Why couldn't Djoko dethrone Nadal at RG?

[NoleFam]

Of course I do not want to start an off-topic discussion. But an otherwise excellent forum member like @NoleFam started "dissing" Nadal here with off-topic remarks about Wimbledon 2007 and Nadal-Djokovic H2H outside clay.

Yes. On topic, I agree that all H2H matches count, including of course the RG 2015 match where Djokovic defeated Nadal.

I'm just having some fun with @MichaelNadal. Don't be too sensitive like other posters can be. You know I have tremendous respect for all that Nadal has accomplished and he will always be the King of clay.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

But as I said earlier that is sport, a lot of the time, it happens when the guy at the top slips, and the younger hungrier guy catches him. It doesn't take away from the greatness of the champion, but it happens. All reigns come to an end.

Of course. I just wouldn't call that dethroning, more like the king is dead long live the king... ah wait

 

[BringBackSV]

Because Nadal is too good, and Novak missed few times a chance, when he maybe could have a chance, to get in final and meet him (2011, 2019) ...

Anyway, he did beat him on RG, so we can say he dethroned him for two years, and Nadal didn't give him chance in 2016, when he certainly could and I think would beat him again...

All considered, I'm satisfied with Novak's clay h2h with Nadal. After all, we know who is Nadal on clay... And Djokovic comprehended him best of all players...

No, not in any relevant sense.

 

[NoleFam]

Of course. I just wouldn't call that dethroning, more like the king is dead long live the king... ah wait

Wawrinka dethroned Djokovic at the AO which lead to a title. That is what a dethroning is. Krajicek dethroned peak Sampras. Both Djokovic and Sampras reclaimed their crowns but that doesn't mean they weren't dethroned. Nadal was dethroned as well but did reclaim his superior position 2 years later.

 

[BringBackSV]

I'm just having some fun with @MichaelNadal. Don't be too sensitive like other posters can be. You know I have tremendous respect for all that Nadal has accomplished and he will always be the King of clay.

And possibly the king of slams.

 

[Hitman]

Of course. I just wouldn't call that dethroning, more like the king is dead long live the king... ah wait

LOL -

 

[ADuck]

Funny how many threads are disguised as tennis arguments when they are just word definition arguments.

 

[Hitman]

I'm just having some fun with @MichaelNadal. Don't be too sensitive like other posters can be. You know I have tremendous respect for all that Nadal has accomplished and he will always be the King of clay.

Exactly, I love Nadal. He's not my fav, but without him, without him providing the challenge, tennis would have been boring and Djokovic, and even Federer would not have been as great as they are now. Disrespecting any three of these pillars of tennis is just a joke.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Wawrinka dethroned Djokovic at the AO which lead to a title. That is what a dethroning is. Krajicek dethroned peak Sampras. Both Djokovic and Sampras reclaimed their crowns but that doesn't mean they weren't dethroned. Nadal was dethroned as well but did reclaim his superior position 2 years later.

Djokovic didn't even win the title there, unlike Krajicek and Wawrinka. Some dethroning.

 

[NoleFam]

I do agree with you, but he could pull out of these events. Djokovic knows his body very well, so I do trust him with what he is doing. AO to one side, the most important goal is just staying healthy. I do think the war he went through with Federer at Wimbledon 2019 cost him the rest of the season, it was brutal and I don't think he recovered from that, Federer then personally denying him that top spot at the end. You cannot control when you get into such dogfights, but you do have a say in how you recover. If he has been recovering, then hopefully he will be ready to go all out in Melbourne.

Yea I think that Wimbledon final took a lot out of him as well, both physically and emotionally. He just wasn't himself at WTF which is not like him. Hopefully, he listens to his body and pulls out if it's too much because there is no need jeopardizing his AO chances.

 

[Enceladus]

Nadal was clearly leading the score before the retirement in that Wimbledon match though. So it is a 100% valid victory, just like the RG 2015 match was valid victory. All H2H matches count, including Wimbledon 2007.

