Slam distribution with Nadal/Djokovic

Flint

Hall of Fame
#1
Okay, normally I don't bother with these types of threads but the thought just occured to me.

We are all familiar with the arguments of a few who try to diminish Nadals accomplishments and increase those of Djokovic and Federer by talking about slam distribution.
The argument being that because most of Nadals Grand Slams have been won on clay where he is dominant and not as many have been won off clay, then this is somehow a bad thing for his "greatness".

Because Djokovic and Federer have a better slam distribution across the surfaces, that makes things better.

But it just occured to me that Nadal and Djokovic actually have pretty even distribution surface wise relative to their best surfaces.

Nadal
Slams won on best surface: 11
Slams won off best surface: 6

Djokovic
Slams won on best surface: 10
Slams won off best surface: 5

Almost identical numbers.

This is not a thread aimed at bigging up Nadal or bashing Djokovic, merely pointing out the similarity of slam distribution across the best surfaces for both players.
I also recognise not all fans engage in this argument, just a few who post the most.
 
#2
The trick with this is the same as with many stats - even if Djokovic wins the next 2 Slams, which is insane to even consider but not imposssible to happen, the distribution 'on best' vs 'off best' surface for both of them will still be close and the OP claim will still as much true as it is now. But, the overall comparison of them 2 would be ... 'somewhat' different. The final proof is that it works exactly the same way if Nadal wins the next 2 Slams, which is also not very likely but not impossible. You get the idea.
 
#5
Op - Nice spin.

Here is real one -

Non RG Slams Nadal - 6
Non AO Slams Djokovic - 8

% of non RG Slams Nadal 6/17 (35%)
% of non AO Slams Djokovic 8/15 (53%)

In short Nadal has won 65% of Slams at one event while for Djokovic the number is 47%. (For Federer it's 40%)

Who is more versatile ? Stats show Fed > Djoko > Nadal.
 
#6
Also number of Slams off Nadal' best surface - 3 opportunities every year.

For Djokovic it's just 2 opportunities every year.

So op counted 3/4 Slams under Nadal' non favorite category and just 2/4 for Djokovic. How can you compare these two?
 
#7
Nadal has won 6 titles at three different events while Djokovic has won 5 at two different events. Who is better performing outside of favorite court? Djokovic again (no matter how you spin it)

Failed thread.
 

Flint

Hall of Fame
#9
Also number of Slams off Nadal' best surface - 3 opportunities every year.

For Djokovic it's just 2 opportunities every year.

So op counted 3/4 Slams under Nadal' non favorite category and just 2/4 for Djokovic. How can you compare these two?
Nadal has won 6 titles at three different events while Djokovic has won 5 at two different events. Who is better performing outside of favorite court? Djokovic again (no matter how you spin it)

Failed thread.
As a Murray fan with no bias towards either Nadal or Djokovic I have no need to spin it.

I was being kind and leaving that fact alone but as you have brought it up and in a rude manner (failed thread), I have to disagree with this point.
I think having only 1 slam on your best surface as opposed to 2 is a clear disadvantage.

For example, imagine if the Australian Open was on clay every year and that was the accepted norm. There would not even be a comparison between the 2 players.
I think trying to argue that 2 Slams being on Hard and only 1 on clay is an advantage to Nadal is the real spin.
 
#10
Okay, normally I don't bother with these types of threads but the thought just occured to me.

We are all familiar with the arguments of a few who try to diminish Nadals accomplishments and increase those of Djokovic and Federer by talking about slam distribution.
The argument being that because most of Nadals Grand Slams have been won on clay where he is dominant and not as many have been won off clay, then this is somehow a bad thing for his "greatness".

Because Djokovic and Federer have a better slam distribution across the surfaces, that makes things better.

But it just occured to me that Nadal and Djokovic actually have pretty even distribution surface wise relative to their best surfaces.

Nadal
Slams won on best surface: 11
Slams won off best surface: 6

Djokovic
Slams won on best surface: 10
Slams won off best surface: 5

Almost identical numbers.

This is not a thread aimed at bigging up Nadal or bashing Djokovic, merely pointing out the similarity of slam distribution across the best surfaces for both players.
I also recognise not all fans engage in this argument, just a few who post the most.
This is an interesting counter argument, but as a Rafa fan I have to agree with a previous poster that the surface distribution at slam skews the results of this test.

I agree that 1 slam should equal 1 slam and it doesn't make a lot of sense to argue versatility>dominance when it comes to goathood.
 
#11
The other issue is that Nadal has dominated what in modern times has come to be considered the least prestigious of the slams. Had he achieved at Wimbledon or even the US Open for that matter what he achieved at Roland Garros he would be considered a far greater player.
 
#12
I disagree, cos the surfaces at the AO and US open, although they are both hard courts there different materials, one is plexicushion and the other decoturf.
So they will have a different bounce, and therefore slightly different conditions.

Hence, they shouldn't be combined into both hard courts, but should be categories of there own.

The criteria for who is GOAT varies constantly, but I feel like if where talking consistency it's Djokovic.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#14
As a Murray fan with no bias towards either Nadal or Djokovic I have no need to spin it.

I was being kind and leaving that fact alone but as you have brought it up and in a rude manner (failed thread), I have to disagree with this point.
I think having only 1 slam on your best surface as opposed to 2 is a clear disadvantage.

For example, imagine if the Australian Open was on clay every year and that was the accepted norm. There would not even be a comparison between the 2 players.
I think trying to argue that 2 Slams being on Hard and only 1 on clay is an advantage to Nadal is the real spin.
Well, considering that this was already the case when Nadal turned pro, it is more Nadal's fault that it is a disadvantage, not the tour's.
 

Flint

Hall of Fame
#15
Well, considering that this was already the case when Nadal turned pro, it is more Nadal's fault that it is a disadvantage, not the tour's.
I think you are missing my point a bit, my point being that the argument works both ways, which you have just provided more evidence towards.

You are responding to my post which itself is a response to an earlier post, where @D.Nalby12 said something along the lines that there are more slams off Nadal best surface than off Djokovic's best surface. Therefore Nadal has the advantage to win more Slams off his favourite surface.

I can apply your argument to this point and say "Well, considering that this was already the case when Djokovic turned pro, it is more Djokovic's fault that it is a disadvantage (towards winning off his best surface), not the tour's".

These arguments seem to work both ways for both players which is my entire point. We can say that the Slams are the surfaces that they are and it is up to the players to win or lose on them and as it stands Nadal has 11 on clay, Djokovic has 10 on hardcourt, Nadal has 6 off clay and Djokovic has 5 off hardcourt.

They are as good as neck and neck.
 
#16
Op - Nice spin.

Here is real one -

Non RG Slams Nadal - 6
Non AO Slams Djokovic - 8

% of non RG Slams Nadal 6/17 (35%)
% of non AO Slams Djokovic 8/15 (53%)

In short Nadal has won 65% of Slams at one event while for Djokovic the number is 47%. (For Federer it's 40%)

Who is more versatile ? Stats show Fed > Djoko > Nadal.
end thread /
 
#17
Looking at the distribution of slams competition will give the clearer story.

Who has Novak beaten to earn his GS titles in comparison to everyone else in the entire history of the sport itself, let alone Federer or Nadal?
 
Top