Rank the 3-Slam seasons

[King No1e]

Yes , Its no about the slam feats , but also apply to the , take X player out of the picture and this other player would have x tournament X times. Doesnt work that way.

Agreed. Take Nadal out of the picture and Djokovic would theoretically have 25 Slams. Obviously that wouldn't be the case since Djokovic practically built his entire game around trying to counter Nadal's.

 

[MeatTornado]

I'm pointing out the facts. Which truth would you like to point out? Rafa's H2H dominance over Fed or the ever closing slam count gap?

Nothing you've said in this thread is a fact. Go ahead and believe that Federer is not the GOAT. No one's going to stop you. But that's an opinion, not a fact.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Nothing you've said in this thread is a fact. Go ahead and believe that Federer is not the GOAT. No one's going to stop you. But that's an opinion, not a fact.

I'm happy to discuss facts with you - let me know when you are ready.

 

[Jonesy]

1. Djokovic 2015
2. Djokovic 2011
3. Nadal 2010
4. Connors 1974
5. Wilander 1988
6. Federer 2006
7. Federer 2007
8. Federer 2004

 

[JaoSousa]

1. Djokovic 2015
2. Djokovic 2011
3. Nadal 2010
4. Connors 1974
5. Wilander 1988
6. Federer 2006
7. Federer 2007
8. Federer 2004

Please Explain

 

[titoelcolombiano]

See, that's easy. "Ever closing gap" kind of gives the game away, doesn't it?

It indicates that Federer has held the Slam count lead long before today (ten years, to be precise). Thus, you're incorrect on that count when you state that it's been obvious for a while that Federer is not the GOAT (your previous post). "Ever closing" refers to the future, while "obvious for a while" refers to the past. You could be right in stating that Federer could be dethroned from GOAT status in the future, but he is still the greatest player of all time, purely based off of the specific Slam count metric. That's what I take issue with, right there.

TL;DR: The fact that Rafa is getting close to the Slam record doesn't mean he is the best player of all time at the moment or at any time in history. It means he could very well become the greatest in the future. Again, "obvious for a while" is rendered invalid here.

I won't discuss H2H since it's not a very credible statistic. If you ask me, I would have mentioned his lead in Masters 1000's instead.

The ''GOAT'' got owned by Rafa in the 2000's (even baby Rafa - lol) and then owned by Djokovic in the 2010's. His records would have all fallen by now if not for the headstart he was given in the 2003 - 2007 fairytale era that he only lucked apon due to his age. Despite this advantage, the slam count adjusted for age is stark and points to anything but him being the GOAT:

Slams at age 33:
Rafa 19
Fed 17
Djoker 16 (has all of next year to add to this)

 

[MichaelNadal]

Fed's 06 >>>>>
Pure slayage.

 

[Third Serve]

The ''GOAT'' got owned by Rafa in the 2000's (even baby Rafa - lol) and then owned by Djokovic in the 2010's. His records would have all fallen by now if not for the headstart he was given in the 2003 - 2007 fairytale era that he only lucked apon due to his age. Despite this advantage, the slam count adjusted for age is stark and points to anything but him being the GOAT:

Slams at age 33:
Rafa 19
Fed 17
Djoker 16 (has all of next year to add to this)

Yawn, not another annoying H2H argument. Those have been done to death already. But I'll humor you.

H2H is really not as all-important as people claim. Some even believe that just single match wins are on par with (or at least comparable to) Slam trophies themselves. It's not a very big deal by itself, and this is even before you dive into the glaring inconsistencies of the metric.