With regard to your second point, Nadal leads the H2H over Djokovic at the US Open. The US Open is played on hard, Djokovic's most succesful surface along with grass. Can you imagine Nadal having a losing H2H in a Slam on clay agaisnt Djokovic? Nuff said.

If Hamburg were a clay major, then Nadal could lose H2H with Djoker. Hamburg's clay is known for low bounces of balls (compared to other clay tournaments) and low bounces of balls are the biggest complication for Nadal's game.

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic didn't even win the title there, unlike Krajicek and Wawrinka. Some dethroning.

Djokovic really really dropped the ball in 2015. He should have won in both 2015 and 2016 tbh, as he was far away the best of the field. You just had to throw in a dig though, as usual. Lol.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Sport, firstly I am on your side, in that it is a valid win, even if Djokovic was injured. AO 2014 final also was a valid win. If you step on court, they all count. All I am doing is exposing some double standards and saying I can play that game also.

As for the USO H2H, do you really want me to go to town on that? I don't think we need to bring that here, the thread is about stating that Djokovic did in fact dethrone Nadal at RG, which you agree to. So nuff said.

Djokovic beat him at RG, wouldn’t say he dethroned him considering that Nadal has won three RG since then, while Novak hasn’t even reached another final since 2016. If beating is dethroning then Sod also dethroned Rafa.

 

[Hitman]

Yea I think that Wimbledon final took a lot out of him as well, both physically and emotionally. He just wasn't himself at WTF which is not like him. Hopefully, he listens to his body and pulls out if it's too much because there is no need jeopardizing his AO chances.

I am sure he will. He has a good team around him. The goal is to stay healthy throughout the year. If he can get past AO, he will stand a very good chance at getting back to world number one, considering all the points available in IW-Miami.

 

[swizzy]

This old thread was always off point.. Nadal will be dethroned not when he loses in Paris.. but when he is surpassed at the French Open. That nearly impossible task has only become more steep over the years.

 

[Hitman]

Djokovic beat him at RG, wouldn’t say he dethroned him considering that Nadal has won three RG since then, while Novak hasn’t even reached another final since 2016. If beating is dethroning then Sod also dethroned Rafa.

It absolutely is. That is what people say, that Soderling dethroned him that year. Federer went onto take the throne. Two different things for me.

 

[NoleFam]

Exactly, I love Nadal. He's not my fav, but without him, without him providing the challenge, tennis would have been boring and Djokovic, and even Federer would not have been as great as they are now. Disrespecting any three of these pillars of tennis is just a joke.

Yea he's not my fave but of course is a legend of the game and earned his place. I agree that any tennis fan disrespecting any of the three is a joke really.

 

[Hitman]

Yea he's not my fave but of course is a legend of the game and earned his place. I agree that any tennis fan disrespecting any of the three is a joke really.

The ones that do that are the real jokes.

 

[NoleFam]

I am sure he will. He has a good team around him. The goal is to stay healthy throughout the year. If he can get past AO, he will stand a very good chance at getting back to world number one, considering all the points available in IW-Miami.

Yea I know he wants to get back to #1, especially when he is rather close to passing Sampras. I think he will give a much better effort outside of Slams next year.

 

[BringBackSV]

It absolutely is. That is what people say, that Soderling dethroned him that year. Federer went onto take the throne. Two different things for me.

Soderling dethroning Rafa is legit.

Novak doing it,while technically true, is a pretty big stretch. Rafa just "dethroned" himself and Novak happened to be there.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

It absolutely is. That is what people say, that Soderling dethroned him that year. Federer went onto to take the throne. Two different things for me.

Well I do not want to discuss too much about terminology here, but dethroning for me would have meant if Djokovic did not only beat Nadal but had won some FO in a row while Rafa never won another one after 2015. Rafa would still have been greater overall with let’s say 9-3 FO titles, but Djokovic would have ended Rafas reign and started an own one which is what I understand about dethroning. Single odd losses here and there happens to everyone, even to Rafa on clay. If some random journeyman had beaten him in the first round in 2015, would you say that he was dethroned.

