Djokovic Era

[auto-pilot]

The fact that Nadal-Djokovic haven't met at an event of any kind since 2014 Roland Garros, is a great thing for Nadal.
Because despite being fairly absent from the tour, Nadal still has that mental edge over Djokovic that he can take in to Roland Garros - or Djokovic may beat Nadal at Madrid or Rome - but Nadal will still go into RG with the confidence of beating Djokovic in their last FOUR slam meetings.
Its a big mental edge that is compounded by the tremendous barrier that Djokovic faces at Roland Garros (because he's never won it, and he couldn't even win it in 2013 when he was up a break in the 5th set versus "comeback Nadal").
And in addition to the barrier, Nadal has now proven that he can be outplayed at Rome by Djokovic and still maintain control over Djokovic at the Roland Garros showdown.
That's huge......because it means Djokovic can do all kinds of great things at the masters events, but none of it will prepare him for Nadal at Roland Garros.
Both guys know this, and it takes a lot of pressure off Nadal and puts huge pressure on Djokovic to break that Roland Garros barrier.
The barrier is getting bigger and BIGGER.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

It has to be noted that the playing conditions in Rome compared to Roland Garos are different,Rome is the fastest true clay court,where Roland Garos is a medium surface with a true bounce,also at Roland Garos the outside courts play different eg Susan Lenglen is usaually faster than playing on Philippe Chatrier.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I think a lot of Fed fans have respect for Nole's game and personality. At least that's the case for me, thus no need for djokerer battles even though they have dealt each other a lot of tough losses over the years.

Not only tough losses, but they don't seem to like each other. There's been a few times when there's been bad blood. But the great rivalries of this last ten years are Fedal and Rafa-Novak. Djoker and Roger have a great rivalry too, of course, but it gets overshadowed by the other rivalries they have with Rafa. I'm not saying that because I'm a Rafa fan, but because I think that Rafa comes between the two of them chronologically, and in majors. Rafa and Roger were on their own as rivals for a long time, and then Novak came along to replace Roger.

Apart from times when Rafa is absent through injury, there's a generational thing which meant that Djokerer wasn't a huge rivalry in terms of both of them desperate to occupy the one space at the top...

Well Kirean you can say things:clap about their relationship that I get bombarded by some of the Novak fans(not the very nice Miss Billie) but its the true.:clap

 

[Kieran]

The fact that Nadal-Djokovic haven't met at an event of any kind since 2014 Roland Garros, is a great thing for Nadal.
Because despite being fairly absent from the tour, Nadal still has that mental edge over Djokovic that he can take in to Roland Garros

Rafa doesn't have the mental edge over anybody at the moment, not even Berdych. This is the problem with returning to the tour after such a long absence, you have to earn your place at the table all over again...

 

[El Dude]

Kieran and Broken, I'm bowing out of this one. For the third time, I'm agreeing that Rafa was the best player in 2013! I've said that numerous times, but am simply saying that there's a valid argument for pushing Novak as his equal - and I've presented stats that support that argument. But again, I think Rafa gets the overall edge but that it isn't as much as either of you are implying. Even the ATP points bear that out (Rafa 13030, Novak 12260).

I mean try for a LITTLE objectivity, OK? To be honest, you guys are so biased towards your guy that it is extremely difficult to have a reasonable conversation with either of you about him! I mean even when I say "Yeah, I agree, but there's a reasonable argument for the other side" you guys get upset, ignoring my agreement and focusing on the other part. Relax, amigos. Your guy is still amazing.

 

[Riotbeard]

Kieran and Broken, I'm bowing out of this one. For the third time, I'm agreeing that Rafa was the best player in 2013! I've said that numerous times, but am simply saying that there's a valid argument for pushing Novak as his equal - and I've presented stats that support that argument. But again, I think Rafa gets the overall edge but that it isn't as much as either of you are implying. Even the ATP points bear that out (Rafa 13030, Novak 12260).

I mean try for a LITTLE objectivity, OK? To be honest, you guys are so biased towards your guy that it is extremely difficult to have a reasonable conversation with either of you about him! I mean even when I say "Yeah, I agree, but there's a reasonable argument for the other side" you guys get upset, ignoring my agreement and focusing on the other part. Relax, amigos. Your guy is still amazing.

Haha I have decided to relinquish this territory too Dude.

 

[Kieran]

Kieran and Broken, I'm bowing out of this one. For the third time, I'm agreeing that Rafa was the best player in 2013! I've said that numerous times, but am simply saying that there's a valid argument for pushing Novak as his equal - and I've presented stats that support that argument. But again, I think Rafa gets the overall edge but that it isn't as much as either of you are implying. Even the ATP points bear that out (Rafa 13030, Novak 12260).

