Why is Djokovic the one getting ''punished'' for the one slam a year thing?

[Deleted member 307496]

What does their match at RG in 2011 have to do with a hypothetical peak vs peak match at the AO?

Federer had his worst year on tour (slam wise) besides 2013.. And still took out mythical "slow hard king" Djokovic on clay in his "peak" year. :lol:

 

[Djokovic2011]

I just can't see Djokovic playing a better match against Nadal than Fed/Versasco in 09. They threw not only the kitchen sink, but the entire neighborhood at Nadal and he soaked it all up and won with energy to spare.

Except that Djokovic's defense is much better on slow HC than Verdasco's and even the mighty Roger's. He'd do to Nadal what Nadal does to everyone else, i.e drive him crazy and force him to go for too much. You knew this already of course.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Federer had his worst year on tour (slam wise) besides 2013.. And still took out mythical "slow hard king" Djokovic on clay in his "peak" year. :lol:

"On clay" being the operative words.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Except that Djokovic's defense is much better on slow HC than Verdasco's and even the mighty Roger's. He'd do to Nadal what Nadal does to everyone else, i.e drive him crazy and force him to go for too much. You knew this already of course.

Verdasco hit a harder ball than Djokovic ever has in that match. His defense isn't bad either.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Except that Djokovic's defense is much better on slow HC than Verdasco's and even the mighty Roger's. He'd do to Nadal what Nadal does to everyone else, i.e drive him crazy and force him to go for too much. You knew this already of course.

Is that why he barely won the 2012 AO with Nadal at his lowest point? Believe it or not, Nadal could defend every bit as well as Novak (better imo) on that court in 09, you already knew this of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ7kyUknYjM

 

[Deleted member 307496]

"On clay" being the operative words.

Still a very slow surface..

So why can't Federer "at his very peak" beat Djokovic "at his very peak" at the AO?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Verdasco hit a harder ball than Djokovic ever has in that match. His defense isn't bad either.

So you're saying that Verdasco is as tough an opponent at the AO as Djokovic is? :shock:

 

[MichaelNadal]

So you're saying that Verdasco is as tough an opponent at the AO as Djokovic is? :shock:

You know exactly what she's saying, Princess Peach. :lol:

 

[Djokovic2011]

Still a very slow surface..

So why can't Federer "at his very peak" beat Djokovic "at his very peak" at the AO?

Of course Federer would beat Djokovic at his peak at the AO, I just think Nole would win the majority of their meetings. Something like 6-4 or even 7-3 if they met 10 times at their very best.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Of course Federer would beat Djokovic at his peak at the AO, I just think Nole would win the majority of their meetings. Something like 6-4 or even 7-3 if they met 10 times at their very best.

So you're saying Wawrinka is better than Federer? :shock:

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So you're saying that Verdasco is as tough an opponent at the AO as Djokovic is? :shock:

Let's just say that if Verdasco from that match played Djokovic of 2011 at the AO, I wouldn't put money on either.

 

[Djokovic2011]

You know exactly what she's saying, Princess Peach. :lol:

I'm trying to be serious here MN, don't you dare make me laugh!!! :razz:

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Of course Federer would beat Djokovic at his peak at the AO, I just think Nole would win the majority of their meetings. Something like 6-4 or even 7-3 if they met 10 times at their very best.

Fair enough.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

What does their match at RG in 2011 have to do with a hypothetical peak vs peak match at the AO?

Federer is worse at RG than the AO.

But anyway, I honestly can't see anyone not named Nadal beating 100% Federer on any surface ever, but especially HC and grass.

His skill set is too deep, too many weapons.
He has mastered the sport to a ridiculous level.

At the end of the day, Fedal are Tier 1 and I believe Tier 1 players can only be beaten by other Tier 1 players when at their best.

That is the final part of my definition of Tier 1.

 

[Djokovic2011]

So you're saying Wawrinka is better than Federer? :shock:

Oh I don't know. You're confusing me now!!!

 

[NatF]

So you're saying that Verdasco is as tough an opponent at the AO as Djokovic is? :shock:

Did you even watch the match...I wouldn't make a statement of fact about either. But lets not pretend Verdasco wasn't playing at an extreme level that match. Wawrinka has shown that huge hitters can give Novak all sorts of problems at the AO.

