recreationalplayer
Semi-Pro
Nadal over anyone on clay is the largest gap in tennis. And at this point, if just a few key points go his way, Rafa has the better chance of beating either 'Nole or Roger on any surface.
Which gap is larger: Nadal over Nole on clay or Nole over Nadal on HC?
- Thread starter Nadalgaenger
- Start date
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Ok but Nadal is Djokovic’s pigeon in HC slams in the last 7 years, and so is Djokovic against Wawrinka in the last 5 slams.
we are both choosing a specific timeframe, works for me.
Atleast Nadal never was a pigeon of anybody on clay.
Karma Tennis
Legend
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Djokovic and Nadal haven't even played enough in hardcourt Slams the last 5 years for anybody to be anyone's pigeon. They played one match.
DerekNoleFam1
Hall of Fame
And that 1 match was a complete beat down.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Slam h2h is meaningless (but you already knew that).
in any case the Nadal-Djokovic slam h2h is basically the FO, where they met 8 times!
Karma Tennis
Legend
Majors H2H is the most significant comparator. Top players have to be at their peak of form to meet in Majors due to the Seeding System.
And last time I checked, Roland Garros is probably the best test of Tennis prowess both physically and mentally. The results there are probably more valuable than at any of the other Majors.
I imagine both Roger and Novak would gladly give up a couple of their other Major Titles to have another one or two RG Title wins over Rafa.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Karma Tennis
Legend
So you are saying Roger and Novak wouldn't want to have at least a couple more RG Titles?
If either of them won another RG Title, they would achieve the Double Career GRAND SLAM. Only two male players have achieved that feat in the history of the sport.
Methinks you don't understand the Sport. But hey, there are more like you than not. LOL.
If either of them won another RG Title, they would achieve the Double Career GRAND SLAM. Only two male players have achieved that feat in the history of the sport.
Methinks you don't understand the Sport. But hey, there are more like you than not. LOL.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
he’s right
you only care about weeks #1 because Djokovic was lucky enough to vulture them post 2014.
“slam h2h is irrelevant.” That’s bogus LMAO.
You play tennis to beat the best and win slams.
Weeks #1 is nice but it’s not a better record then slam h2h. Beating the best of the best at the pinnacle of the sport. That’s why you play
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Ok toots
Karma Tennis
Legend
OK Millennial.
The is a very popular thread right now about Djokovic and Wawrinka that shows why slam H2H is so important. Novak dominates Stan 19-6 in their overall H2H. You would assume no one would even percieve them to have any rivalry at all of note, just based on their overall stat.
But it is one of Djokovic's most notable and discussed rivalries (outside of his ones with Fed, Nadal and Murray) purely because of their slam H2H. Stan's ability to consistely defeat Novak at slam level has completely defined their rivalry, to the point where most fans either don't know or seem to care that Djokovic absolutely owns Stan outside of slams and in their overall H2H. People focus in on the slam H2H between Stan and Novak, because those are the big ones.
But it is one of Djokovic's most notable and discussed rivalries (outside of his ones with Fed, Nadal and Murray) purely because of their slam H2H. Stan's ability to consistely defeat Novak at slam level has completely defined their rivalry, to the point where most fans either don't know or seem to care that Djokovic absolutely owns Stan outside of slams and in their overall H2H. People focus in on the slam H2H between Stan and Novak, because those are the big ones.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Nah, slam h2h is a made up stat. Very silly.
if you are going to look at h2h look at the whole career (I wonder why you wouldn’t want to do that
)best skip h2h altogether for the Big 3
and LOL at comparing Stan and Novak. silly rabbit!
Nah, slam h2h is a made up stat. Very silly.
if you are going to look at h2h look at the whole career (I wonder why you wouldn’t want to do that
best skip h2h altogether for the Big 3
and LOL at comparing Stan and Novak. silly rabbit!
You aren't finding many allies on this take for a reason. All the smiley emoticons in the world won't change that. LOL!
I don't have a problem looking at overall H2H by the way. But in some cases, it doesn't really tell you much of value (because a lot of smaller 3 set matches hold less importance to great players. Ask Pete Sampras, who routinely seemed to tank or give less effort to grass warm-up tournaments, then gave his all for Wimbledon), which is why the slam H2H matters so much in major rivalries and is the more important H2H stat in the GOAT debate. No great player ever gives anything less than their best effort for a slam.