Let's have a look at Rafa "owning" Federer during his prime (these stats are copied from the official ATP site):

2007	Tennis Masters Cup China	Indoor Hard	SF	Roger Federer	64 61
2007	Wimbledon Great Britain	Outdoor Grass	F	Roger Federer	76 46 76 26 62
2007	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	63 46 63 64
2007	ATP Masters 1000 Hamburg Germany	Outdoor Clay	F	Roger Federer	26 62 60
2007	ATP Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	64 64
2006	Tennis Masters Cup China	Indoor Hard	SF	Roger Federer	64 75
2006	Wimbledon Great Britain	Outdoor Grass	F	Roger Federer	60 76 67 63
2006	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	16 61 64 76
2006	ATP Masters 1000 Rome Italy	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	67 76 64 26 76
2006	ATP Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	62 67 63 76
2006	Dubai U.A.E.	Outdoor Hard	F	Rafael Nadal	26 64 64
2005	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	SF	Rafael Nadal	63 46 64 63
2005	ATP Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Roger Federer	26 67 76 63 61
2004	ATP Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	R32	Rafael Nadal	63 63

I count 5 hard court matches (which Federer leads 3-2), and two grass court matches (which Federer leads 2-0). Let's say that these are the surfaces that benefit Federer more. Now compared with that we have 7 matches on clay (which Nadal of course leads 6-1). Considering clay only appears for about 1/3 of the season, it's odd that the matches are slanted towards that surface.

With a bit of context, however, it makes sense. Nadal was still a developing player and he had not matured enough on hard courts until 2009 (and even so, he had a drop in form which prevented him from running into Federer after the AO; Let's say 2010). He was still at his clay peak (which spans about 10 years) so he made it up to Federer almost all the time. However, Federer was good enough on clay to even meet Nadal that many times and he was significantly better on every other surface. What I'm trying to say is that Nadal wasn't good enough to make the date on hard courts to balance out on clay.

So basically, Fed gets punished for being the better player by a landslide during that period. This is why I don't trust H2H that much. There are very noticeable holes.

If you think I'm using mental gymnastics to turn that H2H around and decide to dismiss it outright, just consider the question: If "baby" Nadal being 8-6 against peak Federer means a lot in the GOAT debate, then why did that H2H not translate to better success in Slams and other big tournaments? The Slam tally from 2004 - 2007 was 11-3. That's not even close, and it's where I begin to ask some questions as to how the obviously weaker player managed to attain the match lead. It probably shouldn't be taken at face value.

Adjusted Slam counts are basically made-up stats used to pump up player resumes. The only Slam count that really matters in the big picture is the current one. And by the way, Slams at age 29 (because I can use arbitrary numbers too!):

Federer: 16
Nadal: 14
Djokovic: 12

Meh, I'm done here lol

 

[Breakpointerer]

Yawn, not another annoying H2H argument. Those have been done to death already. But I'll humor you.

H2H is really not as all-important as people claim. Some even believe that just single match wins are on par with (or at least comparable to) Slam trophies themselves. It's not a very big deal by itself, and this is even before you dive into the glaring inconsistencies of the metric.

Let's have a look at Rafa "owning" Federer during his prime (these stats are copied from the official ATP site):

2007	Tennis Masters Cup China	Indoor Hard	SF	Roger Federer	64 61
2007	Wimbledon Great Britain	Outdoor Grass	F	Roger Federer	76 46 76 26 62
2007	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	63 46 63 64
2007	ATP Masters 1000 Hamburg Germany	Outdoor Clay	F	Roger Federer	26 62 60
2007	ATP Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	64 64
2006	Tennis Masters Cup China	Indoor Hard	SF	Roger Federer	64 75
2006	Wimbledon Great Britain	Outdoor Grass	F	Roger Federer	60 76 67 63
2006	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	16 61 64 76
2006	ATP Masters 1000 Rome Italy	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	67 76 64 26 76
2006	ATP Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	62 67 63 76
2006	Dubai U.A.E.	Outdoor Hard	F	Rafael Nadal	26 64 64
2005	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	SF	Rafael Nadal	63 46 64 63
2005	ATP Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Roger Federer	26 67 76 63 61
2004	ATP Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	R32	Rafael Nadal	63 63

I count 5 hard court matches (which Federer leads 3-2), and two grass court matches (which Federer leads 2-0). Let's say that these are the surfaces that benefit Federer more. Now compared with that we have 7 matches on clay (which Nadal of course leads 6-1). Considering clay only appears for about 1/3 of the season, it's odd that the matches are slanted towards that surface.

