Which gap is larger: Nadal over Nole on clay or Nole over Nadal on HC?

Which advantage is greater?

  • Nadal over Nole on clay

    Votes: 97 74.6%
  • Nole over Nadal on HC

    Votes: 33 25.4%

  • Total voters
    130

zuluzazu

Hall of Fame
In 2013, Djokovic was in a slump. He didn't get over the slump until the victory over Federer at 2014 Wimbledon.

Djokovic currently is on a 9-match HC winning over Nadal! Djokovic on clay >> Nadal on HC.
I cant believe what I read here nowadays. Djokovic in 2013 was in a slump??? Last I checked he won AO, was the apparent finalist at Rg, finalist at wimbledon, finalist at uso. He had the chance for a calendar slam that year. He also swept the fall season as far as I remember. How can nole fans cook up such intolerable stories?
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
I cant believe what I read here nowadays. Djokovic in 2013 was in a slump??? Last I checked he won AO, was the apparent finalist at Rg, finalist at wimbledon, finalist at uso. He had the chance for a calendar slam that year. He also swept the fall season as far as I remember. How can nole fans cook up such intolerable stories?


I know. My respect for Nole's fanbase is dropping at an alarming rate. I honestly never thought they were this bad, but this is becoming worse than Federistas at their peak. So many of them are becoming intolerable. Now there is an excuse for every loss, he only learned how to play tennis in 2011, clay doesnt count (unless Nole won on it), none of Nadal's wins on any surface matter. If Nole lost a match, any match, it was because he was feeling bad and it doesn't count.

One sniff of entry into GOAT contention, and 75% of Nole fans seemed to have become clowns overnight.
 
Last edited:

zuluzazu

Hall of Fame
I know. My respect for Nole's fanbase is dropping at an alarming rate. I honestly never thought they were this bad, but this is becoming worse than Federistas at their peak. So many of them are becoming intolerable. Now there is an excuse for every loss, he only learned how to play tennis in 2011, clay doesnt count (unless Nole won on it), none of Nadal's wins on any surface matter. If Nole lost a match, any match, it was because he was feeling bad and it doesn't count.

One sniff of entry into GOAT contention, and 75% of Nole fans seemed to have become clowns overnightm
I personally think these are not true nole fans. These are just trolls who want to poison the nole fanbase. There are many reasonable and good nole fans here but the rookie @DjokoGOAT makes preposterous claims left right and centre which is very disturbing to say the least.
 

SonnyT

Legend
Djokovic was in a terrible slump. In 2012, he lost to Federer at Wimbledon SF, and to Murray in USO final. In 2013, he lost to Murray in Wimb final, before losing to Nadal in USO final. He hired Boris Becker in 2014, and the rest is history: never losing to Federer, Nadal and Murray ever again at a major. That in itself is pretty amazing!

Anyways, grass is Nole's 2nd best surface, not clay. HC is Nadal's 2nd best surface. Most people would agree Djokovic on grass is better than Nadal on HC.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
H2H purely depends on surface.
Nadal hasn’t beaten Novak on HC since 2013.
Nole hasn’t defeated Nadal on clay since 2016.
For some perspective. Nadal won the last 4 clay matches the two have played, losing only one set.
Novak won the last 9 HC matches they played, not losing a single set.

(Assuming my numbers are right)
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
For some perspective. Nadal won the last 4 clay matches the two have played, losing only one set.
Novak won the last 9 HC matches they played, not losing a single set.

(Assuming my numbers are right)
And yet if they were to meet at USO would you give Djokovic as clear an edge as Nadal would have at FO?
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Exactly. No Contest.

Imho, it's much harder to be successful playing on a Clay Court than it is playing on a Hard Court.

The Greatest players the sport has ever seen, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Nadal all found great success at Roland Garros.

Sampras, Federer and Djokovic will always have a hole in their resume. Their inability to win multiple Roland Garros titles.

Man what a misleading post. Sampras is so far behind those guys. Fed would have at least five RG titles if not for Rafa; Djokovic would have three. And Sampras would still have zero. He didn't even make a Final...or even more than one SF if I remember correctly?
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
H2h - Djokovic is clearly better than Nadal

Career - Nadal clearly better than Djoker

Slam H2H

10-6 to Nadal.

