Accomplishments he's top 10 but going off peak level he's definitely top 5.
How many players could beat 06 or 11erer on clay except peak Nadal? Not many I'd bet.
Given that Nole won more on clay than Fed and was a much bigger threat to Nadal on clay than Fed ever was this should not be debatable.It really isn't. Faster surfaces it's not debatable, but Djoker is up there among the very best on slower ones.
You didn't want to break down the grass between slow and hard grass courts?
It's quite clear Novak is greater, more accomplished on clay. However that peak level of play is quite a sensitive subject if you talk about it with hardcore Federer supporters. You'd think the guy is one of the biggest underachievers ever considering how highly his level is rated at some events where he had a bit less success.Given that Nole won more on clay than Fed and was a much bigger threat to Nadal on clay than Fed ever was this should not be debatable.
Yeah. Plus, this whole "peak play' debate is mostly unmeasurable blather.It's quite clear Novak is greater, more accomplished on clay. However that peak level of play is quite a sensitive subject if you talk about it with hardcore Federer supporters. You'd think the guy is one of the biggest underachievers ever considering how highly his level is rated at some events where he had a bit less success.
Given that Nole won more on clay than Fed and was a much bigger threat to Nadal on clay than Fed ever was this should not be debatable.
Borg belongs well above Nadal on clay, peak to peak. Nadal's relative greatness has to do with longevity. He NEVER dominated RG the way Borg did at his peak, nor even close.
Djokovic faced a washed up version of Nadal and still lost to him handedly. Federer faced a greater Rafa. This isn't about who won more because it wasn't against the same Nadal.
You're right. It isn't debate able. Or anywhere near debatable. Peak for peak, Federer creams Novak.
He wasn't far worse to be fair. 2012dal in particular was an absolute beast.What's confusing to you?
If you think 2012-2014 Nadal was anywhere near his peak self, then there's nothing to even discuss.
You can time everything all you want. If you make a dumb claim that because Djokovic has accomplished more, he's a better all time clay player than Federer, people are going to educate you about why you're wrong.
If it's too complex for you, I'll dumb it down.
If it's not what you want to hear, go cry about it.
Without Nole 2011 would have been, by far, Nadal's best season ever. And the idea that 2013 Nadal was bad is just laughable.He wasn't far worse to be fair. 2012dal in particular was an absolute beast.
He wasn't far worse to be fair. 2012dal in particular was an absolute beast.
Without Nole 2011 would have been, by far, Nadal's best season ever. And the idea that 2013 Nadal was bad is just laughable.
It's quite clear Novak is greater, more accomplished on clay. However that peak level of play is quite a sensitive subject if you talk about it with hardcore Federer supporters. You'd think the guy is one of the biggest underachievers ever considering how highly his level is rated at some events where he had a bit less success.
The only reason Djokovic has the 2 extra clay masters is the open field he's faced since 2014 or 2015.
Federer faced the much tougher 2005-2009 version of Nadal otherwise he'd have 6 RG titles, 3 MC, 2 Rome, 8 Hamburg/Madrid.
Without Nadal, Djokovic would only have 4 RG. Federer won their definitive clay match in 2011 and past his prime was an even match for peak Nole. Prime Fed is a higher level so would dominate that rivalry.
Without Nole 2011 would have been, by far, Nadal's best season ever. And the idea that 2013 Nadal was bad is just laughable.
Yeah it is. And since most reasonable people say that level displayed on the day is more important than the player's name or his general season results, I think that should be done here as well. It took Nadal some time to find form but once he got far he was amazing. Unfortunately that's the guy Djokovic was up against most of the time.Without Nole 2011 would have been, by far, Nadal's best season ever. And the idea that 2013 Nadal was bad is just laughable.
Most players regress as years go by. Nadal was faster in younger days, I agree. He did turn a bit more aggressive with time though IMO and still played quite clean tennis, which brought him just as much success as before. His 2013 season on hard courts is one of his finest achievements, considering his doubters called him just some clay court specialist and some still do to this day. He was average in early clay rounds but got up most of the time he met Djokovic, Murray or other quality clay courters.Don't you think he regressed as the years went by?
By 2012, he was clearly a step behind on all surfaces and didn't have the speed he used to. He began struggling outside of clay and got worse year by year.
It showed more on his weaker surfaces and wasn't as conspicuous on clay as on grass obviously, because he was still Rafa. And a even a diminished Rafa was better than anyone in tennis on clay.
He wasn't far worse to be fair. 2012dal in particular was an absolute beast.
So losing to Verdasco on blue clay means Djokovic had a great opportunity to beat him at Roland Garros that year, whoopty dooo.So beastly, he lost to Verdasco in Madrid
Oh come on now, that's one of the best matches Federer ever played on clay. There are no matches where he was a level above that.Everything needs to be looked at with context. If Federer had faced the severely diminished Rafa that Novak did, his clay resume would look a lot different.
A past his prime Federer knocked out the very best version of djokovic in 2011. Peak federer would have ran roughshed.
So losing to Verdasco on blue clay means Djokovic had a great opportunity to beat him at Roland Garros that year, whoopty dooo.
Oh come on now, that's one of the best matches Federer ever played on clay. There are no matches where he was a level above that.
So losing to Verdasco on blue clay means Djokovic had a great opportunity to beat him at Roland Garros that year, whoopty dooo.
Oh come on now, that's one of the best matches Federer ever played on clay. There are no matches where he was a level above that.