With a bit of context, however, it makes sense. Nadal was still a developing player and he had not matured enough on hard courts until 2009 (and even so, he had a drop in form which prevented him from running into Federer after the AO; Let's say 2010). He was still at his clay peak (which spans about 10 years) so he made it up to Federer almost all the time. However, Federer was good enough on clay to even meet Nadal that many times and he was significantly better on every other surface. What I'm trying to say is that Nadal wasn't good enough to make the date on hard courts to balance out on clay.

So basically, Fed gets punished for being the better player by a landslide during that period. This is why I don't trust H2H that much. There are very noticeable holes.

If you think I'm using mental gymnastics to turn that H2H around and decide to dismiss it outright, just consider the question: If "baby" Nadal being 8-6 against peak Federer means a lot in the GOAT debate, then why did that H2H not translate to better success in Slams and other big tournaments? The Slam tally from 2004 - 2007 was 11-3. That's not even close, and it's where I begin to ask some questions as to how the obviously weaker player managed to attain the match lead. It probably shouldn't be taken at face value.

Adjusted Slam counts are basically made-up stats used to pump up player resumes. The only Slam count that really matters in the big picture is the current one. And by the way, Slams at age 29 (because I can use arbitrary numbers too!):

Federer: 16
Nadal: 14
Djokovic: 12

Meh, I'm done here lol

Come through and slay

 

[Third Serve]

Come through and slay

I'll wait for the counter-argument first. Never, EVER declare a victory right after you finish typing the post.

 

[Lew II]

1) 2015 Djokovic
2) 2011 Djokovic
3) 2007 Federer

Great seasons with great opponents.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/winning-percentage-minus-opponents-ranking.656844/

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Agreed. Take Nadal out of the picture and Djokovic would theoretically have 25 Slams. Obviously that wouldn't be the case since Djokovic practically built his entire game around trying to counter Nadal's.

And also the factor motivation, I know some people buy the "love for the game" BS , I dont doubt they love tennos, but with 20 slams each of them and with the second most succesful player with only 3 or 4 slams, they would have long ago retired taking care of their family and really enjoying life, or they would be taking it easy , still active with a very reduced schedule (in the case of Nadal and Djokovic if they still were active) because I think Federer would have already retired lla few years ago, max after Rio 2016

 

[Belgrad13]

My Top 3:

1. Jimmy Connors 1974 - Theoretically, he could have won the French Open
2. Novak Djokovic 2015 - The best season ever
3. Rafael Nadal 2010 - Three titles in a row on 3 different surfaces is sensational

 

[Dan Lobb]

My Top 3:

1. Jimmy Connors 1974 - Theoretically, he could have won the French Open
2. Novak Djokovic 2015 - The best season ever
3. Rafael Nadal 2010 - Three titles in a row on 3 different surfaces is sensational

Tennis history begins in 2004.

 

[KINGROGER]

The ''GOAT'' got owned by Rafa in the 2000's (even baby Rafa - lol) and then owned by Djokovic in the 2010's. His records would have all fallen by now if not for the headstart he was given in the 2003 - 2007 fairytale era that he only lucked apon due to his age. Despite this advantage, the slam count adjusted for age is stark and points to anything but him being the GOAT:

Slams at age 33:
Rafa 19
Fed 17
Djoker 16 (has all of next year to add to this)

What advantage? He overcame quality contemporaries between 2003-2006 then did well vs the nextgen between 2007-2012.

The only fairytale is the 2015- present period. Nadal with 2 of the weakest USO of all time and Djokovic sweeping up weak slams left right centre.

 

[Jonesy]

What advantage? He overcame quality contemporaries between 2003-2006 then did well vs the nextgen between 2007-2012.

