ForehandRF
Legend
Is that he did damage to Federer and Djokovic off clay in a way they couldn't replicate against him on clay.This is and will remain a strong argument in his favor.
Agree. Nadal dominates one surface in a way no other player dominates any other surface. Don’t think anyone will ever challenge that record.Most surface dominant player of all time without question. I don’t think he’s anywhere near as balanced as Federer and Djokovic though. This is shown through weeks at number 1 and diversity in titles won.
Is that he did damage to Federer and Djokovic off clay in a way they couldn't replicate against him on clay.This is and will remain a strong argument in his favor.
Most surface dominant player of all time without question. I don’t think he’s anywhere near as balanced as Federer and Djokovic though.
Is that he did damage to Federer and Djokovic off clay in a way they couldn't replicate against him on clay.This is and will remain a strong argument in his favor.
Djoker, the HC GOAT, also has a losing record in slam finals at one of the HC slams. If there were a second clay slam, you could bet your existence Nadal wouldn't have a losing slam finals record at it.
I think no sane Nadalfan would say otherwise. Of course Fedovic >> Nadal outside clay. But for me it's to simple to say Hardcourt 2/3 tour, clay 1/3 tour (roughly, yes grass as well), so the hardcourt greats > clay greats. Nadal's dominance on clay is so ridiculous. I mean, he's won more clay majors than both Djokovic and Federer won on hardcourt each (Djokovic 12, Federer 11) and Fedovic on grass combined (13, tie with Claydal). Off his best surface, he matches Djokovic in slams (Djokovic 5 Wimby, 1 RG = 6 majors; Nadal 4 USO, 2 Wimby = 6 majors (+ 1 AO)).but both Fed and Novak have better records than Nadal outside of clay.
Stop lumping in the US Open with the Australian. They’re two completely different types of hardcourt. 65% of Nadal’s slams are at 1 of the 4 majors.
Stop lumping in the US Open with the Australian. They’re two completely different types of hardcourt. 65% of Nadal’s slams are at 1 of the 4 majors.
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are the only 3 players in history to have reached the finals of every slam at least 5 times each.
So to say that one of them is a one-trick pony or not an all-surface player is laughable.
To say, however, that one is peculiarly good at clay in a way that the two others are not on their favourite surfaces would seem undeniable.
Bolded: well, that's Federer's fault. It was his choice to be so stubborn, thinking he didn't need to revamp his game for just one guy.Nadal hasn't beat Novak or Federer on hard court or grass since 2014 AO.
They have both recently beat him on 2/3 surfaces.
Novak has beaten Nadal 4 times on clay since the last time he lost to him off clay.
Most of Nadal's wins over Federer off clay were thanks to Federer playing with ancient technology.
Please elaborate this.Most of Nadal's wins over Federer off clay were thanks to Federer playing with ancient technology.
Please elaborate this.
Is this Nadal’s problem or Federer’s fault? Just like Sampras was an idiot who didn’t change to poly strings and instead retired because he could not stay on top against young guys who played with poly. Federer had success against the non-ATGs of his time playing with a small racquet, but it cost him against Nadal for sure and he waited too long to switch after almost all other players had switched to 95-98 sq inch racquets.Federer can handle Nadal's topspin -> backhand a lot better with a 97 sq in racquet than he could with his old 90. He would shank like every third backhand drive. He used to like to slice high balls on that side, but that's suicide against Nadal.
The only match Nadal ever won off clay when Federer used the 97 was one of his very first tournaments using it.
Old Fedal matches were like a champion kickboxer vs a wrestler in the UFC. The wrestler just takes down the kickboxer and then none of his skills matter. Same thing with old Fedal matches and topspin -> backhand. Upgrading his racquet (and backhand drive) was like a kickboxer learning takedown defense.
Federer can handle Nadal's topspin -> backhand a lot better with a 97 sq in racquet than he could with his old 90. He would shank like every third backhand drive. He used to like to slice high balls on that side, but that's suicide against Nadal.