Like we can't learn anything much from Djokovic's and Nadal's overall H2H of 29-27, other that they have played each other a lot of times and appear to be almost evenly matched, with a statistically insignificant two match differential out of almost 60 matches played. We learn a lot more with the slam H2H of 10-6 in terms of Nadal being the clearly dominant player in their most important matches.
Last edited:
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
The guy is delusional.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Other than a small group fo Nadal fans no one takes slam h2h seriously. Too bad you fell down that rabbit hole, I thought you were a real fan, not a troll. I get many enjoy trolling (isn’t that what half of TTW is?) but for some reason I hadn’t pegged you in that group, at least not until a few months ago.
the reason no one outside the small Nadal group looks at slam H2H (there are plenty of great Nadal fans here who don’t do that, shout out to them!) is not only that there is no reason to separate slams from the rest but mainly for the same reason even the overall h2h is misleading, and that‘s because players don’t meet in every slam or tournament. so the h2h is a very biased indicator (May be missing my stat terms here).
in the case of Nadal and Djokovic the slam h2h result is basically the result of the 7 wins Nadal has over Novak at the FO from their 8 matches. And no one argues that Nadal is the god of the FO and much much better than Novak there. Note that as good as Nadal is in clay we are talking about one specific tournament. Nadalovic also met 8 times at Rome but there Nadal’s advantage is narrower at 5-3.
as a Nadal fan you have plenty to be happy about including his slam count and truly unbelievable results at the FO. There is no need to come up with ridiculous arguments like slam h2h which provide no information. if we are comparing the records of Nadal and Novak there are so many other factors to look at. There are 14 top tournaments each year, so that’s 14 potential comparisons right there.
I, for one, think all the Big 3 are co goats. They all have accomplishments none of the others do and that set them apart from the rest. I doubt we will ever see anything like them again. See, no emojis!
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
I guess I should just block you. At some point you were a funny at least, or maybe I thought so. Now it’s non stop 24/7/365 posts of “Nadal is the greatest”. Don’t you get tired of that? You made your point one million times.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
All I’m saying is slam H2H is not irrelevant at all. Atleast you can see how these players fare against each other at their best on various surfaces.
Stats like weeks #1 can be inflated because of quality of competition. I mean is acquiring weeks #1 against Nishikori/Raonic/post 2013 Murray vs prime Djokovic/prime Murray/prime/late prime Fed of the same difficulty?
not saying either metric is unbiased, but slam H2H looks like a much better one since you can condition by surface and by year.
Saying that this metric is of “zero importance” is obviously delusional. If that warrants a block, go ahead.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
there is no one single indicator that will correctly summarize a player’s career. But slam h2h reeks of torturing the data until you find some subset of it that supports your conclusions. Given that Nadal has accomplished so much there really is no need for this type of analysis. A Roddick fan, for example, could try to use this metric to indicate that he was better than Novak. But all would immediately see this argument makes no sense.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
By that same logic there is no reason to use weeks #1 as a metric. After all, do weeks accumulated in an era where Nadal was no where to be seen, Fed was 35, and Murray was nowhere near his 12-13 self in slams really move the needle?
Your logic can be applied to any metric.
There is no torturing the data to see how players perform in the biggest matches at the pinnacle of the sport. That matters. Stan would be slamless if it weren’t for his top tier play against Novak when it mattered most.
There’s a reason why prime Nadal had that aura about him. He beat prime Fed in the biggest matches.
Funny...apparently, no one but "a small group of Nadal fans" takes slam H2H seriously, but after Nadal won his 20th slam at Roland Garros, no less an esteemed global media outlet than the BBC did a breakdown of the GOAT race involving Fed, Rafa and Novak, and in their breakdown of all their percieved relevant metrics of the GOAT debate, they had a nice little section for....Grand Slam H2H for each member of the Big 3. Complete with pie chart and everything. Apparently, the BBC think slam H2H is a relevant metric in the GOAT debate, but obviously Gabe T knows best.
As BackhandDTL said, you are completely delusional about this, and can't get out of this silly mindset of being an offended Djokovic fanboy because Nadal dominates him in a metric a lot of people consider impressive. It's a significant advantage Nadal has over Djokovic (and Federer). Just like Djoker has some advantadges over Rafa. No idea why you get so sensitive over this, and it's tough to take you seriously when you try to claim slam H2H is meaningless.
