So what does Nadal have over Djokovic

[The_Order]

They met only 11 times off clay, that wasn't Djok's fault. He certainly reached the end of off-clay tournaments much more often than Nadal. And yet the last 3 times they met at Slams were at RG!

I was watching a youtube video recently. It said Nadal withdrew from 16 (?) tournaments, only 2 were on clay!

When did they meet 11 times since Moya took over?

They met 3 times... the grass match could have gone either way... despite all the advantages Djok had in that one...

Since 2017 Djok has reached the tail end of 1 or 2 more big hc events than Nadal. That's just a fact.

Nadal withdrew from 2/5 clay events this year alone...

 

[Djokovic2011]

When did they meet 11 times since Moya took over?

They met 3 times... the grass match could have gone either way... despite all the advantages Djok had in that one...

Since 2017 Djok has reached the tail end of 1 or 2 more big hc events than Nadal. That's just a fact.

Nadal withdrew from 2/5 clay events this year alone...

What advantages exactly did Djokovic have in the Wimbledon encounter? Nadal was in great form at the time whereas Djokovic was playing so badly that many people thought his career was over.

 

[SonnyT]

When did they meet 11 times since Moya took over?

They met 3 times... the grass match could have gone either way... despite all the advantages Djok had in that one...

Since 2017 Djok has reached the tail end of 1 or 2 more big hc events than Nadal. That's just a fact.

Nadal withdrew from 2/5 clay events this year alone...

Since 2017 Djok leads 8-2 off clay Slams. That's not your 1 or 2! Nadal took advantage of Djok's absence to win his 2nd AO!

When and where did Nadal withdraw on clay?

 

[Subway Tennis]

Fair play to Nadal.

What’s your take on the Vince McMahon situation? Will he come back to WWE?

 

[dr325i]

You said I got personal and attacked you... lmfao that's not an assumption...

Not my problem your little feelings got hurt... you make nonsensical statements, you get called out. Clay results are just as meaningful as hc and grass, whether you like it or not.

I've been here for long enough to know how this board operates... and I've seen enough of your whinging.

Again, I never said clay results are not meaningful, however, they are 30% of the overall tour and if you have 65% of your wins on clay, your career is not balanced. Simple statistical statement. He is clay God, no doubt about it. My biggest gripe with Nadal is that throughout his career he was “never” injured to skip clay season and naturally racked up 14 slams and additional >50 tournaments on the surface. Nadal and Novak met 10 times at FO and 8 times at the remaining 3 slams combined!

 

[The_Order]

What advantages exactly did Djokovic have in the Wimbledon encounter? Nadal was in great form at the time whereas Djokovic was playing so badly that many people thought his career was over.

Djok wasn't playing so badly lol... he was back to his best, should have won Queens, had mps on Cilic.

As for the advantages:

1. Closed roof
2. Easier draw - he faced Nishikori while Nadal had to face on fire Delpo... last time Djok was given that task he still won... but had nothing left against Murray in the final ... and that was when he was only 26... Nadal was 32 lol

 

[The_Order]

Since 2017 Djok leads 8-2 off clay Slams. That's not your 1 or 2! Nadal took advantage of Djok's absence to win his 2nd AO!

When and where did Nadal withdraw on clay?

I said big HC events... not all off-clay events...

Djok allowed himself to be absent. Not Nadal's problem.

He withdrew from both MC and Barcelona this year...

 

[SlowTiger]

Ummm they are both the most dominant players in the sport but in different ways. What Nadal really has over Novak is the bias view of the crowd and fans.

I'm saying this as a fan of neither. I just lost interest in watching professional men's tennis after Agassi retired and stopped following after Roddick retired

 

[The_Order]

Again, I never said clay results are not meaningful, however, they are 30% of the overall tour and if you have 65% of your wins on clay, your career is not balanced. Simple statistical statement. He is clay God, no doubt about it. My biggest gripe with Nadal is that throughout his career he was “never” injured to skip clay season and naturally racked up 14 slams and additional >50 tournaments on the surface. Nadal and Novak met 10 times at FO and 8 times at the remaining 3 slams combined!

So it's Nadal's fault Djok didn't reach him at AO09, AO14, AO17, AO22? There's 4 more encounters right there...

WIM06, 08, 10 ... another 3 encounters gone begging for Djok...

US17 & 19?

You're punishing Nadal for being clay God here... Nadal has been a constant at RG... Djok hasn't at any of the other 3 majors... including AO

Plus you have to factor in draws as well... the only time Nad and Djok were in the same half at the AO was 2017... Nadal made the date... Djok didn't...