In the biggest, most important matches (slams), Nadal utterly dominates Djokovic H2H.

Their overall H2H is statistically insignificant. 29-27....two matches separating them with that many matches played doesn't show who is the better player. But a 4 match defecit in their slam H2H shows Nadal is by far the greater slam player when they meet.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
The point remains the same, in affirmation of what happened a couple months ago





0ud5H7WIWu2--ZOW1KgFX0sdAgyaKLyTuZ0Rr2QTJawEJ-S7YVDM9XBMVfG6AwgmqJh2Q3hLkvheOp-Nkw63IeRwK8VHNatK4MnPiRUwzxcpHXG4jsVo8FF-2F_a2zLngg
 

DerekNoleFam1

Hall of Fame
Nole has won several clay Masters, but still only has 1 RG title.
Of course this is largely due to how insanely dominant Nadal is at the French.
Nadal has won numerous hard court Masters, as well as 5 Slams.
As much as I am a Nole fan, it's not really a contest.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Slam H2H

10-6 to Nadal.

In the biggest, most important matches (slams), Nadal utterly dominates Djokovic H2H.

Their overall H2H is statistically insignificant. 29-27....two matches separating them with that many matches played doesn't show who is the better player. But a 4 match defecit in their slam H2H shows Nadal is by far the greater slam player when they meet.
2 matches at AO, 8 matches at RG.
 

aditya123

Hall of Fame
Djokovic was in a terrible slump. In 2012, he lost to Federer at Wimbledon SF, and to Murray in USO final. In 2013, he lost to Murray in Wimb final, before losing to Nadal in USO final. He hired Boris Becker in 2014, and the rest is history: never losing to Federer, Nadal and Murray ever again at a major. That in itself is pretty amazing!

Anyways, grass is Nole's 2nd best surface, not clay. HC is Nadal's 2nd best surface. Most people would agree Djokovic on grass is better than Nadal on HC.
Rg 2014 final !!! Do you remember it???
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Yeah of course the quoted poster misses that point.
And that half of those matches were pre-prime Nole.
Slam H2H is thus misleading and just one part of the puzzle.
You mean RG 2006-2008? 3 out of 7 RG matches are not "half of the matches", as 3 is less than 50% of 7.

All H2H matches count. Djokovic is almost same age as Nadal, so he should have been talented enough to peak at the same or similar time than Nadal.

Djokovic was already a Slam winner in RG 2008, yet he lost anyway to Nadal. He was playing great at RG 2008, and would have had serious chances to win the title if not for Nadal. Therefore; it is a valid victory against a well-playing and near-prime Novak. In fact, Novak at RG 2008 played better than at RG 2014 and RG 2020. And Nadal at RG 2008 was unbeatable, so there is no need to add excuses for Djokovic's loss.

Djokovic at RG 2006 was same age as Nadal at RG 2005 when he won his first RG. Therefore, Djokovic already had an age where he should have peaked. Valid victory for Nadal at RG 2006, showing his talent to peak sooner than his rivals.

Djokovic at RG 2007 was 1 year older than Nadal at RG 2005 when he won his first Slam. Djokovic already had an age where he should.have peaked, but he was not talented enough. Perfectly valid victory for Nadal, illustrating the importante to peak soon for a GOAT candidate.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Yeah of course the quoted poster misses that point.
And that half of those matches were pre-prime Nole.
Slam H2H is thus misleading and just one part of the puzzle.


Nope. I was going to explain it, but @Sport did a perfect job doing it for me in the post just after yours. ALL the H2H matches count. Nothing misleading about their slam H2H. Nadal is just the better player in the biggest matches. That he dominated Djokovic and Federer at slam level isn't a coincidence. Nadal having TWO US Open finals wins against someone his fans claim is the "HARDCOURT GOAT" should also never have happened if Djokovic was a good at slam level as Nadal. Do you think Nadal as Clay GOAT is giving up 2 Roland Garros finals to the same player? Nope. That failure is on Djokovic. And Djokovic should have been good enough to take more matches from Nadal at Roland Garros (his only win being against the weakest ever version of Nadal in the 2015 quarter finals isn't very impressive in hindsight. Robin Soderling still feels like the only significant loss Nadal has had at RG for that reason).