The only match Nadal ever won off clay when Federer used the 97 was one of his very first tournaments using it.
Old Fedal matches were like a champion kickboxer vs a wrestler in the UFC. The wrestler just takes down the kickboxer and then none of his skills matter. Same thing with old Fedal matches and topspin -> backhand. Upgrading his racquet (and backhand drive) was like a kickboxer learning takedown defense.
Is that he did damage to Federer and Djokovic off clay in a way they couldn't replicate against him on clay.This is and will remain a strong argument in his favor.
Yeah, but the point still stands, even if we like it or not.Djokovic lost more often than not in their USO meetings, so did Federer at the AO, then they both failed at the French.Fed even lost that damn 2008 Wimbledon Final.He rised to the occasion and finished the job, even though Fedovic are better hardcourt and grass court players overall.It gets weaker the longer they all play, though.
Nadal's dominance of those guys off clay only lasted from 2008/9 to 2014.
Since then, he's been a hard & grass pigeon for both of them.
These guys are all going to have 20+ year windows of contending for Slams, so a five-year slice of that is not an entire career.
It gets weaker the longer they all play, though.
Nadal's dominance of those guys off clay only lasted from 2008/9 to 2014.
Since then, he's been a hard & grass pigeon for both of them.
These guys are all going to have 20+ year windows of contending for Slams, so a five-year slice of that is not an entire career.
And both of them are Rafa's pigeons on clay. SHUT UP.
This is an argument that is quite fallacious. You've merely taken what Nadal is best at and made that one side of a dichotomy. Given his success on clay that makes any comparison invidious.
If we say clay is one quarter of tennis then you are suggesting that whoever is best in that quarter is best overall. Do you see the problem?
All one can really say is that Nadal dominates his favoured surface more than the other players dominate theirs.
That's why all 3 of them have their strong arguments in thisMost surface dominant player of all time without question. I don’t think he’s anywhere near as balanced as Federer and Djokovic though. This is shown through weeks at number 1 and diversity in titles won.
Bolded -> I have to disagree here and that's because hardcourts are the hardest to dominate.Being the prevalent surface on the tour, players have their games built for it, hence the competition is more diverse and stronger than on grass and clay.That being said, I don't think it is fair to use that argument against Fedovic, not to mention that the AO and the USO play differently.I don’t understand why Djokovic winning 12 hard court Slams and Federer wining 11 hardcourt Slams is not considered a poor achievement for supposedly hard court GOATs when there are two Slams on that surface every year. Compare it to the Clay GOAT who has won 13 Slams on his favored surface Slam even though there is only Slam on it. Nadal has won 5 hard court Slams on his 2nd favorite surface while Djokovic also has won 5 Slams on grass which is his second favorite surface - doesn’t seem different unless you take the same distinction into account that grass has only 1 Slam a year which makes 5 Wimbledons more special. Federer is the only one with a truly more balanced Slam title record on two surfaces with 11 hard court Slams and 8 Wimbledons, but his tepid head-head record against both his rivals makes it hard to think that he might be better than them. On his third best surface, Nadal has two Wimbledons on grass while Djokovic and Federer have only 1 clay Slam each.
Agreed. He has beaten Nole in 2 USO finals and took him to five sets in an AO final. He's beaten Federer in Wimbledon and AO finals. They can't get more than a set off him in RG finals.
Bolded -> I have to disagree here and that's because hardcourts are the hardest to dominate.Being the prevalent surface on the tour, players have their games built for it, hence the competition is more diverse and stronger than on grass and clay.That being said, I don't think it is fair to use that argument against Fedovic, not to mention that the AO and the USO play differently.
2014 AO is not important because Fed was coming off his worst season, while Nadal was coming off one of his best.So basically Rog switched racquets when, around end of 2013? He played and lost to Rafa in 2014 AO, which apparently doesn’t count.