You can gripe with Nadal all you want.. but this % of clay titles ratio only punishes him for winning... had he won say 3 RG his % of slams won on each surface is more evenly distributed... but it doesn't make him a better player...

And if balance bothers you so much, why not make that same point re Djok and Fed and their lack of RG titles to balance what they did on hc and grass respectively?

Further to this... it would be nearly impossible for Nadal to balance grass and/or hc results with clay... lmfao what's he supposed to do win 10 hc slams and 10 grass slams as well? Yeah right...

The guy entered the tour with a game suited for clay. It was on him to adapt his game to the other surfaces to be successful there as well. Just like Djok's game was suited for hc and he had to adjust it for the other surfaces.

Considering this, they are both extremely even when it comes to comparing them from best to worst surface respectively:

14 clay > 12 hc
6 hc < 7 grass
2 grass = 2 clay

Simple as that. If you're gonna give Djok more brownie points for winning more at 1 grass slam than Nadal has at 2 hc... then you've got to give Nadal the same brownie points for winning more at 1 clay slam than Djok at 2 hc.

 

[dr325i]

So it's Nadal's fault Djok didn't reach him at AO09, AO14, AO17, AO22? There's 4 more encounters right there...

WIM06, 08, 10 ... another 3 encounters gone begging for Djok...

US17 & 19?

You're punishing Nadal for being clay God here... Nadal has been a constant at RG... Djok hasn't at any of the other 3 majors... including AO

Plus you have to factor in draws as well... the only time Nad and Djok were in the same half at the AO was 2017... Nadal made the date... Djok didn't...

You can gripe with Nadal all you want.. but this % of clay titles ratio only punishes him for winning... had he won say 3 RG his % of slams won on each surface is more evenly distributed... but it doesn't make him a better player...

And if balance bothers you so much, why not make that same point re Djok and Fed and their lack of RG titles to balance what they did on hc and grass respectively?

Further to this... it would be nearly impossible for Nadal to balance grass and/or hc results with clay... lmfao what's he supposed to do win 10 hc slams and 10 grass slams as well? Yeah right...

The guy entered the tour with a game suited for clay. It was on him to adapt his game to the other surfaces to be successful there as well. Just like Djok's game was suited for hc and he had to adjust it for the other surfaces.

Considering this, they are both extremely even:

14 clay > 12 hc
6 hc < 7 grass
2 grass = 2 clay

Simple as that. If you're gonna give Djok more brownie points for winning more at 1 grass slam than Nadal has at 2 hc... then you've got to give Nadal the same brownie points for winning more at 1 clay slam than Djok at 2 hc.

Let’s see:
NADAL 22 slams (2, 14, 2, 4), 70 other titles
14/22 slams clay (64%), 49/70 other titles on clay (70%). Overall 68.5% titles on clay, 31.5% rest of surfaces (3/92 (3%) on grass and 26/92 (28%) on HC).

NOVAK 21 slams (9, 2, 7, 3), 70 other titles
18/91 titles on clay (20%), 8/81 (9%) on grass, 71% (indoor/outdoor HC). Fairly balanced with the tour content

FEDERER 20 slams (6, 1, 8, 5), 83 other titles
11/103 titles on clay (11%), 19/103 titles on grass (18%) and 71% on indoor and outdoor HC

ATP tour:
Clay tournaments: 19 per year (29%)
Grass tournaments: 7 per year (11%)
Indoor/outdoor HC: 40 per year (60%)

you tell me who has most balanced and Least balanced career so far.

 

[The_Order]

Let’s see:
NADAL 22 slams (2, 14, 2, 4), 70 other titles
14/22 slams clay (64%), 49/70 other titles on clay (70%). Overall 68.5% titles on clay, 31.5% rest of surfaces (3/92 (3%) on grass and 26/92 (28%) on HC).

NOVAK 21 slams (9, 2, 7, 3), 70 other titles
18/91 titles on clay (20%), 8/81 (9%) on grass, 71% (indoor/outdoor HC). Fairly balanced with the tour content

FEDERER 20 slams (6, 1, 8, 5), 83 other titles
11/103 titles on clay (11%), 19/103 titles on grass (18%) and 71% on indoor and outdoor HC

ATP tour:
Clay tournaments: 19 per year (29%)
Grass tournaments: 7 per year (11%)
Indoor/outdoor HC: 40 per year (60%)

you tell me who has most balanced and Least balanced career so far.

Let's see? mate you've haven't seen anything because again... you've lead yourself to the same flawed logic - if Nadal won less on clay, he'd be a better player

Using the tour distribution is also quite flawed... 7 grass lmao as if they play that many on there... big 3 play at most 2 grass events per year... usually 1 these days...