I know Djokovic fans would love that we only counted matches that happened " 2011 and after" and "only off-clay", but it doesn't work like that.LOL!
 
Last edited:

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Nope. I was going to explain it, but @Sport did a perfect job doing it for me in the post just after yours. ALL the H2H matches count. Nothing misleading about their slam H2H. Nadal is just the better player in the biggest matches. That he dominated Djokovic and Federer at slam level isn't a coincidence. Nadal having TWO US Open finals wins against someone his fans claim is the "HARDCOURT GOAT" should also never have happened if Djokovic was a good at slam level as Nadal. Do you think Nadal as Clay GOAT is giving up 2 Roland Garros finals to the same player? Nope. That failure is on Djokovic. And Djokovic should have been good enough to take more matches from Nadal at Roland Garros (his only win being against the weakest ever version of Nadal in the 2015 quarter finals isn't very impressive in hindsight. Robin Soderling still feels like the only significant loss Nadal has had at RG for that reason).

I know Djokovic fans would love that we only counted matches that happened " 2011 and after" and "only off-clay", but it doesn't work like that.LOL!
Wins over Big3:

AO: Djokovic 6 > Nadal 3
WI: Djokovic 5 > Nadal 2
UO: Djokovic 4 > Nadal 2

Nadal is a monster on clay but not so much in the other 75% of the season...
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Wins over Big3:

AO: Djokovic 6 > Nadal 3
WI: Djokovic 5 > Nadal 2
UO: Djokovic 4 > Nadal 2

Too bad none of that translated directly to Djokovic's slam H2H with Nadal. None of your selective stat picking will EVER change that. LOL! Djokovic should stick to beating old man, past-prime Federer at Wimbledon to pad his slam stats.Hahaha.

10-6
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Too bad none of that translated directly to Djokovic's slam H2H with Nadal. None of your selective stat picking will EVER change that. LOL! Djokovic should stick to beating old man, past-prime Federer at Wimbledon to pad his slam stats.Hahaha.

10-6
Nothing selective. Every Slam is different, every surface is different.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Nothing selective. Every Slam is different, every surface is different.

Yes, and even age is a factor no? Objectively, Nadal's single win against a Prime Federer at Wimbledon in 2008 is more impressive than Djokovic's 3 wins against Grandpa Fed after he was well past his prime in 2014 and beyond, but you won't mention that, as it benefits you to play up those Nole wins against a faded all-time great who was no longer at his highest level on grass (unlike when Nadal beat him).
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Yes, and even age is a factor no? Objectively, Nadal's single win against a Prime Federer at Wimbledon in 2008 is more impressive than Djokovic's 3 wins against Grandpa Fed after he was well past his prime in 2014 and beyond, but you won't mention that, as it benefits you to play up those Nole wins against a faded all-time great who was no longer at his highest level on grass (unlike when Nadal beat him).
Nadal lost to Federer at 2017 AO and 2019 Wimbledon... 0-6 in the last hard/grass matches. How come he can't beat the grandpa while Djokovic can :unsure:
 

thrust

Legend
Their true peaks never overlapped. When one was at his peak, the other was out of form or injured.
If we adjust the h2h according to that, Nadal leads 26-0. Every time Nadal beat Djokovic, he beat peak Djokovic. Every time Djokovic beat Nadal. Rafa had a terrible injury, so it shouldn't count, no?

Nadal is the GOAT, sorry.
Who has more YE at #1?
Who has more weeks at #1?
Who has more ATP YE titles?
Who held 4 Slams at one time?
Who has the most Masters titles?
Who has won ALL Masters titles at least twice? Neither Roger or Rafa has done that even once, NO?
Who has the H-H advantage?
Who has the H-H advantage vs Federer the past 4 years?
In the end, it seems to me, that there is very little difference in the career accomplishments between the big three.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Nadal lost to Federer at 2017 AO and 2019 Wimbledon... 0-6 in the last hard/grass matches. How come he can't beat the grandpa while Djokovic can :unsure:


Because Nadal is also long past his prime on Grass. And the AO match was extremely close, despite Federer having court speed advantadge.