Looking forward to your inevitable convoluted rebuttal disregarding/dismissing the BBC using slam H2H as a relevant metric in their breakdown of the GOAT debate. Because you are that kind of poster. But sure, keep selling this fantasy that it is "only a small group of Nadal fans" who think slam H2H matters. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Last edited:
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Well, I don’t use weeks at #1, or YE1 for that matter, as the defining metric for who was the greatest. It’s just one more datapoint snd everyone can decide how much weight they place on it.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
nadal has many impressive metrics. H2h at slams simply isn’t one of them. It’s a summary statistic and averages are not very useful when there is wide disparity in the underlying data.
if all you knew was that Nadal was 10-6 in slam matches against Novak and you were told they would meet in every slam in a given year and you had to bet on the winner, would the 10-6 tell you much about the likely outcomes? No. Nadal is much better than a 10-6 favorite at the FO and is not even a favorite against Novak at the AO (and, depending on the year, at Wimbledon either). The USO is anyone‘s guess. So when you talk of 10-6 you combine 4 different events with very very different outcomes to come up with a summary stat of no real value.
Your opinion. Obviously one not shared by myself, many others or esteemed organisations like the BBC.
This is kinda one of those things you need to get over. Some battles can be won. This isn't one of them. Concentrate on winnable battles instead of tilting at windmills like Don Quixote every time 10-6 gets mentioned.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Nadal has 20 slams and like 13 FOs. So many FOs I can’t even recall exactly how many. He doesn’t lack GOAT level stats. Why focus on a made up stat to make him look bad vs Novak? Talk about Don Quixote.
It's not a made-up stat though, is it. I just showed you a BBC article making specific reference to slam H2H in their GOAT debate breakdown, and how it was an advantage for Nadal over Federer and Djokovic in the GOAT discussion. It's unfathomable to me why you are still crying about this. It's a legit metric between these guys. You don't have to like it (I wouldn't if I was a Djokovic fan either, so I get that), but you are insane if you think I'm going stop mentioning just because you are ridiculously oversensitive about it.
This is you being fragile. Move on, because nobody is going to stop talking about legit metrics that benefit the player they support, no matter how much you want to claim it"s irrelevant. If it doesn't matter (in your eyes), it should be easy for you to ignore then when it comes up.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
It’s a non-sense stat. The fact that some journalist at the BBC chose it tells us little. i can find journalists and others that mention Novak’s overall h2h as important factors. So what?
h2h in a sport like tennis is not very useful because players don’t meet all the time. The slam h2h is simply a reflection of Nadal’s much greater results at the FO. Which no one disputes.
right now the betting markets have Novak as the favorite in 3 of the 4 slams, with Nadal obviously as the favorite at FO. If the slam h2h contained useful information thar would not be the case.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Weeks #1 tells us nothing either then.
All it tells us is that Djokovic’s prime was during a weak era and Nadals was earlier,
by your logic, pretty much every metric is useless.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Well, each metric measures something. Weeks at number 1 tells us just that. Who was #1 for the most weeks. That’s an important indicator but obviously not the only one.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Each metric measures something. Slam H2H tells us just that. How one has fared against the best at the biggest tournaments in the word.
It’s an important indicator, but not the only one.
This crap reasoning can be applied for any metric.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
This is such a lame reinvention and you should know better. Djokovic can dominate a year from beginning to end, he can dominate the fall, he can dominate from Wimbledon through the USO, he can win the Sunshine Double, and then he even dominated clay season a couple of times. That's why he has more weeks at #1 because of his ability to dominate everywhere, plus he's very consistent. Djokovic's prime was during a weak era? If I recall correctly, Djokovic spent more years at #1 than Nadal from 2011-2014 and that was a weak era?
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Yes, except that slam h2h tells us nothing.Each metric measures something. Slam H2H tells us just that. How one has fared against the best at the biggest tournaments in the word.
It’s an important indicator, but not the only one.
