’t deal with his hardcore fans. I know all big 3 have them but I feel they are the worst. Fed is the only player that has always a year added onto his age during comparisons

Because he was close to 30 at RG 2011.

Not all 29's are created equal either. Djoker was 29 at both RG 2016 and AO 2017, does this mean he was in the same form for both?