Toni Nadal : ´ Djokovic is winning everything when Federer and Nadal are not at their best´

[tennis_pro]

Well one thing is for sure...It would take a miracle for Nadal to win either the US Open or Wimbledon again.

Completely unrelated to what I said.

Are we going back to 2008 now? LOL. In 2011, Djokovic destroyed 25 year old Nadal on every surface. That was peak to peak. He has a better record at every Slam except the French. Case closed.

1) 2011 was not peak Nadal with the exception of slow HC.
2) Having a better record on grass means nothing if you consider who Nadal had to face in his Wimbledon finals (peak/prime Federer) compared to Djokovic (an old man).

 

[tennis_pro]

That's adorable, you think you are significant here while the truth is you are a laughing stock among all normal posters.

So much that whatever I say there are at least 3-5 Djokovic fans replying to me withing 5 minutes. YOU make me significant, brother so I'll just use this post to thank you for that.

Btw LOL at "Emperor of Belgrade" claiming that someone else is a laughing stock. Look in the mirror first. Look at what you've done, whatever you say there will always be the "Emperor of Belgrade" name attached to it. You lost all credibility by typing that name when creating your account, making you look like a total biased fanboy.

 

[NoleFam]

Completely unrelated to what I said.

1) 2011 was not peak Nadal.
2) Having a better record on grass means nothing if you consider who Nadal had to face in his Wimbledon finals compared to Djokovic.

Oh so 2011 wasn't peak Nadal. Why? Because he was losing? He was holding 3 Slams, beat everybody else and made the finals of Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, Madrid, Wimbledon and the US Open but lost to one man. Djokovic was playing at a level that only Federer could compete with and even he went 1-4. Nadal has lost before QF in the last 4 years so that is irrelevant. The one time he faced Djokovic in the Wimbledon final, he got destroyed.

 

[tennis_pro]

Oh so 2011 wasn't peak Nadal. Why? Because he was losing? He was holding 3 Slams, beat everybody else and made the finals of Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, Madrid, Wimbledon and the US Open but lost to one man. Djokovic was playing at a level that only Federer could compete with and even he went 1-4.

I always look beyond results to determine the form of a player. For example Federer played a lot better at the 2005 AO compared to 2006 yet he won the 2nd one.

As I said, Nadal was at or close to his best on slow HC in 2011 (IW/Miami in particular). Clay, grass, medium/fast HC? No. Played well but not at his best.

 

[NoleFam]

I always look beyond results to determine the form of a player. For example Federer played a lot better at the 2005 AO compared to 2006 yet he won the 2nd one.

As I said, Nadal was at or close to his best on slow HC in 2011 (IW/Miami in particular). Clay, grass, medium/fast HC? No. Played well but not at his best.

He played his best but Djokovic destroyed his confidence and his game piece by piece. His game is built on confidence and momentum. When Djokovic was not in the way, he was winning. Peak to peak, Djokovic is better than him on every surface except clay. He played an insanely good match at the US Open that year, which I think is an underrated classic, but it was not enough.

 

[tennis_pro]

He played his best but Djokovic destroyed his confidence and his game piece by piece. His game is built on confidence and momentum. When Djokovic was not in the way, he was winning. Peak to peak, Djokovic is better than him on every surface except clay. He played an insanely good match at the US Open that year, which I think is an underrated classic, but it was not enough.

That doesn't matter. Take Djokovic out and Federer wins the last 3 Slams, the WTF and a gazillion Masters tournaments at the age of 34. Does it mean that he's at or close to his best because he has great results? No. Try looking further than just at the stats. I know what I saw in 2011/2012 because that's when I was following everything related to tennis. Djokovic was out of this world but Nadal didn't play at his best, as I said - well but not at his best.

 

[NoleFam]

That doesn't matter. Take Djokovic out and Federer wins the last 3 Slams, the WTF and a gazillion Masters tournaments at the age of 34. Does it mean that he's at or close to his best because he has great results? No. Try looking further than just at the stats. I know what I saw in 2011/2012 because that's when I was following everything related to tennis. Djokovic was out of this world but Nadal didn't play at his best, as I said - well but not at his best.

