Djokovic Era

[Fiero425]

Just saw this on Twitter.

The biggest surprise for me was that Djokovic now has more Grand slam wins than Nadal. Passed him during Wimbledon I believe. (Nadal has 196 wins.)

No one's been more consistent than Nole over the years at the Majors! Nadal has missed months at a time, with the FO his only secure major while Roger and Nole have been making the quarters and semi's at almost every event! I'm shocked, you're shocked! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kirijax]

Just saw this on Twitter.

The biggest surprise for me was that Djokovic now has more Grand slam wins than Nadal. Passed him during Wimbledon I believe. (Nadal has 196 wins.)

No one's been more consistent than Nole over the years at the Majors! Nadal has missed months at a time, with the FO his only secure major while Roger and Nole have been making the quarters and semi's at almost every event! I'm shocked, you're shocked! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

I don't know why I didn't realize he was sneaking up on the leaders but yeah, you're right. Even if you don't the tournament, those finals and semifinals pile up the wins! :clap

Let's how about Murray?.....hey! 150 wins! That's good enough to pass Nadal eventually no?

 

[Moxie]

Just saw this on Twitter.

The biggest surprise for me was that Djokovic now has more Grand slam wins than Nadal. Passed him during Wimbledon I believe. (Nadal has 196 wins.)

No one's been more consistent than Nole over the years at the Majors! Nadal has missed months at a time, with the FO his only secure major while Roger and Nole have been making the quarters and semi's at almost every event! I'm shocked, you're shocked! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

You might both pull back for a second...Djokovic doesn't have more "Grand Slam wins" than Nadal, even if he has won more overall matches. I'm fairly sure that Nadal leads in the percentage titles at Slams v. Slams played, and obviously he has more titles. And Fiero, to be truthful, Federer has been more consistent over the years at the Majors than anyone. Novak is doing very well for himself, but he doesn't need it to be overstated.

 

[Kirijax]

Just saw this on Twitter.

The biggest surprise for me was that Djokovic now has more Grand slam wins than Nadal. Passed him during Wimbledon I believe. (Nadal has 196 wins.)

No one's been more consistent than Nole over the years at the Majors! Nadal has missed months at a time, with the FO his only secure major while Roger and Nole have been making the quarters and semi's at almost every event! I'm shocked, you're shocked! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

You might both pull back for a second...Djokovic doesn't have more "Grand Slam wins" than Nadal, even if he has won more overall matches. I'm fairly sure that Nadal leads in the percentage wins at Slams v. Slams played, and obviously he has more titles. And Fiero, to be truthful, Federer has been more consistent over the years at the Majors than anyone. Novak is doing very well for himself, but he doesn't need it to be overstated.

Djokovic has 200 wins for a 85.4% winning rate.
Nadal has 196 wins 87.5% percentage winning rate.

But we were talking about grand slam wins. How do you interpret that? Not winning percentage. But we can talk about that if it will make you feel better.

 

[Fiero425]

No one's been more consistent than Nole over the years at the Majors! Nadal has missed months at a time, with the FO his only secure major while Roger and Nole have been making the quarters and semi's at almost every event! I'm shocked, you're shocked! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

You might both pull back for a second...Djokovic doesn't have more "Grand Slam wins" than Nadal, even if he has won more overall matches. I'm fairly sure that Nadal leads in the percentage wins at Slams v. Slams played, and obviously he has more titles. And Fiero, to be truthful, Federer has been more consistent over the years at the Majors than anyone. Novak is doing very well for himself, but he doesn't need it to be overstated.

Djokovic has 200 wins for a 85.4% winning rate.
Nadal has 196 wins 87.5% percentage winning rate.

But we were talking about grand slam wins. How do you interpret that? Not winning percentage. But we can talk about that if it will make you feel better.

No one's owned the tour like Nole these last several years! He hasn't been upset early or missed any majors, so I'd say w/o even checking the numbers that he has surpassed them both in either category you want to look at Moxie! His record has been almost as stellar as Roger's back in the day! No other pro's come close; taking AO 4 of 5 years, making the semi and final of the FO every year, winning 3 Wimbledons, then finishing off with magnificent runs at the USO, taking out Roger 2 straight semi's coming back from 2 MP's! Who else has done that recently? :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kirijax]

You might both pull back for a second...Djokovic doesn't have more "Grand Slam wins" than Nadal, even if he has won more overall matches. I'm fairly sure that Nadal leads in the percentage wins at Slams v. Slams played, and obviously he has more titles. And Fiero, to be truthful, Federer has been more consistent over the years at the Majors than anyone. Novak is doing very well for himself, but he doesn't need it to be overstated.