The only fairytale is the 2015- present period. Nadal with 2 of the weakest USO of all time and Djokovic sweeping up weak slams left right centre.

 

[StrongRule]

What advantage? He overcame quality contemporaries between 2003-2006 then did well vs the nextgen between 2007-2012.

The only fairytale is the 2015- present period. Nadal with 2 of the weakest USO of all time and Djokovic sweeping up weak slams left right centre.

Yeah, Medvedev was such a weak opponent in USO 2019 final.

By the way, all 3 of them won a few weak slams in this period (though USO 2019 is not one of them), including Federer. But somehow you didn't mention him.

 

[Sport]

Tennis history begins in 2004.

2003.

 

[Sport]

No no, here began Nole's peak:

Here:

 

[KINGROGER]

Yeah, Medvedev was such a weak opponent in USO 2019 final.

By the way, all 3 of them won a few weak slams in this period (though USO 2019 is not one of them), including Federer. But somehow you didn't mention him.

Choker
Fed doesn’t count since he’s a grandpa now.

 

[StrongRule]

Choker
Fed doesn’t count since he’s a grandpa now.

LOL, if you think USO 2019 final was a choke then I'm not sure what tennis match is not a choke then. Med was extremely clutch in this final.

 

[Dan Lobb]

2003.

That's right, tennis history begins in 2003...before that, there were only long, grey-bearded geriatric guys who could barely swing a racquet, no power, no real serves, a real mess....

 

[titoelcolombiano]

What advantage? He overcame quality contemporaries between 2003-2006 then did well vs the nextgen between 2007-2012.

The only fairytale is the 2015- present period. Nadal with 2 of the weakest USO of all time and Djokovic sweeping up weak slams left right centre.

Yeah no - Nadal is currently competing with Djokovic and Federer for all major titles and has been for most of his career. You know the greatest three of all time, and current world number 1, 2 and 3. There is no way you can call that a weak era.

In terms of Fed's contemporaries - what a joke, put 24 - 25 year old Nadal and Djokovic in the ring with Roddick, Hewitt & Co and they would clean up too - lol. Fed's winning ratio significantly slowed after 2007 and there is a reason why, two players fully matured that were just better than him and it's shown.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Yawn, not another annoying H2H argument. Those have been done to death already. But I'll humor you.

H2H is really not as all-important as people claim. Some even believe that just single match wins are on par with (or at least comparable to) Slam trophies themselves. It's not a very big deal by itself, and this is even before you dive into the glaring inconsistencies of the metric.

Let's have a look at Rafa "owning" Federer during his prime (these stats are copied from the official ATP site):

2007	Tennis Masters Cup China	Indoor Hard	SF	Roger Federer	64 61
2007	Wimbledon Great Britain	Outdoor Grass	F	Roger Federer	76 46 76 26 62
2007	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	63 46 63 64
2007	ATP Masters 1000 Hamburg Germany	Outdoor Clay	F	Roger Federer	26 62 60
2007	ATP Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	64 64
2006	Tennis Masters Cup China	Indoor Hard	SF	Roger Federer	64 75
2006	Wimbledon Great Britain	Outdoor Grass	F	Roger Federer	60 76 67 63
2006	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	16 61 64 76
2006	ATP Masters 1000 Rome Italy	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	67 76 64 26 76
2006	ATP Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	62 67 63 76
2006	Dubai U.A.E.	Outdoor Hard	F	Rafael Nadal	26 64 64
2005	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	SF	Rafael Nadal	63 46 64 63
2005	ATP Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Roger Federer	26 67 76 63 61
2004	ATP Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	R32	Rafael Nadal	63 63

I count 5 hard court matches (which Federer leads 3-2), and two grass court matches (which Federer leads 2-0). Let's say that these are the surfaces that benefit Federer more. Now compared with that we have 7 matches on clay (which Nadal of course leads 6-1). Considering clay only appears for about 1/3 of the season, it's odd that the matches are slanted towards that surface.