I already told you, their balance is quite even... here it is again:

14 clay > 12 hc
6 hc < 7 grass
2 grass = 2 clay

 

[alexio]

14 clay > 12 hc
6 hc < 7 grass
2 grass = 2 clay

24 clay > 12 hc (if to count without muddying) is all we need to know how really balanced it is, in other words, at one tourney 14 vs 8 at other three while both fed and djoko has way fewer titles at one tourney

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Top 10 contentious Rivalries in no order:

Lakers Celtics
Yankees Red Sox
Manchester United Liverpool
Mayweather Pacquiao (before they fought)
Real Madrid CF Barcelona
Canadiens Bruins
Ali Frazier
Rangers Islanders
Packers Bears
Djokovic Nadal

Honorable Mentions: India-Pakistan Cricket, USA Mexico (Futbol/Soccer), Hyena vs Leopard, Lion Pride vs Hyena Clan, Mongoose vs Cobra.

 

[vernonbc]

Again, I never said clay results are not meaningful, however, they are 30% of the overall tour and if you have 65% of your wins on clay, your career is not balanced.

Duh. If you have 65% of your wins on hard court, your career is not balanced.

Djokostans just don't have a grasp on reality.

 

[Julius Caesar]

A legacy.

 

[MichaelNadal]

A legacy.

Slayage in epic kits

 

[hoodjem]

50 is a lot.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Duh. If you have 65% of your wins on hard court, your career is not balanced.

Djokostans just don't have a grasp on reality.

Such a dumb statement when hardcourt is the predominant surface on tour.

 

[RS]

Top 10 contentious Rivalries in no order:

Lakers Celtics
Yankees Red Sox
Manchester United Liverpool
Mayweather Pacquiao (before they fought)
Real Madrid CF Barcelona
Canadians Bruins
Ali Frazier
Rangers Islanders
Packers Bears
Djokovic Nadal

Honorable Mentions: India-Pakistan Cricket, USA Mexico (Futbol/Soccer), Hyena vs Leopard, Lion Pride vs Hyena Clan, Mongoose vs Cobra.

Messi vs Ronaldo?

 

[Subway Tennis]

Have you checked the accuracy of that site? I just pointed out their epic failure when it comes to Bo5 stats.

Everything about the UTS site seems a bit dodgy to me.

I much prefer the tennis abstract interface.

Do you have a “go to” when you are looking up details, or are you usually collating data from multiple sources?

 

[Djokodal Fan]

OP should have mentioned the amazing record that Nadal has: that is not winning a single set in HC in past 9 years against Djokovic. I don’t know if anyone holds that unique record. Pls add that op

 

[MichaelNadal]

OP should have mentioned the amazing record that Nadal has: that is not winning a single set in HC in past 9 years against Djokovic. I don’t know if anyone holds that unique record. Pls add that op

You better grip Doha 2016 HARD

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Everything about the UTS site seems a bit dodgy to me.

I much prefer the tennis abstract interface.

Do you have a “go to” when you are looking up details, or are you usually collating data from multiple sources?

Long story short, I use to have a sports site and collected data from multiple sources which were cross-checked. I don't know if their issues are technical or "dodgy?"
Perhaps you can check if they include M1000 Bo5 Finals and Bo5 Olympics in their results as I never see them. Moreover, they don't include Pre-open stats which will
be very difficult due to accuracy and incomplete information. However, there are still some pretty good pre-open era info as Pro Slams and early GS details.

 

[RS]

Let’s see:
NADAL 22 slams (2, 14, 2, 4), 70 other titles
14/22 slams clay (64%), 49/70 other titles on clay (70%). Overall 68.5% titles on clay, 31.5% rest of surfaces (3/92 (3%) on grass and 26/92 (28%) on HC).

NOVAK 21 slams (9, 2, 7, 3), 70 other titles
18/91 titles on clay (20%), 8/81 (9%) on grass, 71% (indoor/outdoor HC). Fairly balanced with the tour content

FEDERER 20 slams (6, 1, 8, 5), 83 other titles
11/103 titles on clay (11%), 19/103 titles on grass (18%) and 71% on indoor and outdoor HC

ATP tour:
Clay tournaments: 19 per year (29%)
Grass tournaments: 7 per year (11%)
Indoor/outdoor HC: 40 per year (60%)

you tell me who has most balanced and Least balanced career so far.

Djokovic is more balanced by titles but clay is thing and Nadal makes up for his losses elsewhere on it sorry to tell you and 8 non clay slams is good enough

 

[dr325i]

Such a dumb statement when hardcourt is the predominant surface on tour.