Djokovic has 200 wins for a 85.4% winning rate.
Nadal has 196 wins 87.5% percentage winning rate.

But we were talking about grand slam wins. How do you interpret that? Not winning percentage. But we can talk about that if it will make you feel better.

No one's own the tour like Nole these last several years! He hasn't been upset early or missed any majors, so I'd say w/o even checking the numbers that he has surpassed them both in either category you want to look at Moxie! His record has been almost as stellar as Roger's back in the day! No other pro's come close; taking AO 4 of 5 years, making the semi and final of the FO every year, winning 3 Wimbledons, then finishing off with magnificent runs at the USO, taking out Roger 2 straight semi's coming back from 2 MP's! Who else has done that recently? :angel: :dodgy:

Despite Djokovic's impressive run, Nadal still has the higher winning percentage, Fiero.

 

[Moxie]

No one's been more consistent than Nole over the years at the Majors! Nadal has missed months at a time, with the FO his only secure major while Roger and Nole have been making the quarters and semi's at almost every event! I'm shocked, you're shocked! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

You might both pull back for a second...Djokovic doesn't have more "Grand Slam wins" than Nadal, even if he has won more overall matches. I'm fairly sure that Nadal leads in the percentage wins at Slams v. Slams played, and obviously he has more titles. And Fiero, to be truthful, Federer has been more consistent over the years at the Majors than anyone. Novak is doing very well for himself, but he doesn't need it to be overstated.

Djokovic has 200 wins for a 85.4% winning rate.
Nadal has 196 wins 87.5% percentage winning rate.

But we were talking about grand slam wins. How do you interpret that? Not winning percentage. But we can talk about that if it will make you feel better.

It's not that it makes me feel better. It's that it is better. Djokovic can have played more GSs and won more SFs/QFs, etc., but it's winning the title that matters. That's not about pandering to me. Suddenly you have even the likes of Darth trying to make stats about Feds SFs, and this one about Novak having won more actual matches at GSs. IMO, that is stat geekdom trying to downplay the impact of Nadal. And gin up Djoker. He doesn't really need it, as he's much proven himself, for the all-time status. But there is still "rubber meets the road," and Rafa has been better on that that some "pholks." :laydownlaughing

 

[Fiero425]

You might both pull back for a second...Djokovic doesn't have more "Grand Slam wins" than Nadal, even if he has won more overall matches. I'm fairly sure that Nadal leads in the percentage wins at Slams v. Slams played, and obviously he has more titles. And Fiero, to be truthful, Federer has been more consistent over the years at the Majors than anyone. Novak is doing very well for himself, but he doesn't need it to be overstated.

Djokovic has 200 wins for a 85.4% winning rate.
Nadal has 196 wins 87.5% percentage winning rate.

But we were talking about grand slam wins. How do you interpret that? Not winning percentage. But we can talk about that if it will make you feel better.

It's not that it makes me feel better. It's that it is better. Djokovic can have played more GSs and won more SFs/QFs, etc., but it's winning the title that matters. That's not about pandering to me. Suddenly you have even the likes of Darth trying to make stats about Feds SFs, and this one about Novak having won more actual matches at GSs. IMO, that is stat geekdom trying to downplay the impact of Nadal. And gin up Djoker. He doesn't really need it, as he's much proven himself, for the all-time status. But there is still "rubber meets the road," and Rafa has been better on that that some "pholks." :laydownlaughing

Regardless if you care for the stats or not, they exist and can be commendable! I'm sure you can SHADE Nadal's record to look more impressive than it really is if you try, but there are so many glaring deficiencies, I wouldn't try it while I'm out here to refute and undermine them! lol! :snicker :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Moxie]

Djokovic has 200 wins for a 85.4% winning rate.
Nadal has 196 wins 87.5% percentage winning rate.

But we were talking about grand slam wins. How do you interpret that? Not winning percentage. But we can talk about that if it will make you feel better.