With a bit of context, however, it makes sense. Nadal was still a developing player and he had not matured enough on hard courts until 2009 (and even so, he had a drop in form which prevented him from running into Federer after the AO; Let's say 2010). He was still at his clay peak (which spans about 10 years) so he made it up to Federer almost all the time. However, Federer was good enough on clay to even meet Nadal that many times and he was significantly better on every other surface. What I'm trying to say is that Nadal wasn't good enough to make the date on hard courts to balance out on clay.

So basically, Fed gets punished for being the better player by a landslide during that period. This is why I don't trust H2H that much. There are very noticeable holes.

If you think I'm using mental gymnastics to turn that H2H around and decide to dismiss it outright, just consider the question: If "baby" Nadal being 8-6 against peak Federer means a lot in the GOAT debate, then why did that H2H not translate to better success in Slams and other big tournaments? The Slam tally from 2004 - 2007 was 11-3. That's not even close, and it's where I begin to ask some questions as to how the obviously weaker player managed to attain the match lead. It probably shouldn't be taken at face value.

Adjusted Slam counts are basically made-up stats used to pump up player resumes. The only Slam count that really matters in the big picture is the current one. And by the way, Slams at age 29 (because I can use arbitrary numbers too!):

Federer: 16
Nadal: 14
Djokovic: 12

Meh, I'm done here lol

If Fed is the GOAT, he shouldn't be losing at all to a 19 - 21 year old Rafa on hard courts. Fed was the world number 1 at the time and in his absolute pomp. 8 - 6 against baby Rafa is an absolute embarrassment for the ''GOAT''.

The thing with your adjustment for age is that they aren't 29, mine wasn't arbitrary because the youngest, Djokovic is actually 32 and aparently these two would never have the longevity that Fed has and at 32 the slam count says differently. Hey, in fact the slam count after 30 even says differently:

Rafa 5
Djoker 4
Fed 4

Fed is a great player but he's just not as good as the other two.

 

[Third Serve]

If Fed is the GOAT, he shouldn't be losing at all to a 19 - 21 year old Rafa on hard courts. Fed was the world number 1 at the time and in his absolute pomp. 8 - 6 against baby Rafa is an absolute embarrassment for the ''GOAT''.

The thing with your adjustment for age is that they aren't 29, mine wasn't arbitrary because the youngest, Djokovic is actually 32 and aparently these two would never have the longevity that Fed has and at 32 the slam count says differently. Hey, in fact the slam count after 30 even says differently:

Rafa 5
Djoker 4
Fed 4

Fed is a great player but he's just not as good as the other two.

lol whatever. You basically just made the same points as before. Anyway, I didn't know Slam count after 30 was an important criteria in the GOAT debate. As I wrote before, these are made-up stats to inflate Nadal's resume. I might as well post prime age (that would be about 23-28, maybe 24-29) Slam counts to prove who was the best in their prime ages. It literally means nothing, just like longevity is an useless method of evaluating players, although it does indirectly help players win more Slams. One player could win their 10 Slams over a 15-year career and one could win 10 Slams over 5 years. I will still rate the players equal at the end of their careers because they won the same amount of Slams. Maybe I'll say that Player B's peak was higher since his Slam distribution is more concentrated and that Player A was more consistent over a long period of time, but that's as far as I'll go.

Truth be told, I'm not very interested in this conversation anymore so I'll just leave this here.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Here:

Your peak can't begin at a tournament you don't even go on to win.

 

[Lew II]

Here:

How is that peak, he lost like 10 matches in the second half of 2010, and 0 matches in the first half of 2011.

 

[ForehandCross]

How is that peak, he lost like 10 matches in the second half of 2010, and 0 matches in the first half of 2011.

Don't worry Rafael's fans keep telling themselves that to feel good about themselves. They know peak Djokovic was never beaten by Nadal on HC.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Don't worry Rafael's fans keep telling themselves that to feel good about themselves. They know peak Djokovic was never beaten by Nadal on HC.

Lol you tried it.