I mean try for a LITTLE objectivity, OK? To be honest, you guys are so biased towards your guy that it is extremely difficult to have a reasonable conversation with either of you about him! I mean even when I say "Yeah, I agree, but there's a reasonable argument for the other side" you guys get upset, ignoring my agreement and focusing on the other part. Relax, amigos. Your guy is still amazing.

Ah okay. So...you agree with us, but still say it's "debatable" and "there's a reasonable argument for the other side" when really, there isn't, or if there is, then there is the bias.

But it's us who aren't "objective?" :laydownlaughing

Bow out, brother, it's not a big deal, we're only chatting... :hug

 

[auto-pilot]

The fact that Nadal-Djokovic haven't met at an event of any kind since 2014 Roland Garros, is a great thing for Nadal.
Because despite being fairly absent from the tour, Nadal still has that mental edge over Djokovic that he can take in to Roland Garros

Rafa doesn't have the mental edge over anybody at the moment, not even Berdych. This is the problem with returning to the tour after such a long absence, you have to earn your place at the table all over again...

But the reason why Nadal lost to Berdych was because Nadal wasn't physically ready to play the AO.
He almost skipped it - according to his words at Doha he was indicating that we may have to wait till Rio to see him play.
In their AO match, Berdych was never put in a position to be tested mentally, because Nadal didn't play his usual game.
If a physically ready Nadal shows up (with his trademark retrieving skill), I bet you Berdych loses the match mentally.
The mental edge was still there if a physically fit Nadal showed up to keep it close for long enough.
Even so, Berdych almost lost it mentally versus a physically weak Nadal in the closing moments - Berdych led 5-1 in the tie-breaker yet Nadal got it back to 5-5 but again had very little sting on his shots and lost the final couple of points and the match.
Nadal really just had to play a solid match physically and Berdych would have crumbled in the big moments.

 

[Kieran]

The fact that Nadal-Djokovic haven't met at an event of any kind since 2014 Roland Garros, is a great thing for Nadal.
Because despite being fairly absent from the tour, Nadal still has that mental edge over Djokovic that he can take in to Roland Garros

Rafa doesn't have the mental edge over anybody at the moment, not even Berdych. This is the problem with returning to the tour after such a long absence, you have to earn your place at the table all over again...

But the reason why Nadal lost to Berdych was because Nadal wasn't physically ready to play the AO...Nadal really just had to play a solid match physically and Berdych would have crumbled in the big moments.

It's irrelevant. He can't take so long away and expect that everyone bows down when he comes back. This (as Rafa would say) "is the real..."

 

[auto-pilot]

Rafa doesn't have the mental edge over anybody at the moment, not even Berdych. This is the problem with returning to the tour after such a long absence, you have to earn your place at the table all over again...

But the reason why Nadal lost to Berdych was because Nadal wasn't physically ready to play the AO...Nadal really just had to play a solid match physically and Berdych would have crumbled in the big moments.

It's irrelevant. He can't take so long away and expect that everyone bows down when he comes back. This (as Rafa would say) "is the real..."

Its EXTREMELY relevant.
Berdych has never played the big points well versus Nadal.
Nadal just had to keep it close and Berdych would have crumbled.
It almost happened in that tie-breaker without Nadal doing much right.
And it had no chance of happening in the first 2 sets because there were no big points.

 

[Kirijax]

I'm wondering why Nadal missing the 2013 Australian Open is in his favor. It should count against him. He was injured. His body wasn't strong enough to play tennis while Djokovic hardly ever misses a tournament. His stronger body/less hazardous play style brought him the AO title. I wish people would stop counting that missing a tournament is a plus instead of a minus.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Kieran and Broken, I'm bowing out of this one. For the third time, I'm agreeing that Rafa was the best player in 2013! I've said that numerous times, but am simply saying that there's a valid argument for pushing Novak as his equal - and I've presented stats that support that argument. But again, I think Rafa gets the overall edge but that it isn't as much as either of you are implying. Even the ATP points bear that out (Rafa 13030, Novak 12260).

I mean try for a LITTLE objectivity, OK? To be honest, you guys are so biased towards your guy that it is extremely difficult to have a reasonable conversation with either of you about him! I mean even when I say "Yeah, I agree, but there's a reasonable argument for the other side" you guys get upset, ignoring my agreement and focusing on the other part. Relax, amigos. Your guy is still amazing.

My argument revolves around this:

2 slams > 1 slam.
3 masters > 2 masters.
World number 1 > world number 2.
Win their 2 meetings in majors > lose their 2 meetings in majors.

That sounds pretty objective to me. The one argument Novak has for him is WTF winner > WTF finalist. That however, in no way negates the above.

I am being objective.

I'm not sure what's this idea you seem to have that even if I believe something, I should accommodate the other opinion no matter what. That should mostly be the case, but not when it comes to this, as I believe the data to be pretty conclusive. Yes, you offered numbers, no, nobody thinks they make a good enough case for Novak, including you, since you agree with us.