You mean two Masters tournaments. Two does not equal a gazillion. Comparing the competitive level of 2011 and 2015 is laughable. Federer got to those stages with less trouble than Nadal had to worry about in 2011 and even then he consistently made 8/10 Tier 1 finals from Indian Wells to the US Open. He also made 7/7 finals from Indian Wells to Wimbledon. Federer only made 5/10. Apples and oranges and also, the downplaying of Federer's level in Wimbledon and the US Open is a bit tiresome from his so called fans. Nadal was 25/26 years old, which was right in his peak, was the dominant player in the game who just had his only 3 Slam season and he got manhandled. That is the reality.

 

[cc0509]

I am suddenly getting to like this Toni chap. Maybe I've been unfair all along.

Ha ha.

 

[5555]

Toni is just venting because a Lendl/Connors like player is now competing in the higher echelons of Rafa/Pete, courtesy the 'lost generation' and 'declined senior tour players'.

Federer won 17 slams due to a weak era. He would not have ended up as a Tier 1 great otherwise.

 

[cc0509]

Toni conveniently forgot 2011. His nephew was absolutely still at his peak. Under his coaching, his nephew lost 0:7 to djokovic, a record of one ATG owning another.

Yes, Djokovic took it to prime Nadal in 2011 for sure. But 2011 was just one year. What happened after 2011 when Nadal came back and took it to Djokovic again and led their h2h? This occurred until Nadal's collapse in 2014. Can Nadal come back yet again? Maybe.

 

[5555]

Toni Nadal did not say this is a weak era.

 

[Sentinel]

Federer won 17 slams due to a weak era. He would not have ended up as a Tier 1 great otherwise.

Someone hold my coffee while I laugh out loud.


...


LOL.

 

[Tennisanity]

Isn't Toni just talking about the most recent years?

Well he mentioned 06, 08, 13 for Nadal. 11 is in between there and there is no doubt he was at his absolute best that year coming off his monster 2010 year.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Go be a wimpy little 3-year old girl somewhere else.

Right back at ya.

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

So much that whatever I say there are at least 3-5 Djokovic fans replying to me withing 5 minutes. YOU make me significant, brother so I'll just use this post to thank you for that.

Btw LOL at "Emperor of Belgrade" claiming that someone else is a laughing stock. Look in the mirror first. Look at what you've done, whatever you say there will always be the "Emperor of Belgrade" name attached to it. You lost all credibility by typing that name when creating your account, making you look like a total biased fanboy.

Significant as in well known clown of this site? Then I agree that you are significant, but you can thank yourself for that.

Like I said before, your posts become even more hilarious when people see "tennis_pro" next to them. I already have more credibility than you ever will despite committing a "TTW sin" that's being a Djokovic fan who joined recently. You can double your 22k and it won't change anything. Once a clown, always a clown.

 

[tennis_pro]

Significant as in well known clown of this site? Then I agree that you are significant, but you can thank yourself for that.

Like I said before, your posts become even more hilarious when people see "tennis_pro" next to them. I already have more credibility than you ever will despite committing a "TTW sin" that's being a Djokovic fan who joined recently. You can double your 22k and it won't change anything. Once a clown, always a clown.

Was "DJOKOVIC_IS_MY_MASTER" already taken, fanboy?

 

[5555]

Didn't your mummy teach you to not talk behind others backs?

If you wanna talk about me do it to my face, not behind my back like a scared little 5-year old girl.

Go be a wimpy little 3-year old girl somewhere else.

You want to get permanently banned?

 

[Emperor of Belgrade]

Was "DJOKOVIC_IS_MY_MASTER" already taken, fanboy?

You have no idea what the word fanboy means. Look it up or look yourself in the mirror, "pro".

 

[Incognito]

Oh so 2011 wasn't peak Nadal. Why? Because he was losing? He was holding 3 Slams, beat everybody else and made the finals of Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, Madrid, Wimbledon and the US Open but lost to one man. Djokovic was playing at a level that only Federer could compete with and even he went 1-4. Nadal has lost before QF in the last 4 years so that is irrelevant. The one time he faced Djokovic in the Wimbledon final, he got destroyed.