 

[ForehandCross]

Lol you tried it.

Now , Rafael's fan argue that USO 2010 was just before Djokovic's 2011 . And USO 2010 F was one his Djokovic's best matches.

By the same logic, Nadal's 2010 HC peak was so close to 2011. Guess who went 0-3 on HC against Djokovic.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Now , Rafael's fan argue that USO 2010 was just before Djokovic's 2011 . And USO 2010 F was one his Djokovic's best matches.

By the same logic, Nadal's 2010 HC peak was so close to 2011. Guess who went 0-3 on HC against Djokovic.

Guess what my fav album is?

 

[ForehandCross]

Guess what my fav album is?

Why?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Why?

Bc it's something irrelevant to you, just like the lame troll argument you're intending to start

 

[ForehandCross]

Bc it's something irrelevant to you, just like the lame troll argument you're intending to start

It's already going on pretty well, I have no need of starting anything.

 

[MichaelNadal]

It's already going on pretty well, I have no need of starting anything.

Eat something epic

 

[ForehandCross]

Eat something epic

You seem like a fun guy. I already ate something epic

That's Indian Fish curry.

Washed it down with coke.





Now , tell me where was I wrong in my previous post about 2010-11 ?

 

[MichaelNadal]

You seem like a fun guy. I already ate something epic



Now , tell me where was I wrong in my previous post about 2010-11 ?

Lol you aren't getting me to debate anything man, but cheers.

 

[DMTNA]

If Fed is the GOAT, he shouldn't be losing at all to a 19 - 21 year old Rafa on hard courts. Fed was the world number 1 at the time and in his absolute pomp. 8 - 6 against baby Rafa is an absolute embarrassment for the ''GOAT''.

The thing with your adjustment for age is that they aren't 29, mine wasn't arbitrary because the youngest, Djokovic is actually 32 and aparently these two would never have the longevity that Fed has and at 32 the slam count says differently. Hey, in fact the slam count after 30 even says differently:

Rafa 5
Djoker 4
Fed 4

Fed is a great player but he's just not as good as the other two.

Bro, arguing with Fed fanboyz be like " The H2H is not important , the slam count is what matters'' and nowadays '' Records are to mean to be broken, Fed is G.O.A.T''
Don't feed them bro!

 

[aditya123]

Bro, arguing with Fed fanboyz be like " The H2H is not important , the slam count is what matters'' and nowadays '' Records are to mean to be broken, Fed is G.O.A.T''
Don't feed them bro!

Weeks at no 1 is the most imp criteria no!!!!! Haha

 

[Sport]

Don't worry Rafael's fans keep telling themselves that to feel good about themselves. They know peak Djokovic was never beaten by Nadal on HC.

Don't worry Roger's fans keep telling themselves that to feel good about themselves. They know peak Djokovic was beaten by Nadal at the USO, but not by Federer.

 

[Sport]

How is that peak, he lost like 10 matches in the second half of 2010, and 0 matches in the first half of 2011.

I meant specifically from the USO 2010 onwards. He lost because no one is unbeatable, peak or non-peak. Djokovic was eliminated in the group phase of the 2011 ATP finals but he arrived to the SF of the 2010 ATP finals.

 

[Hitman]

I meant specifically from the USO 2010 onwards. He lost because no one is unbeatable, peak or non-peak. Djokovic was eliminated in the group phase of the 2011 ATP finals but he arrived to the SF of the 2010 ATP finals.

I don't know if I should systematically dismantle your statement or not. I mean you were also posting this past summer basically how Federer beat the peakiest version of Nadal on grass.

 

[KINGROGER]

Yeah no - Nadal is currently competing with Djokovic and Federer for all major titles and has been for most of his career. You know the greatest three of all time, and current world number 1, 2 and 3. There is no way you can call that a weak era.

In terms of Fed's contemporaries - what a joke, put 24 - 25 year old Nadal and Djokovic in the ring with Roddick, Hewitt & Co and they would clean up too - lol. Fed's winning ratio significantly slowed after 2007 and there is a reason why, two players fully matured that were just better than him and it's shown.