W/L % for Nadal, by seasons
2010 88%
2011 82% (wonder what happened here?)
2012 88%
2013 91% (career high)
So losing to Verdasco on blue clay means Djokovic had a great opportunity to beat him at Roland Garros that year, whoopty dooo.
Oh come on now, that's one of the best matches Federer ever played on clay. There are no matches where he was a level above that.
Come on Herrera lover! 2006 vs nadal. 2009 vs Solderling (up till the 5-3 game in the 3rd, atleast). Etc etc.
In 2010 Nadal won all big four clay tournaments. So that would be 100%. (Not including smaller events here)These are not clay stats!
In 2010 Nadal won all big four clay tournaments. So that would be 100%. Only time he managed this. (Not including smaller events here)
In 2011 and 2013 he also would have won all four big clay tournaments, if not for Nole.
In 2008 Nadal lost in Rome in the second round. A fluke? Perhaps.Nadal 2010 despite winning everything on the surface was no better than his (european clay court season)2005-2008 versions. He's only gotten worse since then
In 2008 Nadal lost in Rome in the second round. A fluke? Perhaps.
In 2010 Nadal won all big four clay tournaments. So that would be 100%. (Not including smaller events here)
In 2011 and 2013 he also would have won all four big clay tournaments, if not for Nole.
Don't disagree. Simply pointing out that the numbers don't support the idea that Nadal's clay level dropped starting 2011.He would've done the same in 05 and 07 of it weren't for Federer at Hamburg and in 05-06 if the finals weren't BO5 (since Fedal dropped from Hamburg after their gruelling Rome final).
Don't disagree. Simply pointing out that the numbers don't support the idea that Nadal's clay level dropped starting 2011.
Glad to look at data that supports this. The numbers I looked at don't. But I'm sure I missed some.His level in 2011 was clearly lower than say 2007-2008 and 2010 from the years before at the very least. His 2012 level on clay was arguably his best ever overall - though in terms of pure FO level 2008 was better. Clearly 2014 was a step down from the years prior, though his level at the FO was still very good. Overall I would say 05-08 > 11-14.
Slow HC:
1. Federer=Djokovic (AO 05, 07, 10 vs 11)
2. Nadal
3. Agassi
4. Sampras
5. Safin
Glad to look at data that supports this. The numbers I looked at don't. But I'm sure I missed some.
its debatable in terms of clay accomplishments over a career. But for peak level? I think he's up there, only obviously below Nadal and Borg.
Clay:
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Federer
4. Djokovic
5. Kuerten/Lendl/Wilander
Grass:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Becker
5. McEnroe/Edberg
Slow HC:
1. Federer=Djokovic (AO 05, 07, 10 vs 11)
2. Nadal
3. Agassi
4. Sampras
5. Safin
Fast HC:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Lendl
4. Agassi
5. McEnroe/Edberg/Becker
Clay
Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Kuerten
Muster
Grass
Federer
Sampras
McEnroe
Becker
Borg
Fast HC
Federer
Sampras
Lendl
McEnroe
Connors
Slow HC
Djokovic
Agassi
Federer
Nadal
Safin
This is clay results, right?You another Meles or something?
Some statistics;
Win/loss in 05-08: 131-4 (97%)
Win/loss in 11-14: 115-8 (93.5%)
That supports it right? You can blame Djokovic sure but then we get into circular arguments where one of us claims Djokovic is responsible and the other claims Nadal's level slipped. I don't think the difference is big or anything...
This is clay results, right?
Well, yes, if we are only talking about a few matches difference and Nole is responsible for most (all?) of them, then yes, I would posit that Nole is responsible more than Nadal slipping.
Absent Nole Nadal's 2011 season would have been the best in his career. Absent Nole Nadal wins all the major clay tourneys in 2011 and 2013. I can't look at that data and not reach the conclusion that it was Nole's fault.
those weren't the strongest of wins, edberg played the 1990 final injured and had to pull out. Granted, peak Lendl on slow hard may have been, maybe even probably, one of the greats but we don't know for sure. Same for Borg.Federer at 3rd on clay is delusional, but I'm not going to address that as others have done so.
Lendl should be ahead of Sampras and Nadal on slow hard courts. Won 2 slams on rebound ace even though they didn't switch to rebound ace till his age 28 season.
So beastly, he lost to Verdasco in Madrid
Don't you think he regressed as the years went by?
By 2012, he was clearly a step behind on all surfaces and didn't have the speed he used to. He began struggling outside of clay and got worse year by year.
It showed more on his weaker surfaces and wasn't as conspicuous on clay as on grass obviously, because he was still Rafa. And a even a diminished Rafa was better than anyone in tennis on clay.
Maybe. But if so it's a very small difference.Of course.
Nole is responsible for 4 of those defeats. So 05-08 would still lead ever so slightly...
Regardless, Nadal in 05-08 also had to deal with a Federer who was just as dominant against the field as Djokovic was - except he didn't drop as many matches to him. I can't look at that data without thinking that maybe Nadal's drop in level had something to do with it
Maybe. But if so it's a very small difference.
If I look at 2011, for example, it was Nole that stopped Nadal. But that wasn't true for Fed in 2007 or 2006. In those years Nadal was losing to players like Gonzalez at the AO and Youzhny in the US Open.
So, for me, Nadal was, if anything, improving across time, not getting worse. 2010 was a great year for Nadal. 2011 would have been his best year ever, but he ran into a GOATing Nole.