Let me be clear, I'm not doing this for the sake of being pushy or being a jerk. But I have no idea why I'm getting accused of being subjective about this. Yeah, I'm a Nadal fan and I'm subjective by definition...not when it comes to this debate though, because my argument is based on something quite obvious to anyone.

I mean, literally 100% of people on this forum think Nadal had the best year in 2013. What's the point of the weak argument re: Novak potentially being is equal when nobody believes it? Just because it's close doesn't make it a good argument. 2 is close to 1. But nobody would argue that being number 2 > being number 1.

I honestly think it's obtuse to stir debate for the sake of debate. Everyone believes Nadal was the best player in 2013. When the ITF handed out their award, most of us laughed it off and nobody took it seriously.

 

[El Dude]

Ah okay. So...you agree with us, but still say it's "debatable" and "there's a reasonable argument for the other side" when really, there isn't, or if there is, then there is the bias.

But it's us who aren't "objective?" :laydownlaughing

Kieran, I'm agreeing with you that Rafa has the edge. What we're not agreeing on is to what degree and whether or not it is debatable. You say it isn't, I say there's at least a "reasonable argument" to put Novak equal to Rafa in 2013. Clearly my view is "silly."

But here's a question: Given that I don't have a horse in the race, why might I be biased? What is in it for me to be biased?

 

[El Dude]

BS, your argument points are one-sided - why not list everything, as I did, to give a fuller picture? I think part of the issue is that you're being a lawyer arguing one side while I'm trying to be a judge and balance all factors. I went through all the major components of the year and determined that Rafa did have the edge, but not as much as you and Kieran are saying. I'm saying you're biased because you seem to wilfully ignore the points for Novak, or at least completely undermine them.

 

[Kieran]

Ah okay. So...you agree with us, but still say it's "debatable" and "there's a reasonable argument for the other side" when really, there isn't, or if there is, then there is the bias.

But it's us who aren't "objective?" :laydownlaughing

Kieran, I'm agreeing with you that Rafa has the edge. What we're not agreeing on is to what degree and whether or not it is debatable. You say it isn't, I say there's at least a "reasonable argument" to put Novak equal to Rafa in 2013. Clearly my view is "silly."

But here's a question: Given that I don't have a horse in the race, why might I be biased? What is in it for me to be biased?

If you're agreeing with me, then why would you say I'm biased? I'm being objective, and I also say that this is not debatable. You said that. If anybody thinks Novak was the best player in 2013, then they're not being objective, I can only conclude they're being biased. I haven't seen any argument which refutes the rankings on this one, or the number of slams and MS titles won that year.

I don't think you're biased, but if anyone thought that Nole was best that year, then there's the bias you mentioned, not me or Broken (or you, who agree with us )...

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

I agree with rafa not having a mental edge over anyone, i mean..he lost to skeletor at ao, including losing a set 0-6.

unless his physical level improves alot then any so-called mental edge is nullified. nadal has ben poor since last june.

we need to wait n see how his physical level recovers before any mental edge can become valid.

 

[Riotbeard]

I agree with rafa not having a mental edge over anyone, i mean..he lost to skeletor at ao, including losing a set 0-6.

unless his physical level improves alot then any so-called mental edge is nullified. nadal has ben poor since last june.

we need to wait n see how his physical level recovers before any mental edge can become valid.

Wasn't even great last June...

 

[auto-pilot]

I'm wondering why Nadal missing the 2013 Australian Open is in his favor. It should count against him. He was injured. His body wasn't strong enough to play tennis while Djokovic hardly ever misses a tournament. His stronger body/less hazardous play style brought him the AO title. I wish people would stop counting that missing a tournament is a plus instead of a minus.

Let me put it this way:
If Nadal and Federer is tied on 20 slam titles but Nadal played significantly less slam events, which 20 is more impressive?

 

[Riotbeard]

I'm wondering why Nadal missing the 2013 Australian Open is in his favor. It should count against him. He was injured. His body wasn't strong enough to play tennis while Djokovic hardly ever misses a tournament. His stronger body/less hazardous play style brought him the AO title. I wish people would stop counting that missing a tournament is a plus instead of a minus.

Let me put it this way:
If Nadal and Federer is tied on 20 slam titles but Nadal played significantly less slam events, which 20 is more impressive?

Depends on way more factors than that. To me if rafa ties Fed, they are equal.

 

[auto-pilot]

^ I'm not talking about "goat" (which is impossible to definitively prove and doesn't exist), I'm just talking about the number of slam titles.
I would think if 2 guys (call them Henry and Tom, just random guys) win 20 slam titles then I'd be more impressed with the one who played less events to reach the feat.
Other people may be more impressed with the player who played more.