The mask isn't just slipping it''s fallen off completely.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Is that why he barely won the 2012 AO with Nadal at his lowest point? Believe it or not, Nadal could defend every bit as well as Novak (better imo) on that court in 09, you already knew this of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ7kyUknYjM

As I said the other day, Novak loses that point at three separate junctures, and probably falls over too.

 

[RF-18]

:lol: you were right, he has insecurity issues and just MUST bite the hook.

:lol::lol:

 

[Djokovic2011]

Did you even watch the match...I wouldn't make a statement of fact about either. But lets not pretend Verdasco wasn't playing at an extreme level that match. Wawrinka has shown that huge hitters can give Novak all sorts of problems at the AO.

The mask isn't just slipping it''s fallen off completely.

Is it absurd for me to say that Djokovic at his best would beat that Verdasco in 5 sets like Nadal did?

 

[RF-18]

Federer is worse at RG than the AO.

But anyway, I honestly can't see anyone not named Nadal beating 100% Federer on any surface ever, but especially HC and grass.

His skill set is too deep, too many weapons.
He has mastered the sport to a ridiculous level.

At the end of the day, Fedal are Tier 1 and I believe Tier 1 players can only be beaten by other Tier 1 players when at their best.

That is the final part of my definition of Tier 1.

Inbefore thundervolley comes in and..

 

[Djokovic2011]

As I said the other day, Novak loses that point at three separate junctures, and probably falls over too.

Which just shows how little you know about Djokovic's defensive skills on slow HC.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Which just shows how little you know about Djokovic's defensive skills on slow HC.

Tbh, it could go either way with Nadal/Djokovic at the AO. I can acknowledge it, I just think you sell Nadal short almost ALL of the time.

 

[NatF]

Is it absurd for me to say that Djokovic at his best would beat that Verdasco in 5 sets like Nadal did?

Nope. Of course it's not. But it's not absurd to think Verdasco could pull a Wawrinka.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Nope. Of course it's not. But it's not absurd to think Verdasco could pull a Wawrinka.

Never said it was.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Which just shows how little you know about Djokovic's defensive skills on slow HC.

Only Nadal returns that slice forehand.
99% of players wouldn't have come close to getting their racquet on it.

Come on, Novak dreams at night of playing like they were in that point. :lol:

Being a high-level ATG, as Djokovic is, and beating Roger are very different things.

I agree that they'd both get a few wins if they played ten times, though.

@MN - Could that be the best point ever?

 

[NatF]

Never said it was.

That's the impression you're giving.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Only Nadal returns that slice forehand.
99% of players wouldn't have come close to getting their racquet on it.

Come on, Novak dreams at night of playing points like that. :lol:

Being a high-level ATG, as Djokovic is, and beating Roger are very different things.

I agree that they'd both get a few wins if they played ten times, though.

@MN - Could that be the best point ever?

Nah, Novak doesn't need to dream about it. He's already made it come true.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Only Nadal returns that slice forehand.
99% of players wouldn't have come close to getting their racquet on it.

Come on, Novak dreams at night of playing like they were in that point. :lol:

Being a high-level ATG, as Djokovic is, and beating Roger are very different things.

I agree that they'd both get a few wins if they played ten times, though.

@MN - Could that be the best point ever?

I'm not sure if I personally think it is, but easily top 5. I'd say every time a best point discussion comes up, this is the point that gets talked about most, so by consensus it may be. RIDICULOUS how Nadal is moving. They make the court look faster than the USO.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Nah, Novak doesn't need to dream about it. He's already made it come true.

Poast video pls.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I'm not sure if I personally think it is, but easily top 5. I'd say every time a best point discussion comes up, this is the point that gets talked about most, so by consensus it may be. RIDICULOUS how Nadal is moving. They make the court look faster than the USO.

Good point.

These guys were and are on another level, period.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Poast video pls.

Don't need to. I've seen him make enough outrageous gets to last me a lifetime. And so should you.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Don't need to. I've seen him make enough outrageous gets to last me a lifetime. And so should you.

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

Just a question. When you read on here, the argument people uses against him is this one slam a year thing since 2011. Basically he has won 5 straight seasons atleast one slam or more. Nadals 10 straight years are very impressive for some, but the streak djoko is going for is not, it's instead majoring in minors.

Nadal who has had 7 one slam seasons (6 of them came in RG), out of his 10 seasons since winning his first major (in 2005), seems to get a free pass to Hawaii.

I've asked this many times, but never got an answer. I'm not trying to start anything, wich I expect someone will say. But I just wanna know why Djokovic gets slaughtered for it.