Not understanding the basics and exposing themselves…what else to say…

 

[dr325i]

Djokovic is more balanced by titles but clay is thing and Nadal makes up for his losses elsewhere on it sorry to tell you and 8 non clay slams is good enough

“Good enough” is not what makes one the greatest ever…
Thanks for clarifying my point - he is “injured” on other surfaces, vultures clay over and over (as almost no one can compete against him on clay), then gets “injured”/tired after USO his whole career…

 

[RS]

“Good enough” is not what makes one the greatest ever…
Thanks for clarifying my point - he is “injured” on other surfaces, vultures clay over and over (as almost no one can compete against him on clay), then gets “injured”/tired after USO his whole career…

Nadal is one if the greatest ever weather is he is the best is another just had to point this out but I know you won’t budge on your stance lol.

 

[dr325i]

Nadal is one if the greatest ever weather is he is the best is another just had to point this out but I know you won’t budge on your stance lol.

Nadal definitely is one of the greatest, no doubt about it. Amazing work ethic and fighter spirit. The reason I would not consider him the absolute best even if he racks up 5 more FO is unbalanced career and basically absence from post USO part of your his whole career…

 

[The_Order]

Not understanding the basics and exposing themselves…what else to say…

Rather it's you who doesn't understand the basics... like I told you already, Nadal's game is suited for clay... so obviously he's going to win more on that surface...

It's about how well he could adapt to win on the others. Same holds true for every player and their game...

If Nadal had won a lot less on clay, his resume would be a lot more balanced... this is why it's stupid to work off percentages alone.

So yeah, you've continued to expose yourself here buddy boy... making a ridiculous argument that essentially means Nadal would be a better player if he lost more on clay...

14 clay > 12 hc
6 hc < 7 grass
2 grass = 2 clay

The results speak for themselves... Nadal a lot better on his best surface (factoring 2 hc slams), Djokovic a lot better on his second best surface (again 2 hc slams factor) and they're about even on their worst. Facts.

“Good enough” is not what makes one the greatest ever…
Thanks for clarifying my point - he is “injured” on other surfaces, vultures clay over and over (as almost no one can compete against him on clay), then gets “injured”/tired after USO his whole career…

Nothing makes a player the greatest ever... you'd think as someone who has been playing for a long time, you'd realise this... there's no real way to compare as there are way too many variables...

He has been injured on clay too, this is nonsense... even look at this year alone...

It's not vulturing when you're too good... been winning on clay for about 20 years now... it's vulturing when you're 31+ and you're suddenly getting better results than ever at Wimbledon...

Nadal definitely is one of the greatest, no doubt about it. Amazing work ethic and fighter spirit. The reason I would not consider him the absolute best even if he racks up 5 more FO is unbalanced career and basically absence from post USO part of your his whole career…

That's all good, no one is forcing you to consider anything you don't want to. But cut the nonsense out about his clay only resume which it clearly is not... he has more off clay slams than anyone in the open era apart from 3 players who also happen to be all top tier greats of the sport... and to win most of those off clay slams he had to beat 2 of those 3 guys in finals while they were in their prime... and he did it on every surface...

AO09: def Federer #2
RG12: def Djokovic #1
WIM08: def Federer #1
US13: def Djokovic #1

So that's obv not good enough for you... you're entitled to hold that stance. But it's good enough for me and I'm entitled to hold that stance as well.

 

[dr325i]

Rather it's you who doesn't understand the basics... like I told you already, Nadal's game is suited for clay... so obviously he's going to win more on that surface...

It's about how well he could adapt to win on the others. Same holds true for every player and their game...

If Nadal had won a lot less on clay, his resume would be a lot more balanced... this is why it's stupid to work off percentages alone.

So yeah, you've continued to expose yourself here buddy boy... making a ridiculous argument that essentially means Nadal would be a better player if he lost more on clay...

14 clay > 12 hc
6 hc < 7 grass
2 grass = 2 clay

The results speak for themselves... Nadal a lot better on his best surface (factoring 2 hc slams), Djokovic a lot better on his second best surface (again 2 hc slams factor) and they're about even on their worst. Facts.



Nothing makes a player the greatest ever... you'd think as someone who has been playing for a long time, you'd realise this... there's no real way to compare as there are way too many variables...

He has been injured on clay too, this is nonsense... even look at this year alone...

It's not vulturing when you're too good... been winning on clay for about 20 years now... it's vulturing when you're 31+ and you're suddenly getting better results than ever at Wimbledon...



That's all good, no one is forcing you to consider anything you don't want to. But cut the nonsense out about his clay only resume which it clearly is not... he has more off clay slams than anyone in the open era apart from 3 players who also happen to be all top tier greats of the sport... and to win most of those off clay slams he had to beat 2 of those 3 guys in finals while they were in their prime... and he did it on every surface...

