Djokovic Era

[Mile]

Why in the name of all that's holy is the Fedal Debate creeping into this one?!

Til Nole gets to 14 , at the end of the day it will always be Fedal, IMO.

I would say 10 GS's, at this era of tennis, Djoker would gave an edge.

 

[herios]

^ If Federer could do what Nadal does physically he would pretty much never lose a match.

Nadal has declined physically but he is still the 2nd best mover out there, 2nd best when we are talking defense, and he is still going to outlast anyone not named Djokovic. And unlike Djokovic we are talking someone throwing all his body weight into hitting absurd amounts of topspin all match long which means he is working a lot harder than Djoker or anyone else on a shot to shot basis.

I have the impression that currently, Nadal is not even the second best defender, because Murray moves better and defends better.
It will be interesting this year if Rafa can withhold Andy as he improves.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why in the name of all that's holy is the Fedal Debate creeping into this one?!

Til Nole gets to 14 , at the end of the day it will always be Fedal, IMO.

I would say 10 GS's, at this era of tennis, Djoker would gave an edge.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[Mile]

Til Nole gets to 14 , at the end of the day it will always be Fedal, IMO.

I would say 10 GS's, at this era of tennis, Djoker would gave an edge.

I'm sorry, what?

All i am saying, Djoker 10 GS in this hard era would be much worthy than Fedex 17-18 GS or Nadals 14.

P.S. I should better say, 1 GS from Nole isnt like one GS from Fedex.

 

[DarthFed]

^ This hard era where Roger is on his last legs and Rafa is on the decline...right.

 

[Kirijax]

I would say 10 GS's, at this era of tennis, Djoker would gave an edge.

I'm sorry, what?

All i am saying, Djoker 10 GS in this hard era would be much worthy than Fedex 17-18 GS or Nadals 14.

P.S. I should better say, 1 GS from Nole isnt like one GS from Fedex.

:cover

 

[britbox]

Federer imparts 3981rpm while Nadal imparts 4348rpm, barely any difference - and no doubt there will be matches whereby Federer has a higher RPM than Nadal.

Nadal's has more net clearance, while I'm pretty sure Federer's has more power.
And if we go back to the early years of Nadal's career, Nadal was hitting flatter and probably with significantly less RPM.
Plus he didn't upgrade his strings until 2010.

I doubt you'll find a match where Federer AVERAGES a higher RPM than Nadal. The values you posted are top end values not regular values. Federer's backhand slice actually has been recorded at 5,400 rpm but hey, he ain't slicing with topspin.

Federer has more variety in pace and spin so he's always going to run a significantly lower average RPM than Nadal if you started clocking averages over the course of a match.

 

[auto-pilot]

I have the impression that currently, Nadal is not even the second best defender, because Murray moves better and defends better.
It will be interesting this year if Rafa can withhold Andy as he improves.

You are absolutely right, Murray is definitely superior to Nadal defensively/movement, and that was the case in 2013 too - but it didn't matter, because Nadal's offense is improving with age and it allows him to win the US Open.

Their most lopsided slam meeting ever was last year at Roland Garros 6-3 6-2 6-1, so I don't like Murray's chances of catching up with Nadal if that pathetic AO final versus Djokovic is any indication of Murray's 'improvement'.
The problem for Murray is that he has no guns.
Whereas Nadal has the greatest gun of all - the forehand down-the-line.
This is why Nadal's defensive decline has become irrelevant, because his gun is getting bigger every year.

2013 RG semi, Nadal could not match Djokovic's athleticism, so he hit him off the court with 22 winners in the 5th set.
This is why Nadal's best hardcourt year ever was at age 27, because while his defense is declining he's resorting to more offense.

 

[Front242]

Actually Nadal's guns are minuscule compared to before He's a far cry from this these days.

 

[herios]

The pirate pics are a matter of history therefore are not applicable to the Djokovic era.

 

[El Dude]

Hey Front242, quit photoshopping my left arm onto Rafa.

 

[El Dude]

^ Ask Federer to do what Nadal does, and he wouldn't be able to.
There is no "baby-Nadal" out there.
But does Nadal hit the hardest? No.
Does Nadal move the fastest? No.
Does Nadal have the best stamina? No.
Heck, Nadal is way past his prime physically yet still winning, even on hardcourt - at age 27, Nadal became the first player since 2003 to sweep Canada-Cincy-USO, and god knows when someone also won Indian Wells.
So he's doing this without being physically superior.
Even at 2015 AO Nadal reached the quarter-final without any semblance of physical superiority (utter weakness actually, compared to guys like Murray).
So Nadal has inferior DNA to Federer (and to many others) in the area of surviving long-term physical activity - he's fragile in that sense.
But Nadal's talent is so extreme that he's able to win 14+ slam titles despite the physical fragility.
Djokovic outlasts Nadal physically (see 2012 AO final), but what can Djokovic do when Nadal unleashes 22 winners in the 5th set (2013 RG semi)?
Its hard to put a limit on when he will stop winning slams (especially RG because its not as damaging to the knees), because his talent shines through all kinds of physical obstacles.