Why is Nadals one slam years so ignored and has even got praised for it, while Djokovic's 5 straight slam years are not so impressive, or as some say, majoring in minors.

Thanks in advance.

It is stupid - similar to when people criticse Rafa for winning too many RG's. EVERY player out there would LOVE to have 9 RG's or 9 Wimby's or 9 US Open's, etc. Tis a bizarre argument. He gets criticsed because he is so good at RG.

 

[spinovic]

Federer is worse at RG than the AO.

But anyway, I honestly can't see anyone not named Nadal beating 100% Federer on any surface ever, but especially HC and grass.

His skill set is too deep, too many weapons.
He has mastered the sport to a ridiculous level.

At the end of the day, Fedal are Tier 1 and I believe Tier 1 players can only be beaten by other Tier 1 players when at their best.

That is the final part of my definition of Tier 1.

Djokovic is also worse at RG than Australia, so that doesn't mean a whole lot.

And, I don't think there's a huge difference between Federer on slower hard courts and clay. He accomplished more at Australia primarily because he never had to face anything like 'Nadal on clay' there. If Nadal had not been in his way, he could have easily exceeded his Australian Open accomplishments at Roland Garros.

Look at Federer's results in his prime stretch (2004-09):

Australia - 2004 (W), 2005 (SF - Safin), 2006 (W), 2007 (W), 2008 (SF - Djokovic), 2009 (F - Nadal)
Roland Garros - 2004 (R32 - Kuerten), 2005 (SF - Nadal), 2006-08 (F - Nadal), 2009 (W)
Wimbledon - 2004-07 (W), 2008 (F - Nadal), 2009 (W)
US Open - 2004-08 (W), 2009 (F - del Potro)

His only non-Nadal loss at Roland Garros came against the second best clay court player of the last 25 years and one of the 5-10 best of the Open Era. I'm not arguing that he's better on clay, just that the gap isn't that great. Minus Nadal, it's relatively safe to assume Federer would have at least equaled his Australian Open achievements at the French Open.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Djokovic is also worse at RG than Australia, so that doesn't mean a whole lot.

And, I don't think there's a huge difference between Federer on slower hard courts and clay. He accomplished more at Australia primarily because he never had to face anything like 'Nadal on clay' there. If Nadal had not been in his way, he could have easily exceeded his Australian Open accomplishments at Roland Garros.

Look at Federer's results in his prime stretch (2004-09):

Australia - 2004 (W), 2005 (SF - Safin), 2006 (W), 2007 (W), 2008 (SF - Djokovic), 2009 (F - Nadal)
Roland Garros - 2004 (R32 - Kuerten), 2005 (SF - Nadal), 2006-08 (F - Nadal), 2009 (W)
Wimbledon - 2004-07 (W), 2008 (F - Nadal), 2009 (W)
US Open - 2004-08 (W), 2009 (F - del Potro)

His only non-Nadal loss at Roland Garros came against the second best clay court player of the last 25 years and one of the 5-10 best of the Open Era. I'm not arguing that he's better on clay, just that the gap isn't that great. Minus Nadal, it's relatively safe to assume Federer would have at least equaled his Australian Open achievements at the French Open.

I think he would have 6 RG with no Nadal.
But there is Nadal. :lol:

Clay is his worst surface IMO though.
But look, slow HC has only been a thing for a few years, I'm not fussed about how Federer does on it really.

 

[NatF]

Djokovic is also worse at RG than Australia, so that doesn't mean a whole lot.

And, I don't think there's a huge difference between Federer on slower hard courts and clay. He accomplished more at Australia primarily because he never had to face anything like 'Nadal on clay' there. If Nadal had not been in his way, he could have easily exceeded his Australian Open accomplishments at Roland Garros.

Look at Federer's results in his prime stretch (2004-09):

Australia - 2004 (W), 2005 (SF - Safin), 2006 (W), 2007 (W), 2008 (SF - Djokovic), 2009 (F - Nadal)
Roland Garros - 2004 (R32 - Kuerten), 2005 (SF - Nadal), 2006-08 (F - Nadal), 2009 (W)
Wimbledon - 2004-07 (W), 2008 (F - Nadal), 2009 (W)
US Open - 2004-08 (W), 2009 (F - del Potro)

His only non-Nadal loss at Roland Garros came against the second best clay court player of the last 25 years and one of the 5-10 best of the Open Era. I'm not arguing that he's better on clay, just that the gap isn't that great. Minus Nadal, it's relatively safe to assume Federer would have at least equaled his Australian Open achievements at the French Open.