You're confusing level and play and consistency. Just because Federer still reaches Wimbledon finals these days, doesn't mean he is as good as 2004-2006.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

More and more people realise it's a weak era.

 

[NoleFam]

You're confusing level and play and consistency. Just because Federer still reaches Wimbledon finals these days, doesn't mean he is as good as 2004-2006.

Nadal was the defending champion in 2011. Actually he had won Wimbledon the last 2 times he had played there. Comparing Federer from 10 years ago to Nadal a year later is not the same.

 

[tennis_pro]

You mean two Masters tournaments. Two does not equal a gazillion. Comparing the competitive level of 2011 and 2015 is laughable. Federer got to those stages with less trouble than Nadal had to worry about in 2011 and even then he consistently made 8/10 Tier 1 finals from Indian Wells to the US Open. He also made 7/7 finals from Indian Wells to Wimbledon. Federer only made 5/10. Apples and oranges and also, the downplaying of Federer's level in Wimbledon and the US Open is a bit tiresome from his so called fans. Nadal was 25/26 years old, which was right in his peak, was the dominant player in the game who just had his only 3 Slam season and he got manhandled. That is the reality.

no

 

[Start da Game]

uncle toni is obviously right about the last two years or so but let's just give 2011 to djokovic because all three were at their best or near best that year in slams......

 

[TheMusicLover]

uncle toni is obviously right about the last two years or so but let's just give 2011 to djokovic because all three were at their best or near best that year in slams......

Just when one thinks/hopes the Nadal overzealous fanbois have finally left the building for good, they come back crashing in, at just any of a minor sign of their idol recovering a mite of pace.

Looking forward for the final RG showdown between Start da Fail and Djokerer, that's for sure.

 

[Krish872007]

Just when one thinks/hopes the Nadal overzealous fanbois have finally left the building for good, they come back crashing in, at just any of a minor sign of their idol recovering a mite of pace.

Looking forward for the final RG showdown between Start da Fail and Djokerer, that's for sure.

djokerer as in, the TTW poster (the one who was born a few days ago)?

 

[TheMusicLover]

djokerer as in, the TTW poster (the one who was born a few days ago)?

Yo!

 

[Incognito]

Nadal was the defending champion in 2011. Actually he had won Wimbledon the last 2 times he had played there. Comparing Federer from 10 years ago to Nadal a year later is not the same.

Yeah, but you don't know if Nadal would have won Wimbledon in 2009 had he played that year. Federer was also defending champion in 2008 when Nadal beat him, it doesn't mean that was the best Federer ever.

 

[TheMusicLover]

You want to get permanently banned?

It wouldn't be a major loss to this forum if you were.

No thanks, you're welcome.

 

[mattosgrant]

Yeah, but you don't know if Nadal would have won Wimbledon in 2009 had he played that year.

No, but that would have been the most likely outcome. Nadal probably would have won Wimbledon 2009 had he been healthy to play, he certainly would have been the favorite. Either way it is true Nadal did win the last 2 Wimbledons he played, and the finals of the last 4 he played. He was on no planet "past his prime" going into Wimbledon 2011.

 

[mattosgrant]

More and more people realise it's a weak era.

It has been a weak era most of the time since 1998 now, so what is your point.

 

[MaiDee]

The idea of the 'diet change' to glory has always read like a tall story.

 

[nowhereman]

Conspiracy Keanu agrees with Uncle Toni

 

[6august]

Highly appreciate Mr. Robert Federer.

He knows silence is golden.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Not exactly rocket science. Toni saying the obvious

 

[Deleted member 716271]

You mean two Masters tournaments. Two does not equal a gazillion. Comparing the competitive level of 2011 and 2015 is laughable. Federer got to those stages with less trouble than Nadal had to worry about in 2011 and even then he consistently made 8/10 Tier 1 finals from Indian Wells to the US Open. He also made 7/7 finals from Indian Wells to Wimbledon. Federer only made 5/10. Apples and oranges and also, the downplaying of Federer's level in Wimbledon and the US Open is a bit tiresome from his so called fans. Nadal was 25/26 years old, which was right in his peak, was the dominant player in the game who just had his only 3 Slam season and he got manhandled. That is the reality.