I think the gist of what you are saying is true, and what people like dear Cali refuse to admit: that Nadal is really, really good at tennis - and not just a grinder, not just a stamina beast that wears down his opponents.

But I do disagree with you in terms of reducing Nadal's health struggles to "worse DNA than Federer." I think his injury history is directly related to his style of play, which IS very grinding and DOES involve tremendous physicality.

Anyhow, I think you make an interesting point in your last sentence - that unlike Roger's slow, incremental decline that limits his "ceiling" and thus perhaps his chances of winning another Slam, while still remaining very good overall and perhaps maintaining a top 10 rank for the rest of his thirties if he wanted to - Rafa might struggle staying healthy, lose his ranking, and then come back and win Roland Garros as the #80 player at the age of 35.

 

[El Dude]

I would say 10 GS's, at this era of tennis, Djoker would gave an edge.

I'm sorry, what?

All i am saying, Djoker 10 GS in this hard era would be much worthy than Fedex 17-18 GS or Nadals 14.

P.S. I should better say, 1 GS from Nole isnt like one GS from Fedex.

This is just...inaccurate, perhaps especially because Novak doesn't have to deal with a good younger generation of players coming up. If anything, as Roger gets old and Rafa struggles, the field is much softer now than it was a couple years ago.

Consider the so-called "weak era" of Roger's peak. You had a solid group of players in Roger's generation - Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer, etc - and then you had younger players like Rafa, Novak, and then Andy coming up - all of whom were elite players by the time they were 21 or so, and Rafa by the time he was 19. There's no equivalent to that now. Novak has a similar group of peers in Rafa, Andy, del Potro, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych, Cilic, but his version of what Rafa/Novak/Andy was to Federer is, um, Nishikori/Raonic/Dimitrov.

So even if we say that Novak's peers are overall tougher than Roger's, or at least at the top if not in terms of depth, the difference between the next "usurping" generations are monumental.

This fact could even partially explain the so-called "later peaks" that players seem to be undergoing. Perhaps players are peaking a bit later now, or it also could be that it seems they are peaking later because the younger generation is so weak. I think its a bit of both.

 

[Denis]

^ This hard era where Roger is on his last legs and Rafa is on the decline...right.

I'm not willing to declare Rafa is in decline just yet. Let's see how the clay season unfolds.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

When Rafa stops making finals of tournaments,which also includes Grand Slams,I will then declare he is in decline not beforehand.

 

[DarthFed]

He's stopped making the final of the vast majority of tournaments. Roger's decline didn't start in 2013, arguably didn't start in 2010 either even though he made nearly every GS final up until then.

 

[El Dude]

When Rafa stops making finals of tournaments,which also includes Grand Slams,I will then declare he is in decline not beforehand.

As I've said before, different players decline differently - or at least the decline looks different. Rafa's skill-set and absolute level is still intact (or at least it was as of last year - we haven't seen his best since last summer, probably since the clay season). But the fact that he's missed or gone out early in 6 of the last 11 Slams is indicative of decline.

Again, not a decline in skill but a decline in his capacity to perform at his highest level. That may be how decline actually looks for great players. Even Roger, who can flash moments of his old brilliance and still play at a very high level, simply can't turn it up all the way like he used to. Roger had his absolute peak in 2004-06 at the age of 22-25, then seemed to slip a tiny bit with a "high plateau" from 2007 to early 2010, then slipped again to what we've seen since mid-2010 or so. They are two very different players, but it is worth mentioning that right now Rafa is the same age as Roger was in the summer of 2010: a few months shy of his 29th birthday.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I also it is worth mentioning the amount of time off Rafa has had over the last couple of years,due to injuries,when we are mentioning his 'decline' also the glaring factor for me in Grand Slams over the past couple of years,Rafa going out early at Wimbledon.In saying that I will be interested to see this year when there is a break between Roland Garos and Wimbledon,if that makes any difference for Rafa,to adjust better from clay to grass.

 

[brokenshoelace]

When Rafa stops making finals of tournaments,which also includes Grand Slams,I will then declare he is in decline not beforehand.

Decline doesn't mean he's not one of the best players in the world still. But he is in decline physically and movement wise at least.

 

[herios]

When Rafa stops making finals of tournaments,which also includes Grand Slams,I will then declare he is in decline not beforehand.

Decline doesn't mean he's not one of the best players in the world still. But he is in decline physically and movement wise at least.

Did anyone say he is not one of the best? The last time I checked he is still #3. But, because he was top 2 for most of the last decade, he is one step behind than he used to be.