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

[Nadal_Django]

Jesus Christ, the 2020 RG messed up the minds of these clay bots really hard, isn't it!?

 

[NoleFam]

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.

This is just nonsensical and you know it. I can't ever recall someone talking about Lendl and Connor's Slam head to heads when talking about their records. What they always talk about is Slams they won and their weeks at #1. Same for Sampras. And your Slam collection already tells how you fared in big matches.

That's probably why he lost the #1 ranking for a period in 2012 and then in 2013.

Sorry that Nadal is like 100 weeks behind at this point but you don't get to render it useless because he's most likely going to end up way behind Djokovic and Federer here.

 

[BackhandDTL]

This is just nonsensical and you know it. I can't ever recall someone talking about Lendl and Connor's Slam head to heads when talking about their records. What they always talk about is Slams they won and their weeks at #1. Same for Sampras.

That's probably why he lost the #1 ranking for a period in 2012 and then in 2013.

Sorry that Nadal is like 100 weeks behind at this point but you don't get to render it useless because he's most likely going to end up way behind Djokovic and Federer here.

What is the first thing people bring up when they talk about Djokovic in 2012-14 on this board? How many big slam matches he dropped to Nadal and Murray during this period. Losing big match after big match. No one gives a hoot about how many weeks #1 he accumulated during this time frame.

Never said its useless. Simply said its a flawed metric. Beating the best players en route to a slam is what should receive the most weight. Not the weeks #1 padded by reaching every SF and throwing every opportunity away like a pigeon.

That’s why Nadals AO 09 is looked fondly upon, and his W 08.

That’s why Novak’s 12 AO is looked fondly upon.

No one considers 08 USO for Nadal or W 2012 for Djokovic as timeframes where they were the best players. Because they weren’t. They lost matches in slams to their rivals who were better at that moment

 

[NoleFam]

What is the first thing people bring up when they talk about Djokovic in 2012-14 on this board? How many big slam matches he dropped to Nadal and Murray during this period. Losing big match after big match. No one gives a hoot about how many weeks #1 he accumulated during this time frame.

Never said its useless. Simply said its a flawed metric. Beating the best players en route to a slam is what should receive the most weight. Not the weeks #1 padded by reaching every SF and throwing every opportunity away like a pigeon.

Yea it's brought up when people think he underachieved during that time. Trying to equate Slam head to head with how many weeks at #1 you have isn't going to fly no matter how hard you try. One is of historical importance used to measure the greatest and most dominant players of all time, and the other is not.

How can it be flawed when it's based on whether you have more points than everyone else and nothing else? And if we are talking about beating the best players in route to Slams, how many times did Nadal beat Federer or Djokovic for a Wimbledon title? once. AO? once. USO? twice. Djokovic and Federer have more big wins than that en route to theirs so you're not really talking about Slam head to head. You're mainly talking about RG head to head, and sorry none of these compare to weeks at #1.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Yea it's brought up when people think he underachieved during that time. Trying to equate Slam head to head with how many weeks at #1 you have isn't going to fly no matter how hard you try. One is of historical importance used to measure the greatest and most dominant players of all time, and the other is not.

How can it be flawed when it's based on whether you have more points than everyone else and nothing else? And if we are talking about beating the best players in route to Slams, how many times did Nadal beat Federer or Djokovic for a Wimbledon title? once. AO? once. USO? twice. Djokovic and Federer have more big wins than that en route to theirs so you're not really talking about Slam head to head. You're mainly talking about RG head to head, and sorry none of these compare to weeks at #1.

First three sentences aren't even substantive. Just a litany of baseless assertions, so Im going to pass there.

Of course its flawed. It doesn't take into account who played the best in the most important matches of the year and the quality of competition during the year.

Djokovic accumulated the most weeks #1 from 12-14 yet was losing big match after big match against his main rivals in slams.

Oh here comes the classic RG ********. Djokovic's second best major in terms of the performances and consistency he's had there. Nadal's too good at that tournament, it doesn't reduce the importance of the head to head at that tournament. RG is worth as much as any other slam.

 

[NoleFam]

First three sentences aren't even substantive. Just a litany of baseless assertions, so Im going to pass there.

Of course its flawed. It doesn't take into account who played the best in the most important matches of the year and the quality of competition during the year.

Djokovic accumulated the most weeks #1 from 12-14 yet was losing big match after big match against his main rivals in slams.

Oh here comes the classic RG ********. Djokovic's second best major in terms of the performances and consistency he's had there. Nadal's too good at that tournament, it doesn't reduce the importance of the head to head at that tournament. RG is worth as much as any other slam.

There is nothing to measure quality of competition in any era so this is pointless. As far as who played the best in the most important matches of the year, that's what YE #1 is for.

And? Was Djokovic not the most consistent in 2012-2014?

Of course I will bring it up when you keep talking about Slam head to head, when most of the matches happened at that tournament, which is his best tournament. The disparity is so lopsided that this can't be taken seriously. Djokovic's 2nd best major in terms of performances? Is this a joke? Of course it's Wimbledon. The only reason you are trying to say this is more important is because (1) Nadal is far behind in weeks at #1 and (2) he is behind in the overall head to head.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

What is the first thing people bring up when they talk about Djokovic in 2012-14 on this board? How many big slam matches he dropped to Nadal and Murray during this period. Losing big match after big match. No one gives a hoot about how many weeks #1 he accumulated during this time frame.

Never said its useless. Simply said its a flawed metric. Beating the best players en route to a slam is what should receive the most weight. Not the weeks #1 padded by reaching every SF and throwing every opportunity away like a pigeon.

That’s why Nadals AO 09 is looked fondly upon, and his W 08.

That’s why Novak’s 12 AO is looked fondly upon.

No one considers 08 USO for Nadal or W 2012 for Djokovic as timeframes where they were the best players. Because they weren’t. They lost matches in slams to their rivals who were better at that moment

Well weeks at Number 1 wouldn't be a flawed metric, if Nadal had a lot more.
Granted, he probably should have a lot more, if not for injuries and layoffs.
Nadal for instance won 5 Masters and 2 Slams in 2013, but didn't get the Number 1 back until October of that year.
But that is the way the ranking points system works.
Slam H2H is relevant, but is often affected by low sample sizes and not meeting for long periods.

 

[BackhandDTL]

There is nothing to measure quality of competition in any era so this is pointless. As far as who played the best in the most important matches of the year, that's what YE #1 is for.

And? Was Djokovic not the most consistent in 2012-2014?

Of course I will bring it up when you keep talking about Slam head to head, when most of the matches happened at that tournament, which is his best tournament. The disparity is so lopsided that this can't be taken seriously. Djokovic's 2nd best major in terms of performances? Is this a joke? Of course it's Wimbledon then the USO. The only reason you are trying to say this is more important is because (1) Nadal is far behind in weeks at #1 and (2) he is behind in the overall head to head.

A consistent player that fails to perform well in the biggest matches is not the best player lmao. This is the antithesis of sport and of competition.

Nope. Djokovic has had pitiful performances at the USO and has not even looked that impressive at Wimbledon barring 2011/15. The competition on grass is a joke, first of all. Murray was done since 2013 and Fed was geriatric.

His performance in 2012 RG F, 2013 RG SF were some of the highest performances ever outside of the AO. He was simply outclassed by the King of Clay.

Some more ad hominems. Classic.