Exactly. Nadal was coming off a 3 slam season, made so many finals in '11 and AO '12 and lost 7 times to ND. He actually just turned 25 during RG 11. He's shown great form on hard and clay both before and since then, and his grass decline obviously started when he got "Rosoled".

ND is as accomplished off clay or more at all the slams and surfaces, so it would follow that he would win peak to peak, especially since the match up issue is well known. This isn't rocket science. Just because it might not have been the very best Nads ever played meant nothing.

He was still young and not seriously injured coming off 3 slams, and then lost to the same guy 7 times in a row and in 3 slams in a row, while reaching all those finals. End of story.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

Peak for peak only on slow HC.

Fast HC - 2010/2013 US Open. Nuff said.
Grass - 2008 Queen's + Nadal's 2007/2008/2010 runs top whatever runs Djokovic had against 50-year old Federer.
Clay - I think Nadal beating Djokovic 20 times in a row at the FO is more than enough evidence.

That's some interesting spin u got there. In your world was Rafa just on vacation in 2011? When he repeatedly got bounced from Wimby while Djoker continued to dominate - was that a dopelganger?

The only thing he has on Djoker is Clay goat. When Djoker wins his 14th/15th slam in the next 3 years Rafa's legacy will be clay GOAT. He won't be up there in GOAT discussion where Fed will probably safely keep Djoker at arms length.

 

[abmk]

No, but that would have been the most likely outcome. Nadal probably would have won Wimbledon 2009 had he been healthy to play, he certainly would have been the favorite. Either way it is true Nadal did win the last 2 Wimbledons he played, and the finals of the last 4 he played. He was on no planet "past his prime" going into Wimbledon 2011.

no, he wouldn't have. 2009 wimbledon , he'd have to go through a draw of hewitt/roddick/murray/federer and he wouldn't have.

But I agree, he was pretty much prime in wim 11.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

It has been a weak era most of the time since 1998 now, so what is your point.

That more and more people realise this.

 

[mistik]

Oh so 2011 wasn't peak Nadal. Why? Because he was losing? He was holding 3 Slams, beat everybody else and made the finals of Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, Madrid, Wimbledon and the US Open but lost to one man. Djokovic was playing at a level that only Federer could compete with and even he went 1-4. Nadal has lost before QF in the last 4 years so that is irrelevant. The one time he faced Djokovic in the Wimbledon final, he got destroyed.

2011 Rafa was playing well but not at his peak. I have to admit Djokovic Wimbledon win is impressive though that year because that probably the only major tournament Rafa played better than 2010 and still lost. For me despite playing well both 2010 and 2011 Rafa has changed a lot as a player after what happened in 2009.

 

[DMTNA]

What a weak era...

 

[ArcspacE]

Hahaha - sour-bum Toni in tragic excuse shocker

Wait till Djok wipes the floor with your boy in Paris again and surpass his Slam count soon

Which doctor is on speed-dail this time?

 

[Bartelby]

It's a strong era for doctors.

 

[Minion]

Uncle Toni = Captain Hindsight.

 

[tennis_pro]

Toni Nadal did not say this is a weak era.

He did, indirectly.

 

[5555]

He did, indirectly.

How? Elaborate.

 

[5555]

More and more people realise it's a weak era.

Toni Nadal did not say this is a weak era.

 

[tennis_pro]

How? Elaborate.

Use your brain for once.

 

[5555]

Use your brain for once.

It's obvious you do not use your brain.

Tony said Lex Luthor and Nadal are not at their best now. If Lex and Rafa are not at their best now, it does not mean this is a weak era. It can mean level of competition now is not as strong as before.

 

[cknobman]

Even uncle Tio has confirmed "weak era".

Book it Novak is an opportunist.

 

[5555]

Even uncle Tio has confirmed "weak era".

Can you explain how Tony confirmed this is a weak era?