 

[Hitman]

Yea I know he wants to get back to #1, especially when he is rather close to passing Sampras. I think he will give a much better effort outside of Slams next year.

That is the positive to take out of it, is that there are a lot of points up for grabs, while Djokovic did well during the slams, he was poor during the non-slam events. So, if he can make a good start in the first few masters, he will be back on his way to catching Sampras and then targeting Federer.

 

[ADuck]

Soderling dethroning Rafa is legit.

Novak doing it,while technically true, is a pretty big stretch. Rafa just "dethroned" himself and Novak happened to be there.

Yes, technically true, but misleading, is how I would sum it up.

 

[Hitman]

Soderling dethroning Rafa is legit.

Novak doing it,while technically true, is a pretty big stretch. Rafa just "dethroned" himself and Novak happened to be there.

Yeah...it's still going to say Djokovic dethroned Nadal. That is what the official record book will show, that Djokovic dethroned him.

 

[NoleFam]

That is the positive to take out of it, is that there are a lot of points up for grabs, while Djokovic did well during the slams, he was poor during the non-slam events. So, if he can make a good start in the first few masters, he will be back on his way to catching Sampras and then targeting Federer.

Yea but I think next year may be a dogfight since the younger players have inched closer and closer now. I still expect the big dogs to the toughest in Slams but the quality of the tour definitely went up this year. It won't be easy for Djokovic.

 

[Hitman]

Yea but I think next year may be a dogfight since the younger players have inched closer and closer now. I still expect the big dogs to the toughest in Slams but the quality of the tour definitely went up this year. It won't be easy for Djokovic.

Of course it won't be easy, but if he is the fighting champion that we all know him to be, he will rise up to the challenge like he has in the past. It is great that the younger players are finally starting to step up, that is good for the future of the sport, and I enjoy watching many of them. Tennis will be in good hands going forward. Novak, if he wants to be the greatest needs to relish this challenge not shy away from it, and I think he will be gearing up for it.

 

[NoleFam]

Of course it won't be easy, but if he is the fighting champion that we all know him to be, he will rise up to the challenge like he has in the past. It is great that the younger players are finally starting to step up, that is good for the future of the sport, and I enjoy watching many of them. Tennis will be in good hands going forward. Novak, if he wants to be the greatest needs to relish this challenge not shy away from it, and I think he will be gearing up for it.

Yea I think it's great the tour has gotten better because it makes the game more exciting in general. The competition has gotten stronger but Djokovic knows what he must do to add to his legacy.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Because Nadal is too good, and Novak missed few times a chance, when he maybe could have a chance, to get in final and meet him (2011, 2019) ...

Anyway, he did beat him on RG, so we can say he dethroned him for two years, and Nadal didn't give him chance in 2016, when he certainly could and I think would beat him again...

All considered, I'm satisfied with Novak's clay h2h with Nadal. After all, we know who is Nadal on clay... And Djokovic comprehended him best of all players...

2019??no djok fan would've wanted a final with rafa after thar draining, gut wrenching 5 setter SF with no rest days...

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Some of my fav rallies ever are the ones where Djokovic thought he was doing something special in a rally and Nadal started to crank up the spin and pull Djokovic around and make him scream while retrieving balls, and Rafa spanks a winner while Djokovic looks on in disbelief

Nadal simply hits bigger than djok

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Haha...Oh you hear it loud and clear. Let's not forget we are still in 2019 and who this decade belongs to...

It's the year of ombellible though

 

[mike danny]

Nadal was clearly leading the score before the retirement in that Wimbledon match though. So it is a 100% valid victory, just like the RG 2015 match was valid victory. All H2H matches count, including Wimbledon 2007.

With regard to your second point, Nadal leads the H2H over Djokovic at the US Open. The US Open is played on hard, Djokovic's most succesful surface along with grass. Can you imagine Nadal having a losing H2H in a Slam on clay agaisnt Djokovic? Nuff said.

Really? Because while Djokovic was still good, he won the first set.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

He took Nadal down in 2015 when Nadal was there for the taking.