Fed has the most slams in his peak compared to the other 2. It’s only thanks to the recent inflation era they’ve been able to catch up.
We already did see Nadal in a ring with Fed’s guys and he got owned time and time again off clay.

 

[NoleFam]

I meant specifically from the USO 2010 onwards. He lost because no one is unbeatable, peak or non-peak. Djokovic was eliminated in the group phase of the 2011 ATP finals but he arrived to the SF of the 2010 ATP finals.

You know damn well 2010 was not Djokovic's peak. Lol. Peak Djokovic doesn't have a 77% win loss record for the year. He also was at 78% win loss after the USO and lost to Michael Llodra in two sets in Paris after that. Peak Djokovic would not be losing to someone like that and definitely not in a match where he wins like 7 games. Nadal got Djokovic in 2010 before he became a true champion and when he was not at his best yet so stop trying to inflate that win. Brag about 2013 all you want since at least Djokovic was #1 and multi Slam champion when Nadal got him, but trying to pretend he beat peak Djokovic in 2010 is just nonsensical.

 

[RS]

You know damn well 2010 was not Djokovic's peak. Lol. Peak Djokovic doesn't have a 77% win loss record for the year. He also was at 78% win loss after the USO and lost to Michael Llodra in two sets in Paris after that. Peak Djokovic would not be losing to someone like that and definitely not in a match where he wins like 7 games. Nadal got Djokovic in 2010 before he became a true champion and when he was not at his best yet so stop trying to inflate that win. Brag about 2013 all you want since at least Djokovic was #1 and multi Slam champion when Nadal got him, but trying to pretend he beat peak Djokovic in 2010 is just nonsensical.

Nadal of USO 2010 > any Djokovic at the USO sorry lol.

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal of USO 2010 > any Djokovic at the USO sorry lol.

Except 2011 Djokovic. Djokovic at his best is just a better hardcourt player than Nadal. The way he has reeled off set after set over him since 2013 is something even Nadal couldn't do to him on clay.

 

[Hitman]

You know damn well 2010 was not Djokovic's peak. Lol. Peak Djokovic doesn't have a 77% win loss record for the year. He also was at 78% win loss after the USO and lost to Michael Llodra in two sets in Paris after that. Peak Djokovic would not be losing to someone like that and definitely not in a match where he wins like 7 games. Nadal got Djokovic in 2010 before he became a true champion and when he was not at his best yet so stop trying to inflate that win. Brag about 2013 all you want since at least Djokovic was #1 and multi Slam champion when Nadal got him, but trying to pretend he beat peak Djokovic in 2010 is just nonsensical.

LOL don't worry about it, he was also pretty much saying Federer beat the peakiest version of Nadal on grass this year at Wimbledon. I mean, if he is going to do it to Rafa, then of course he will do it to others also.

 

[NoleFam]

LOL don't worry about it, he was also pretty much saying Federer beat the peakiest version of Nadal on grass this year at Wimbledon. I mean, if he is going to do it to Rafa, then of course he will do it to others also.

Well yea that explains it quite a bit.

 

[RS]

Except 2011 Djokovic. Djokovic at his best is just a better hardcourt player than Nadal. The way he has reeled off set after set over him since 2013 is something even Nadal couldn't do to him on clay.

2011 Djokovic was having his hands fully with Janko before he got injured
And he had his back on the wall vs 2011 Federer in the SF nearly losing....

 

[NoleFam]

2011 Djokovic was having his hands fully with Janko before he got injured
And he had his back on the wall vs 2011 Federer in the SF nearly losing....

We're talking about Nadal versus Djokovic though, not Djokovic against -----. Do you think there is a version of Nadal who can wrestle the title away from that Djokovic who played the 2011 final? Do you think he can outduel him when he is firing like that on all cylinders from every part of the court? If so, then we just disagree.