This crap reasoning can be applied for any metric.
would you bet on Nadal vs Djokovic at the AO based on their slam h2h? Of course not. or WB? Not at all.
the problem with the slam h2h, and the reason it provides no useful information, is that players don’t play “slams”. They play the AO, FO, WB, and USO. Individual tournaments . When you mix them all together to create a slam h2h you are losing all the valuable information.
if instead of combining disparate tournaments into a single metric you look at each slam h2h individually you get a still imperfect but at least somewhat useful metric.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
You're wasting your time on that guy who is trying to pull the wool over your eyes and gaslighting you. He knows it's bs but will keep repeating it because it's the stat Nadal leads. Like we all are stupid and can't see that 50% of the matches happened at RG, compared to 18.75% at USO and Wimbledon, and 12.5% at AO.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Djokovic gets too much credit for beating up on Geriatric Fed, Nishikori, Raonic, and post 2013 Murray.
Djokovic’s 2015-16 prime was during a weak era. Ask any non-Djokovic fan on this board.
Nadal had the most weeks at #1 from 08-13 the strongest era in history. 114 to Nole’s 101. Nice try though.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Poor Novak was gone missing in 09-10, 14, 17-18 at the AO. Novak is poor at the USO. Whose fault is that? Don’t blame the H2H if the FO is Novak’s second best major. Nadals simply too good there, so don’t start whining.
Whose fault is that?
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Djokovic gets too much credit for beating up on Geriatric Fed, Nishikori, Raonic, and post 2013 Murray.
Djokovic’s 2015-16 prime was during a weak era. Ask any non-Djokovic fan on this board.
Nadal had the most weeks at #1 from 08-13 the strongest era in history. 114 to Nole’s 101. Nice try though.
Nadal had the same opportunity to beat those same players and become #1 but nice try here.
It wasn't a weak era but whatever floats your boat. He had two very dominant periods and the other in 2011. Already proved he could do it over strong opposition so claiming weak era as the only reason he was doing it is mainly hot air.
So he only had 14 more weeks than Djokovic from 08-13, although he reached #1 three years earlier? You pretty much just proved my point for me.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
He reached #1 three years earlier because he was the better player for a longer period of time. Djokovic doesn’t get a pass there
2015-16 was not a weak era? The big 3 was non-existent! Nadal was nowhere to be seen and Fed was 35/36 ffs.
The bias is sky high here
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
You're a roll today, huh? Novak made 11 straight SF or better appearances at the USO. Of those 11, Nadal only reached that round or better 5 times in those years but yea Novak is poor at the USO. Nonsense. Nadal wasn't even there half the time. Nadal also wasn't there in 2012, 2013, 2014 or 2015 Wimbledon. I don't know why you're bringing up 2010 or 2018 AO since he didn't even make the SF in those years.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
He reached #1 three years earlier because he was the better player for a longer period of time. Djokovic doesn’t get a pass there
2015-16 was not a weak era? The big 3 was non-existent! Nadal was nowhere to be seen and Fed was 35/36 ffs.
The bias is sky high here
Well in that case he should have way more weeks at #1 in that period considering he reached #1 in 2008, and Djokovic didn't until 2011 but he only had roughly 4 more months at #1. That already showed that Djokovic's ability to hold the top ranking was greater than Nadal's.
Nadal was nowhere to be seen? Who's fault is that? Nadal's and his only. Federer was 33/34 actually in the matches that they played against each other. Like I said, Djokovic already did it in 2011 so crying weak era after the fact isn't going to fly.
So is the irony.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Nadal had to fight against Fed and Djokovic for weeks #1
Djokovic was fighting against pigeons in 15/16.
Nice try though.
2011 was impressive but that doesn't give him a pass for taking candy from babies, like he did in 15/16.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
So you agree that Nadal was the better player in 08-13 and yet Djokovic has a better ability to hold weeks #1 in that period?
hmm so maybe that metric isin’t as great of a metric as we thought it was?
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Djokovic didn't have to fight Nadal and Federer for weeks at #1 from 2011-2013? You need to just realize Djokovic is more consistent and was deep in most of the big tournaments. Even after his resurgence in 2018, Djokovic has more weeks at #1 than Nadal from 2017-2020.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
So you agree that Nadal was the better player in 08-13 and yet Djokovic has a better ability to hold weeks #1 in that period?
hmm so maybe that metric isin’t as great of a metric as we thought it was?
Well obviously Nadal was better in 2008-2010 than Djokovic was.
It's an excellent metric because it only measures who had enough points to be the best player in the world on a 52 week scale.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Weeks number one doesn't tell us the story of how one fares in big matches. Slam H2H does.
Best player in the world my ass. Djokovic dropping big matches in slams like a pigeon in 2012-14.