AO09: def Federer #2
RG12: def Djokovic #1
WIM08: def Federer #1
US13: def Djokovic #1

So that's obv not good enough for you... you're entitled to hold that stance. But it's good enough for me and I'm entitled to hold that stance as well.

A lot of good and valid points...and some not so valid.
Nadal's game is suited for clay, correct and hence 68% of his wins on the surface with less than 30% presence on the tour (see above). Novak's game is suited for slower grass (vs early 2000's) and they are doing the same thing... Novak has the luxury of also dominating at the AO....

You cannot compare Nadal's "injury" absence on Clay vs other surfaces, it is more skewed than his winning record. For someone that has highest number of slams, 92 overall tournaments, and have ~1/2 the weeks at #1 vs. his biggest competitor, tells us exactly what I pointed out -- 65% slams and 68% overall tournaments on a 30% surface...

I totally agree with you statement that "Nothing makes a player the greatest ever". However, vulturing has Nothing to do with the age, some blossom early, some late.
Roger: 16 slams before 31, 4 past 31
Rafa: 15 before 31, 7 past 31 (5 FO)
Novak: , 12 before 31, 9 past 31 (4 W)
Not a tremendous skew and just like for Rafa racking up on the FO at the "old age" (5), Novak has found the area where he dominates over others at Wimbledon (4), that like on clay requires different abilities and knowledge how to play on it...

 

[TMF]

Messi vs Ronaldo?

And Magic vs. Bird

 

[SonnyT]

Nadal definitely is one of the greatest, no doubt about it. Amazing work ethic and fighter spirit. The reason I would not consider him the absolute best even if he racks up 5 more FO is unbalanced career and basically absence from post USO part of your his whole career…

Whenever Nadal doesn't think he can bag another title, he cops out and comes up with another injury. I cannot think of another superstar, in any sport, so disgraceful.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

And Magic vs. Bird

Lakers vs Celtics includes all those rivalries Cousy vs Baylor, Russell vs Wilt, Kareem vs Parish, Magic vs Bird, and lastly Kobe Vs Garnett.

 

[The_Order]

A lot of good and valid points...and some not so valid.
Nadal's game is suited for clay, correct and hence 68% of his wins on the surface with less than 30% presence on the tour (see above). Novak's game is suited for slower grass (vs early 2000's) and they are doing the same thing... Novak has the luxury of also dominating at the AO....

You cannot compare Nadal's "injury" absence on Clay vs other surfaces, it is more skewed than his winning record. For someone that has highest number of slams, 92 overall tournaments, and have ~1/2 the weeks at #1 vs. his biggest competitor, tells us exactly what I pointed out -- 65% slams and 68% overall tournaments on a 30% surface...

I totally agree with you statement that "Nothing makes a player the greatest ever". However, vulturing has Nothing to do with the age, some blossom early, some late.
Roger: 16 slams before 31, 4 past 31
Rafa: 15 before 31, 7 past 31 (5 FO)
Novak: , 12 before 31, 9 past 31 (4 W)
Not a tremendous skew and just like for Rafa racking up on the FO at the "old age" (5), Novak has found the area where he dominates over others at Wimbledon (4), that like on clay requires different abilities and knowledge how to play on it...

Djok is not a late blossomer llooooooooooooooooooolll

Why age 31? Before big 3, players rarely won majors after age 28 let alone rack up Sampras like figures...

Vulturing has a lot to do with age... don't tell me you're like Goran thinking a guy in mid 30's is getting better... absolute nonsense..

Roger: 15 slams before 28, 5 after
Nadal: 13 slams before 28 + 1 pretty much on his 28th bday, 8 after
Sampras: 12 slams before 28, 2 after
McEnroe: 7 slams before 28, 0 after
Lendl: 6 slams before 28, 2 after
Connors: 5 slams before 28, 3 after
Wilander: 7 slams before 28, 0 after
Edberg: 6 slams before, 0 after
Becker: 5 slams before 28, 1 after

Djok: 8 slams before 28, 13 after

Only special case for ATG is Agassi... 3 before and 5 after... and that's likely because he didn't play at the AO until he was nearly 25... and abused substances...
Borg retired when he was 26... no way of knowing how much he'd win post 28 but highly unlikely to be more than what he won beforehand..

If you cannot see the discrepancy here, you never will... this is a tremendous and monumental skew...

No ATG has even come close to winning so many more majors after 28 compared to before... and he's not even done yet...