The competition at the AO minus finals day (and that one SF) is tougher at the AO than the FO though. You can't equate them. Plus in terms of top performances he's had a lot more at the AO than the FO.

He's significantly better on slow HC in his prime than clay.

 

[spinovic]

It is stupid - similar to when people criticse Rafa for winning too many RG's. EVERY player out there would LOVE to have 9 RG's or 9 Wimby's or 9 US Open's, etc. Tis a bizarre argument. He gets criticsed because he is so good at RG.

True. For arguments sake, to put his career into some perspective, 'balance' his resume by subtracting a bunch of his French Open titles. Say he'd won only 2-3 French Opens. He'd have 7-8 majors, a career slam, a tier 2 great and a more balanced resume than Andre Agassi, or any other tier 2 player. Agassi is lauded for succeeding on all surfaces, but half of his titles came at one event. He only won multiple titles at the two hard court events.

Does it somehow make Nadal worse, or less accomplished on all surfaces, because he has dominated Roland Garros to a degree never seen before in the Open Era?

This is similar to the Federer/Nadal H2H argument that implies Federer would have been better off losing in the first round all those years instead of losing in major finals to Nadal.

 

[spinovic]

The competition at the AO minus finals day (and that one SF) is tougher at the AO than the FO though. You can't equate them. Plus in terms of top performances he's had a lot more at the AO than the FO.

He's significantly better on slow HC in his prime than clay.

I agree that the depth of competition is toughest on hard courts, but we will just have to disagree on there being much difference between Federer on slow hard courts vs clay. I just don't see it.

His very first loss to a young Nadal came on a slow hard court smack in the middle of his prime.

 

[spinovic]

I think he would have 6 RG with no Nadal.
But there is Nadal. :lol:

Clay is his worst surface IMO though.
But look, slow HC has only been a thing for a few years, I'm not fussed about how Federer does on it really.

Can't argue any of this, as it's more or less sums up my beliefs. All I'm arguing against is the notion that Federer is significantly worse on clay.

 

[Russeljones]

I agree that the depth of competition is toughest on hard courts, but we will just have to disagree on there being much difference between Federer on slow hard courts vs clay. I just don't see it.

His very first loss to a young Nadal came on a slow hard court smack in the middle of his prime.

If I got a $ for every time this result has been used out of context..

 

[NatF]

I agree that the depth of competition is toughest on hard courts, but we will just have to disagree on there being much difference between Federer on slow hard courts vs clay. I just don't see it.

His very first loss to a young Nadal came on a slow hard court smack in the middle of his prime.

Federer was sick, he barely got past Davydenko.

Can you name a match at the FO anywhere near as good as the AO 2007 SF with Roddick?

 

[eldanger25]

Winning tournaments here means winning Slams. That is already exceptionally complicated. After that, it's about winning the next tier of tournaments such as the YEC's or the 1000's, at which point things become almost impossible.

Being the best player in the world is important. Nobody is going to be the best player in the world for maybe 8 years (Pancho Gonzales) and not win a bunch of hugely important and prestigious tournaments, and yet we know him to have only won 2 "Slam" events. Two.

Being #1 is a representation of greatness. Theoretically it can coincide with being outdone by somebody who is lower ranked in the men's game but when is the last time that happened...

It's a reliable indicator.

To be the best player over the course of a season is a huge achievement.

This is the most respectable list I've found for determining the best player of each year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_male_tennis_player_rankings

I can dig that list minus 2013, which led to the thread being locked because (presumably) Djokovic fans kept editing the page despite the vast majority of experts used elsewhere in the wiki rankings favoring Nadal (compare the 1990 rankings, where the ITF champ is listed neither first or second, with 2013, where the ITF ranking alone has apparently "tied" Nadal and Djokovic).

I find this frustrating not because of one player or another - I am 100 percent certain that if their results were flipped in 2013, crazed Nadal fans would've done the same thing and gotten the page locked, and it'd annoy me just as much. It's frustrating because it's inconsistent with commonly accepted methods to determine PoY elsewhere - including for earlier seasons on the very same website.

Anyway, just wanted to announce that - one of the drawbacks of wikipedia.

 

[RF-18]

I remember this period when Djoko was getting bullied for no multi slam seasons and majoring in minors.