And Federer was still a great player in those 2017-2019 years, especially on hardcourts (when he also beat Djokovic at the WTF). He was top 3 in the world. But he had lost a step on Grass, and it was enough for Djokovic to take advantage of. Djokovic would never sniff a win off Federer on Grass between 2006 and 2008.
 
Last edited:

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Because Nadal is also long past his prime on Grass. And the AO match was extremely close, despite Federer having court speed advantadge.

And Federer was still a great player in those 2017-2019 years. He was top 3 in the world. But he had lost a step on Grass, and it was enough for Djokovic to take advantage of. Djokovic would never sniff a win of Federer on Grass between 2006 and 2008.
Nadal is the same age as Djokovic.
 
Fed would have at least five RG titles if not for Rafa; Djokovic would have three.

"IF" is a huge word.

Laver would have at least four GRAND SLAMS and 30 Major Titles IF he hadn't turned Pro.
Borg would have at least 8 Australian Open Titles IF he had bothered to turn up.

The only Statistics that matter are the ones that were Recorded!
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
Their H2H is 29-27 for Djoker, essentially a tie. “Clearly better” is a ridiculous characterization of a H2H that close.

Well, we all know most of the wins that Nadal racked up were against a pre puberty Djokovic. Isnt that way Nadal fans talk about Nadals' pre 2009 HC performances ?

The h2h went from 16-7 to 27-29... The h2h against a mature Djokovic is 11-22. That is Nadal, wins 1 out of 3 matches. And this in spite of 16 out of 33 matches being on clay.. LOL
 

Eren

Professional
Well, we all know most of the wins that Nadal racked up were against a pre puberty Djokovic. Isnt that way Nadal fans talk about Nadals' pre 2009 HC performances ?

The h2h went from 16-7 to 27-29... The h2h against a mature Djokovic is 11-22. That is Nadal, wins 1 out of 3 matches. And this in spite of 16 out of 33 matches being on clay.. LOL

This part killed it for me. What is even more fascinating is that some so called Nadal fans aren't even here. Yet, when a thread about hating Federer appears, they're on.

Nadal is the same age as Djokovic.

I agree with the message behind this post, namely that the age gap between Djokovic and Nadal is not significant. Djokovic had his wins against bad 14-16 versions of Nadal and so did Nadal against 06-09 Djokovic and 17-18(until Rome) Djokovic. So who had more runs against a lesser version? Nadal didn't have to worry for their first 5 Slam matches. Yet, some Nadal fans: "Nadal never had the luxury of facing a lesser version of Djokovic." LOL, yeah right.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
We don't have a lot of recent matches, 1 each this year, but you've got to assume it's clay for Nadal right now.

Not sure it's even possible to dominate HC like that.
 

Eren

Professional
We don't have a lot of recent matches, 1 each this year, but you've got to assume it's clay for Nadal right now.

Not sure it's even possible to dominate HC like that.

I am sure it's not possible.

The one coming closest is Federer between 04-07 winning 7/8 HC Slams and that is still a far cry.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
"IF" is a huge word.

Laver would have at least four GRAND SLAMS and 30 Major Titles IF he hadn't turned Pro.
Borg would have at least 8 Australian Open Titles IF he had bothered to turn up.

The only Statistics that matter are the ones that were Recorded!

ok. It's still ridiculous to lump Fed and Djok in with Sampras because they all failed to win multiple RGs.

Two of them won RG and have the career Slam...one made a SF.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Slam H2H

10-6 to Nadal.

In the biggest, most important matches (slams), Nadal utterly dominates Djokovic H2H.

Their overall H2H is statistically insignificant. 29-27....two matches separating them with that many matches played doesn't show who is the better player. But a 4 match defecit in their slam H2H shows Nadal is by far the greater slam player when they meet.

Nadal utterly dominates at RG only which you conveniently left out. It's amazing watching you twist this stat to suit your own purpose and getting ultra defensive when someone calls you out on it. It's 8 matches at RG, as many as all the other slam matches combined. I love how you pretend this is insignificant. Nadal is 7-1 against him at RG and 3-5 outside of it. That is not domination.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
Nadal utterly dominates at RG only which you conveniently left out. It's amazing watching you twist this stat to suit your own purpose and getting ultra defensive when someone calls you out on it. It's 8 matches at RG, as many as all the other slam matches combined. I love how you pretend this is insignificant. Nadal is 7-1 against him at RG and 3-5 outside of it. That is not domination.