However every other match has taken place in or after 2015, when Rafa’s form and speed fell off a cliff. Credit to Roger for adjusting but to compare his wins against post 2015 Rafa to playing against peak Rafa is a bad comparison.
Besides, Roger’s racquet was only one of several issues he had with Rafa. Roger’s stubborn insistence on coming into the net too often against the best passing shot in the game being one that had zero to do with his racquet. His unwillingness to hedge or step in to the backhand side of Rafa’s lefty serve being another.
This is also to ignore how the change has nerfed Roger’s GOAT forehand somewhat, who is to say what matches he would’ve lost due to that change even were he to win some more against Rafa.
Well, to be fair Djokovic managed to beat Nadal in 2015, but that win is overlooked by many due to Nadal's poor form.Even in those circumstances, it still counts I can say.Agreed. And I think pushing Federer to 5 sets in the 2007 Wimbledon final also helps his case in this department as well.
Nah, he is below Lendl as well.Nadal's record at RG means some people say 'oh he's so much more accomplished on Clay than he is on other surfaces.' Really, what people should be saying is Nadal has a remarkable achievement on hard court and grass and he has an unparalleled achievement on Clay. Nadal has five hard court slams. That's the same as or more than Lendl, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, all who are considered as hard court greats. He has one less hard court slam than Agassi. Nadal is one of the top five hard court players ever. Federer, Sampras, Djokovic, Agassi and Nadal.
It doesn't. Federer didn't get the chance to play that Nadal and Nadal did not get to play a sub par Novak at the AO.Well, to be fair Djokovic managed to beat Nadal in 2015, but that win is overlooked by many due to Nadal's poor form.Even in those circumstances, it still counts I can say.
I don’t understand why Djokovic winning 12 hard court Slams and Federer wining 11 hardcourt Slams is not considered a poor achievement for supposedly hard court GOATs when there are two Slams on that surface every year. Compare it to the Clay GOAT who has won 13 Slams on his favored surface Slam even though there is only Slam on it. Nadal has won 5 hard court Slams on his 2nd favorite surface while Djokovic also has won 5 Slams on grass which is his second favorite surface - doesn’t seem different unless you take the same distinction into account that grass has only 1 Slam a year which makes 5 Wimbledons more special. Federer is the only one with a truly more balanced Slam title record on two surfaces with 11 hard court Slams and 8 Wimbledons, but his tepid head-head record against both his rivals makes it hard to think that he might be better than them. On his third best surface, Nadal has two Wimbledons on grass while Djokovic and Federer have only 1 clay Slam each.
What we can truly say is neither of them beat an in form Nadal there.Fed didn't had the chance to face that Nadal, but it is how it is.Djokovic still pushed Nadal more at the French than Fed did, with that 2013 SF.It doesn't. Federer didn't get the chance to play that Nadal and Nadal did not get to play a sub par Novak at the AO.
Sure, but he still didn't win. And they've both won the same amount of sets vs Nadal at the French.What we can truly say is neither of them beat an in form Nadal there.Fed didn't had the chance to face that Nadal, but it is how it is.Djokovic still pushed Nadal more at the French than Fed did, with that 2013 SF.
There is not much separating Fedovic at the French anyway.Sure, but he still didn't win. And they've both won the same amount of sets vs Nadal at the French.
I guess Nadal has only to blame himself for that showing in 2015.For instance, ever since Fed won his first Wimbledon, nobody has been able to beat him in straight sets there, not even when he was in his worst form.While 2015 was clearly the weakest version of Nadal at the business end at RG (it was the only season from 2005 onwards in which he didn't win a big title on the surface), Djokovic must still have been frustrated that he wasn't able to win the title that year after beating him (convincingly)
With Soderling in 2009, it was of course a completely different story given that he was big underdog while Djokovic was utterly dominant in 2015, and after beating Nadal (then Davydenko then Gonzalez), he had to face a 13 time grand slam champion that he had a 0-9 h2h (against only winning 1 set) in the final.