Djok could realistically end up with as many or even more majors after turning 28 than Federer won before 28... he's already caught Nadal.. utter lunacy

So yeah, don't even try for 1 second to convince people Djok isn't the biggest vulture in the open era...

When the field was actually tough, he had a brilliant 12 months from AO11 till AO12 but he never saw anywhere close to that success before or after until he reached age 28... hmmmm.....

 

[Kralingen]

Djok is not a late blossomer llooooooooooooooooooolll

Why age 31? Before big 3, players rarely won majors after age 28 let alone rack up Sampras like figures...

Vulturing has a lot to do with age... don't tell me you're like Goran thinking a guy in mid 30's is getting better... absolute nonsense..

Roger: 15 slams before 28, 5 after
Nadal: 13 slams before 28 + 1 pretty much on his 28th bday, 8 after
Sampras: 12 slams before 28, 2 after
McEnroe: 7 slams before 28, 0 after
Lendl: 6 slams before 28, 2 after
Connors: 5 slams before 28, 3 after
Wilander: 7 slams before 28, 0 after
Edberg: 6 slams before, 0 after
Becker: 5 slams before 28, 1 after

Djok: 8 slams before 28, 13 after

Only special case for ATG is Agassi... 3 before and 5 after... and that's likely because he didn't play at the AO until he was nearly 25... and abused substances...
Borg retired when he was 26... no way of knowing how much he'd win post 28 but highly unlikely to be more than what he won beforehand..

If you cannot see the discrepancy here, you never will... this is a tremendous and monumental skew...

No ATG has even come close to winning so many more majors after 28 compared to before... and he's not even done yet...

Djok could realistically end up with as many or even more majors after turning 28 than Federer won before 28... he's already caught Nadal.. utter lunacy

So yeah, don't even try for 1 second to convince people Djok isn't the biggest vulture in the open era...

When the field was actually tough, he had a brilliant 12 months from AO11 till AO12 but he never saw anywhere close to that success before or after until he reached age 28... hmmmm.....

The age 28 cut off is BS to me, because his level in the Wim 15-USO 18 tournaments were absolutely deserving of titles. I mean he won the NCYGS at 28 and played some of the best tennis ever doing it. Who gives a **** about his age at that point.

I don’t like this argument

 

[The_Order]

The age 28 cut off is BS to me, because his level in the Wim 15-USO 18 tournaments were absolutely deserving of titles. I mean he won the NCYGS at 28 and played some of the best tennis ever doing it. Who gives a **** about his age at that point.

I don’t like this argument

His "best tennis" coincides with the field getting weaker...

His biggest threats were a 34 year old Federer which even then, he had struggles with in both WIM and US finals...

And Stan (who was playing well no doubt) who he couldn't beat at RG...

Heck, he nearly even lost to Anderson at Wimbledon...

So no, it wasn't the best tennis ever... but you are entitled to believe so.

 

[Kralingen]

His "best tennis" coincides with the field getting weaker...

His biggest threats were a 34 year old Federer which even then, he had struggles with in both WIM and US finals...

And Stan (who was playing well no doubt) who he couldn't beat at RG...

Heck, he nearly even lost to Anderson at Wimbledon...

So no, it wasn't the best tennis ever... but you are entitled to believe so.

That’s not what I’m saying though

His level in all of his first 15 wins was absolutely deserving of a Slam. I mean are you really telling me Wim 15/USO 15/AO 16/RG 16/Wim 18/USO 18/AO 19 were vultured mug level slam performances?

i mean be serious mate. This is a joke

The age 28 thing is a totally arbitrary cut off that you’ve just made up in your head because it sounds good. It only applies if his level was poor, which you could say about all of his post AO 20 Slams. But this is just a cheap way to erase 7 great slams from Wim 15-AO 19.

dislike this arbitrary argument style

 

[dr325i]

Djok is not a late blossomer llooooooooooooooooooolll

Why age 31? Before big 3, players rarely won majors after age 28 let alone rack up Sampras like figures...

Vulturing has a lot to do with age... don't tell me you're like Goran thinking a guy in mid 30's is getting better... absolute nonsense..

Roger: 15 slams before 28, 5 after
Nadal: 13 slams before 28 + 1 pretty much on his 28th bday, 8 after
Sampras: 12 slams before 28, 2 after
McEnroe: 7 slams before 28, 0 after
Lendl: 6 slams before 28, 2 after
Connors: 5 slams before 28, 3 after
Wilander: 7 slams before 28, 0 after
Edberg: 6 slams before, 0 after
Becker: 5 slams before 28, 1 after

Djok: 8 slams before 28, 13 after

Only special case for ATG is Agassi... 3 before and 5 after... and that's likely because he didn't play at the AO until he was nearly 25... and abused substances...
Borg retired when he was 26... no way of knowing how much he'd win post 28 but highly unlikely to be more than what he won beforehand..