Taking down peak Nadal at RG has yet to happen lol.

2009

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Really? Because while Djokovic was still good, he won the first set.

Well “clearly”stretches it. Nadal had turned it around and the upper hand at the moment Novak retired. Difficult to say when during the match the injury started to have an impact on Djokovic’s game.

 

[alexio]

Well “clearly”stretches it. Nadal had turned it around and the upper hand at the moment Novak retired. Difficult to say when during the match the injury started to have an impact on Djokovic’s game.

if the score of 2nd set was 6-0 instead of 6-1..would it be good enough basis to assume that the injury started to have an impact exactly in the 2nd set?

 

[Zara]

That’s Nadal’s domain. No one can dethrone him. Not even Djokovic. At the end of the day, Nole still has only one RG and Nadal is still pilling on RGs. That’s how great he is on that surface.

 

[beard]

2019??no djok fan would've wanted a final with rafa after thar draining, gut wrenching 5 setter SF with no rest days...

I meant if he won in normal match, with normal conditions and normal schedule, which is very rare on that "slam"...

 

[beard]

No, not in any relevant sense.

Why? I am not English native speaker, but doesn't term dethrone mean to move from the throne? By winning in 2015 Novak managed to make Nadal ex throne holder, and next year he got the throne for himself.
If OP asked why Novak hadn't dethrone Nadal for good, than he certainly haven't do that...

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

if the score of 2nd set was 6-0 instead of 6-1..would it be good enough basis to assume that the injury started to have an impact exactly in the 2nd set?

Does not mean much. Matches between ATGs have a tendency to go back and forth. Even if both are completely healthy 6-4, 1-6 is nowhere near unrealistic. Check their Wimbledon 2011 final score.

 

[MichaelNadal]

He took Nadal down in 2015 when Nadal was there for the taking.

Taking down peak Nadal at RG has yet to happen lol.

I guess they want to say Djokovic didn't 'dethrone' Nadal because Nadal was obviously poor so it was a matter of time. I wouldn't say Federer 'dethroned' Sampras at Wimbledon (not until he overtook Pete's record, that is( or Istomin 'dethroned' Djokovic at the AO, for example.

Of course. I just wouldn't call that dethroning, more like the king is dead long live the king... ah wait

And possibly the king of slams.

This old thread was always off point.. Nadal will be dethroned not when he loses in Paris.. but when he is surpassed at the French Open. That nearly impossible task has only become more steep over the years.

Nadal simply hits bigger than djok

That’s Nadal’s domain. No one can dethrone him. Not even Djokovic. At the end of the day, Nole still has only one RG and Nadal is still pilling on RGs. That’s how great he is on that surface.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Does not mean much. Matches between ATGs have a tendency to go back and forth. Even if both are completely healthy 6-4, 1-6 is nowhere near unrealistic. Check their Wimbledon 2011 final score.

Using an outlier to prove a point, pretty bad look. That was their only slam match where both won a double break set. Djokovic was two sets to love up and let the third set go to recuperate for the fourth, confident that he had it in his bag by then. Meanwhile, the recording of their 07 semi that I've got starts in the second set so I can't comment on what the first was like, but Djokovic was very bad afterwards, Nadal didn't have to do much (he served quite well though).

 

[Backspin1183]

So? The question is why couldn't Djokovic dethrone him. The fact is he did. No one is saying Nadal's form was not bad in 2015, but Djokovic kept turning up year after year to meet Nadal, so deserves credit for it.

Oh he didn't dethrone Nadal in 2015. He lost the championship to Stan the Man.

 

[Hitman]

Oh he didn't dethrone Nadal in 2015. He lost to Stanimal the championship to Stan the Man.

No, he dethroned him. You think Stan dethroned Nadal that year, without even winning a single point against him? It doesn't work that way I'm afraid. I have no issues with saying Istomin dethroned Djokovic at AO, because it is what it is. It was Djokovic who ensured Nadal wasn't winning RG 2015, not Stan.

Dethroning is not the same as coronation, the two are not the same.