It is Grand Slam Domination.

Last time I checked, the French Open was still a grand slam. This tendency of rival fans to penalise Nadal for being the greatest clay court player in the history of the universe, to act as if his RG victories "shouldn't count" in some contexts is beyond laughable, and you should be embarrassed to be trotting it out. Djokovic, if he is the overall tennis GOAT you believe him to be, should have a better win ratio against Nadal at Roland Garros. Nadal managed to beat your so-called hardcourt GOAT in 2 US Open finals. Had he denied Nadal there (which he should have as the supposedly superior hardcourt player), their slam H2H might look a bit less awful for Djokovic.

So yeah, all I'm hearing are excuses. Bad ones. A+ for effort though!
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
You mean RG 2006-2008? 3 out of 7 RG matches are not "half of the matches", as 3 is less than 50% of 7.

All H2H matches count. Djokovic is almost same age as Nadal, so he should have been talented enough to peak at the same or similar time than Nadal.

Djokovic was already a Slam winner in RG 2008, yet he lost anyway to Nadal. He was playing great at RG 2008, and would have had serious chances to win the title if not for Nadal. Therefore; it is a valid victory against a well-playing and near-prime Novak. In fact, Novak at RG 2008 played better than at RG 2014 and RG 2020. And Nadal at RG 2008 was unbeatable, so there is no need to add excuses for Djokovic's loss.

Djokovic at RG 2006 was same age as Nadal at RG 2005 when he won his first RG. Therefore, Djokovic already had an age where he should have peaked. Valid victory for Nadal at RG 2006, showing his talent to peak sooner than his rivals.

Djokovic at RG 2007 was 1 year older than Nadal at RG 2005 when he won his first Slam. Djokovic already had an age where he should.have peaked, but he was not talented enough. Perfectly valid victory for Nadal, illustrating the importante to peak soon for a GOAT candidate.

So at 20 Djokovic should have been at an age where he should have peaked on clay, his worst surface? He was not talented enough? Ok. So I can do the same for Nadal on hardcourt since he didn't reach his 1st Slam SF on hard until 2008, in a year where he would turn 22. Djokovic won his 1st hardcourt Slam at 20 so Nadal should have peaked at the same age as well right, and this proves he was not talented enough, right?
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
It is Grand Slam Domination.

Last time I checked, the French Open was still a grand slam. This tendency to penalise for being the greatest clay court player in the history of the universe, to act as if his victories "shouldn't count" in some contexts is beyond laughable, and you should be embarrassed to be trotting it out. Djokovic if he is the GOAT you believe him to be, should have a better win ratio against Nadal at Roland Garros. Nadal managed to beat your so-called hardcourt GOAT in 2 US Open finals. Had he denied Nadal there, their slam H2H might look a bit less awful for Djokovic.

So yeah, all I'm hearing are excuses. Bad ones. A+ for effort though!

No it's not. It's RG domination and nothing more, and you are deliberately being obtuse and twisting this stat to make Nadal look better than he is. Let's see him play Djokovic 8 times at AO and look at that head to head. I bet you would change the subject real fast. And yea he did beat Djokovic in 2 USO finals but hasn't won a set against him on hardcourt in over 7 years. You're bragging about old past glory but can't face reality. The only time Nadal wins a hardcourt title these days is when he avoids Djokovic and Federer.
 

octogon

Hall of Fame
No it's not. It's RG domination and nothing more, and you are deliberately being obtuse and twisting this stat to make Nadal look better than he is. Let's see him play Djokovic 8 times at AO and look at that head to head. I bet you would change the subject real fast. And yea he did beat Djokovic in 2 USO finals but hasn't won a set against him on hardcourt in over 7 years. You're bragging about old past glory but can't face reality. The only time Nadal wins a hardcourt title these days is when he avoids Djokovic and Federer.

LOL!