If you cannot see the discrepancy here, you never will... this is a tremendous and monumental skew...

No ATG has even come close to winning so many more majors after 28 compared to before... and he's not even done yet...

Djok could realistically end up with as many or even more majors after turning 28 than Federer won before 28... he's already caught Nadal.. utter lunacy

So yeah, don't even try for 1 second to convince people Djok isn't the biggest vulture in the open era...

When the field was actually tough, he had a brilliant 12 months from AO11 till AO12 but he never saw anywhere close to that success before or after until he reached age 28... hmmmm.....

First it was 31, now 28. You are clueless and just finding ways to fit your agenda. 28 means nothing, 31 means nothing either.

All you are confirming OVER AND OVER, and helping my original point is that Nadal keeps winning slams post 31 (5 FO plus one AO) then showing up elsewhere until he realizes he can’t win (aka “injury”), W22 example…. That is the definition of vulturing.
Playing all tournaments consistently, winning some, losing some (graciously) has nothing to do with what you are trying to portray.

If the field is so weak as you believe, then why is Nadal only able to win clay or tournaments that Novak does not play these days. Why are Tiafoe, Paul, Fritz so strong for him??

 

[TMF]

@The_Order thread, things aren't going as you have planned?

It's a big mistake for making this thread to retaliate Djoker fans for making the thread first. In fact, both threads are downright silly and immature

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Messi vs Ronaldo?

After today I think that debate ended.

 

[SonnyT]

His "best tennis" coincides with the field getting weaker...

His biggest threats were a 34 year old Federer which even then, he had struggles with in both WIM and US finals...

Federer at 34 was a damn good player, was better than all of his previous Wimbledon opponents, save Nadal. For '14-15, Djokovic was the only player who could beat Fed at Wimbledon.

Fed at 36-37 won 3 GS, remember. Fed at 38 beat Nadal at Wim SF, should've beat Djokovic in Finals. He was good until 39!

The only reason you said Federer at 34 was old was because he couldn't beat Djokovic. Last year Nadal was 36, this year Djokovic will be 36, and they will compete with Alcaraz, and they're older by 15/16 years, not by a mere 6 years!

 

[RS]

After today I think that debate ended.

From 2009 to 2018 and to a lesser degree in 2019-2020 in particular it was the thing. That's a decade of non stop fighting and debate

 

[The_Order]

First it was 31, now 28. You are clueless and just finding ways to fit your agenda. 28 means nothing, 31 means nothing either.

All you are confirming OVER AND OVER, and helping my original point is that Nadal keeps winning slams post 31 (5 FO plus one AO) then showing up elsewhere until he realizes he can’t win (aka “injury”), W22 example…. That is the definition of vulturing.
Playing all tournaments consistently, winning some, losing some (graciously) has nothing to do with what you are trying to portray.

If the field is so weak as you believe, then why is Nadal only able to win clay or tournaments that Novak does not play these days. Why are Tiafoe, Paul, Fritz so strong for him??

I literally showed you that every ATG has struggled past age 28... means nothing... yeah right pal

Ok. I'm done with you. You're not rational in any sense.. just a clear hatred for Nadal. Anybody with real tennis knowledge could see he was serving well under par against Fritz at Wimbledon... to imply he faked injury is a joke.

Novak losing some graciously? Another dead set joke... the guy acts like he's about to pass out then runs like a rabbit point after point... he throws tantrums on the court and acts like an idiot as soon as something doesn't go his way... hence his DQ from the US Open...

Nadal's been winning at RG for 20 years... he's just too good. He's proven that. What did Novak prove on grass before he was 28? One good Wimbledon run in 2011 and a struggle against 33 year old Fed in the 2014 final? Yeah ok...

It's not a belief that the field is weak, its a fact. The strongest era was from 08-13... Nadal more than did enough against better opponents in their prime. Djok didn't... all he did was keep himself healthy and wait... pure def of vulture.

Anyway, like I said... you're not worth another minute. off to ignore you go...

 

[The_Order]

@The_Order thread, things aren't going as you have planned?

It's a big mistake for making this thread to retaliate Djoker fans for making the thread first. In fact, both threads are downright silly and immature

This thread has done more than I could have hoped...

Go create your Fed version, you know you want to dust off the old list after you make... quite a few adjustments to it

 

[The_Order]

Federer at 34 was a damn good player, was better than all of his previous Wimbledon opponents, save Nadal. For '14-15, Djokovic was the only player who could beat Fed at Wimbledon.