 

[Backspin1183]

No, he dethroned him. You think Stan dethroned Nadal that year, without evening winning a single point against him? It doesn't work that way I'm afraid. I have no issues with saying Istomin dethroned Djokovic at AO, because it is what it is. It was Djokovic who ensured Nadal wasn't winning RG 2015, not Stan.

Dethroning is not the same as coronation, the two are not the same.

Fair enough.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Using an outlier to prove a point, pretty bad look. That was their only slam match where both won a double break set. Djokovic was two sets to love up and let the third set go to recuperate for the fourth, confident that he had it in his bag by then. Meanwhile, the recording of their 07 semi that I've got starts in the second set so I can't comment on what the first was like, but Djokovic was very bad afterwards, Nadal didn't have to do much (he served quite well though).

Lol at outlier as if something like this was a one in a million scenario. Take their 2008 Olympics semi then where Rafa won 6-4,1-6,6-4, was this also because he got injured in the second set which then magically disappeared in the third? Or their Monte Carlo final in 2009. It is completely normal in matches between ATGs that the momentum can change back and forth and a score like 6-3, 1-6, 1-4 is absolutely nothing out of the norm even when both are 100% healthy. There are countless other matches where a player won a set or two and then got smoked, you do not always need injury as a reason. Djokovic in 2007 was still very young and inconsistent, badly loosing a second set after winning the first did not surprise at all.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Lol at outlier as if something like this was a one in a million scenario. Take their 2008 Olympics semi then where Rafa won 6-4,1-6,6-4, was this also because he got injured in the second set which then magically disappeared in the third? Or their Monte Carlo final in 2009. It is completely normal in matches between ATGs that the momentum can change back and forth and a score like 6-3, 1-6, 1-4 is absolutely nothing out of the norm even when both are 100% healthy. There are countless other matches where a player won a set or two and then got smoked, you do not always need injury as a reason. Djokovic in 2007 was still very young and inconsistent, badly loosing a second set after winning the first did not surprise at all.

Slams aren't your ordinary BO3 though.
Sure, winning the first set didn't guarantee anything but there's no credit for Nadal in beating that poor Djokovic who, as we learned, was ailing.

 

[BringBackSV]

Yeah...it's still going to say Djokovic dethroned Nadal. That is what the official record book will show, that Djokovic dethroned him.

I hear ya but luckily for us we have the benefit of context and we know it was pretty meaningless.

To a person who knows virtually nothing about the sport and just looks at Ws and Ls you have a point.

 

[Hitman]

I hear ya but luckily for us we have the benefit of context and we know it was pretty meaningless.

Anything that works. Just remember, that medicine doesn't work for everyone.

 

[BringBackSV]

Anything that works. Just remember, that medicine doesn't work for everyone.

Well it was quite funny at the time that he finally managed to beat Nadal at RG (thanks to Rafa's poor form) only to get his teeth kicked in by Stan.

 

[Hitman]

Well it was quite funny at the time that he finally managed to beat Nadal at RG (thanks to Rafa's poor form) only to get his teeth kicked in by Stan.

I'm sure it was for you. Bottom line is he kept coming and Nadal couldn't hold him off. As for getting his teeth kicked in in the final, that is OK, it only made holding all four slams 12 months later than much more sweeter.

 

[BringBackSV]

Why? I am not English native speaker, but doesn't term dethrone mean to move from the throne? By winning in 2015 Novak managed to make Nadal ex throne holder, and next year he got the throne for self.
If OP asked why Novak hadn't dethrone Nadal for good, than he certainly haven't do that...

For me the point is that there really is little noteworthy about beating the juggernaut that is Rafa at RG if he was in poor form. I mean if we want to say that context doesn't matter I'd have to ask why. What's the point in dumbing things down, what's to be gained by ignoring the obvious?

To make an analogy, would I ever claim that Istomin dethroned Novak at the AO? No, because I find the implication there to be quite silly. It is giving a false impression that this was some particularly noteworthy accomplishment when it fact it was far from it.