You sound pretty salty about me simply stating facts. It is what it is.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Who has the H-H advantage vs Federer the past 4 years?
I guess the only way Djokovic fans will ever understand the age differential is when it happens to their guy.

In the past four years Roger has been 35-39 years old, playing a dominant #1 player six years younger. If Thiem suddenly grows a pair and becomes a truly great big match player (doubtful), let's watch the H2H between Djokovic when he's 35+ against a player in his late 20's. If Thiem and Djokovic play 20 times after Djokovic turns 35, the H2H would likely be 18-2 for Thiem. It's utterly immaterial since they're not generational rivals and few care about H2H outside TTW. But when Novak fans endlessly play the H2H card it's ridiculous, since both of his H2H's against Fed and Rafa are a razor-thin margin.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
No it's not. It's RG domination and nothing more, and you are deliberately being obtuse and twisting this stat to make Nadal look better than he is. Let's see him play Djokovic 8 times at AO and look at that head to head. I bet you would change the subject real fast. And yea he did beat Djokovic in 2 USO finals but hasn't won a set against him on hardcourt in over 7 years. You're bragging about old past glory but can't face reality. The only time Nadal wins a hardcourt title these days is when he avoids Djokovic and Federer.
Not Nadals fault Djokovic is Wawrinka’s pigeon in slams.

Who cares about a timeframe when we have evidence that is worth an entire career.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
I guess the only way Djokovic fans will ever understand the age differential is when it happens to their guy.

In the past four years Roger has been 35-39 years old, playing a dominant #1 player six years younger. If Thiem suddenly grows a pair and becomes a truly great big match player (doubtful), let's watch the H2H between Djokovic when he's 35+ against a player in his late 20's. If Thiem and Djokovic play 20 times after Djokovic turns 35, the H2H would likely be 18-2 for Thiem. It's utterly immaterial since they're not generational rivals and few care about H2H outside TTW. But when Novak fans endlessly play the H2H card it's ridiculous, since both of his H2H's against Fed and Rafa are a razor-thin margin.
Just a little study of history would instantly show that for all ATGs who continue to play for a long time H2Hs always are bad looking when compared with other ATGs. The reason is obvious. When you have a young player who is all of a sudden on fire that happens rather quickly. Think of Connors, Borg, Mac, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Fed, Nadal, Djokovic.

It did not take these guys years to hit a very high level, so there were only a few early years between bursting on the scene and totally dominating. And usually young players don't even play peaking ATGs until they establish themselves. You will hear again and again about how Connors crushed Rosewall, without even considering that Jimmy was born in 52 but Rosewall in 34. Borg against Laver was 56 against 38. Connors and Mac, 52 and 59. It's pretty obvious.

So you have these young lions and in just a few years they are peaking, while declines happens slowly and can go on for many years.

You just can't explain to fans what happens when players age until it happens to their faves and they experience it. I'll never get of the shock I felt when watching what happened to Borg between 80 and 81.

The ATGs who go on playing well after age 30 often seem to be almost ageless, and then the decline happens so fast it blows your mind.

With guys who have unbelievable defensive skills return can never go anywhere but down with age, so the only compensation is to win more on serve. Both Nadal and Djokovic have pretty much maximized their service games, so the moment return stats fall they will be done. It's just a matter of when it happens. Fed had nowhere to go, and people do not understand that. His serve was so good early on that the only way he could maintain that same high level was to keep his return skills equally high but with a racket that was unfriendly to anyone much over age 25.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Not Nadals fault Djokovic is Wawrinka’s pigeon in slams.

Who cares about a timeframe when we have evidence that is worth an entire career.

What does Wawrinka have to do with a head to head between Djokovic and Nadal? And he's 4-4 against Djokovic in Slams and 6-19 overall. Yea Djokovic is definitely his pigeon.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal obviously has a bigger gap, ombillible to see so many argue otherwise. Djokovic only broke this trend in the two stretches when he dominated Nadal everywhere, in 2011 during his BOATy run and 2015-16 on Djo's second best run while Ned also sucked. Nadal obviously had a much greater clay gap before 2011, an overall greater gap through 2012-14 (Djokovic losing the USO final decides this), and the current gap when they face is about the same as both keep shredding each other on hard/clay respectively.
 
Top