Fed at 36-37 won 3 GS, remember. Fed at 38 beat Nadal at Wim SF, should've beat Djokovic in Finals. He was good until 39!

The only reason you said Federer at 34 was old was because he couldn't beat Djokovic. Last year Nadal was 36, this year Djokovic will be 36, and they will compete with Alcaraz, and they're older by 15/16 years, not by a mere 6 years!

Thanks for proving my point...

 

[SonnyT]

Nadal had one year of winning 3 slams, but Federer and Djokovic each had 3 years of winning 3 slams. No wonder he had no era of his own.

Djokovic had a great year in 11, but his years of 12-14 were subpar, winning just one Slam a year. It wasn't 15 that he won 3 slams a year again.

 

[dr325i]

I literally showed you that every ATG has struggled past age 28... means nothing... yeah right pal

Ok. I'm done with you. You're not rational in any sense.. just a clear hatred for Nadal. Anybody with real tennis knowledge could see he was serving well under par against Fritz at Wimbledon... to imply he faked injury is a joke.

Novak losing some graciously? Another dead set joke... the guy acts like he's about to pass out then runs like a rabbit point after point... he throws tantrums on the court and acts like an idiot as soon as something doesn't go his way... hence his DQ from the US Open...

Nadal's been winning at RG for 20 years... he's just too good. He's proven that. What did Novak prove on grass before he was 28? One good Wimbledon run in 2011 and a struggle against 33 year old Fed in the 2014 final? Yeah ok...

It's not a belief that the field is weak, its a fact. The strongest era was from 08-13... Nadal more than did enough against better opponents in their prime. Djok didn't... all he did was keep himself healthy and wait... pure def of vulture.

Anyway, like I said... you're not worth another minute. off to ignore you go...

And again…
He fought Fritz at W22 because he knew he could win. He ran away from Kyrgios/Djokovic because he had no chance, hence, we won’t see the battle on another surface (1:9 last 10 meetings) this year…. Similar in Paris, then Turin…. I forget what the excuse was then. Tired, rusty, ran out of thongs?

and again…”33 year old Federer”. Dude, that Federer played a few 5-setters at the AO2017 and beat your boy in the final, the 36 (!!!!) old guy LOL.

if the strongest era was 08-13 then how come Nadal underperformed outside FO. How come he racked up 6 FO and 3 total on other surfaces during weak times. Is he that weak or…one sided really (clay)? How come he NEVER (0:8) beat Djokovic outside clay post 2013 if such a weak era?

how Come he kept being injured outside clay part of the season during weak times?? All good at the AO22, but no Novak there. Then miraculously injured at W22 just before meeting with Novak, and then all feeling good at the USO22, then all “rusty” in Paris/Turin.

what’s your prediction at the AO23? Injured, rusty, show up, skip?

 

[TMF]

This thread has done more than I could have hoped...

Go create your Fed version, you know you want to dust off the old list after you make... quite a few adjustments to it

There are a lot of negative reactions on this thread so it's not what you really want. It has done more damage to Nadal's case, not exactly what you could have hope...

No Federer fan has made any thread about the 50 things that Federer has over the other 2. It could easily be done, with even more impressive records/streaks but Federer fans don't stoop to that level. You got bait into the first troll thread made by the Djoker fan and chose to reach their level in making the similar thread. Regrettable effort from both parties

 

[The_Order]

There are a lot of negative reactions on this thread so it's not what you really want. It has done more damage to Nadal's case, not exactly what you could have hope...

No Federer fan has made any thread about the 50 things that Federer has over the other 2. It could easily be done, with even more impressive records/streaks but Federer fans don't stoop to that level. You got bait into the first troll thread made by the Djoker fan and chose to reach their level in making the similar thread. Regrettable effort from both parties

This thread was a p155 take on another thread...

Sorry it hurts your feelings so much, clearly both threads bother you

If it was a Federer 50 things over Nadal or Djok thread, you'd be all over it like white on rice.. hence the reason another poster asked you to create the Fed version.

Like I said, this thread is going exactly as planned...

 

[Torben]

Djok wasn't playing so badly lol... he was back to his best, should have won Queens, had mps on Cilic.

As for the advantages:

1. Closed roof
2. Easier draw - he faced Nishikori while Nadal had to face on fire Delpo... last time Djok was given that task he still won... but had nothing left against Murray in the final ... and that was when he was only 26... Nadal was 32 lol

Yes, that match being concluded under the roof was a clear advantage for Djokovic. I strongly believe Nadal would’ve won that match had they played the rest of the match with an open roof.

Who in their right mind would choose to play a match like that with the roof closed when it was a sunny day?