It's not that it makes me feel better. It's that it is better. Djokovic can have played more GSs and won more SFs/QFs, etc., but it's winning the title that matters. That's not about pandering to me. Suddenly you have even the likes of Darth trying to make stats about Feds SFs, and this one about Novak having won more actual matches at GSs. IMO, that is stat geekdom trying to downplay the impact of Nadal. And gin up Djoker. He doesn't really need it, as he's much proven himself, for the all-time status. But there is still "rubber meets the road," and Rafa has been better on that that some "pholks." :laydownlaughing

Regardless if you care for the stats or not, they exist and can be commendable! I'm sure you can SHADE Nadal's record to look more impressive than it really is if you try, but there are so many glaring deficiencies, I wouldn't try it while I'm out here to refute and undermine them! lol! :snicker :angel: :dodgy:

I don't think I have to "shade" Nadal's records. 14 Majors speak for themselves. It's this conversation about SFs and QFs and lots of wins without a title that are "shading," if you ask me. Think about it.

 

[Fiero425]

It's not that it makes me feel better. It's that it is better. Djokovic can have played more GSs and won more SFs/QFs, etc., but it's winning the title that matters. That's not about pandering to me. Suddenly you have even the likes of Darth trying to make stats about Feds SFs, and this one about Novak having won more actual matches at GSs. IMO, that is stat geekdom trying to downplay the impact of Nadal. And gin up Djoker. He doesn't really need it, as he's much proven himself, for the all-time status. But there is still "rubber meets the road," and Rafa has been better on that that some "pholks." :laydownlaughing

Regardless if you care for the stats or not, they exist and can be commendable! I'm sure you can SHADE Nadal's record to look more impressive than it really is if you try, but there are so many glaring deficiencies, I wouldn't try it while I'm out here to refute and undermine them! lol! :snicker :angel: :dodgy:

I don't think I have to "shade" Nadal's records. 14 Majors speak for themselves. It's this conversation about SFs and QFs and lots of wins without a title that are "shading," if you ask me. Think about it.

To me the biggest SHADE in Nadal's record is the fact most of his wins are on clay; the only surface he was able to defend a title for that matter! His record would have been more impressive over Roger if not for so many occurring on the dirt; SORRY! That was too easy! :ras: :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Moxie]

Regardless if you care for the stats or not, they exist and can be commendable! I'm sure you can SHADE Nadal's record to look more impressive than it really is if you try, but there are so many glaring deficiencies, I wouldn't try it while I'm out here to refute and undermine them! lol! :snicker :angel: :dodgy:

I don't think I have to "shade" Nadal's records. 14 Majors speak for themselves. It's this conversation about SFs and QFs and lots of wins without a title that are "shading," if you ask me. Think about it.

To me the biggest SHADE in Nadal's record is the fact most of his wins are on clay; the only surface he was able to defend a title for that matter! His record would have been more impressive over Roger if not for so many occurring on the dirt; SORRY! That was too easy! :ras: :angel: :dodgy:

I don't know why you act as if clay is some anomaly, and not to be counted the same as other surfaces. Nadal beat Fed 11 times of his 23 wins over him on surfaces other than clay. That is one more time that Roger ever beat him, at all. You can keep trying to cling to the notion that Nadal is a clay man only, but the rest of the tennis world has surely moved on from that. You don't get to be one of the few people ever with a career slam by being a one-surface wonder.

 

[Fiero425]

I don't think I have to "shade" Nadal's records. 14 Majors speak for themselves. It's this conversation about SFs and QFs and lots of wins without a title that are "shading," if you ask me. Think about it.

To me the biggest SHADE in Nadal's record is the fact most of his wins are on clay; the only surface he was able to defend a title for that matter! His record would have been more impressive over Roger if not for so many occurring on the dirt; SORRY! That was too easy! :ras: :angel: :dodgy:

I don't know why you act as if clay is some anomaly, and not to be counted the same as other surfaces. Nadal beat Fed 11 times of his 23 wins over him on surfaces other than clay. That is one more time that Roger ever beat him, at all. You can keep trying to cling to the notion that Nadal is a clay man only, but the rest of the tennis world has surely moved on from that. You don't get to be one of the few people ever with a career slam by being a one-surface wonder.

You have to understand, I grew up when CLAY was on the wane; whole tournaments being eliminated or changed to HC! When Europeans and So. Americans were upsetting us Americans; esp. at the USO in the mid 70's, something had to be done according to the USTA! :cover - I couldn't be more embarrassed by them; esp. with our own Nat'l championship going through so many changes in less than 4 years! The changing of Forest Hills from grass to clay in '75, going to best of 3 in the early rounds, and being the first to demand night play under lights; it was just a "shake your head" era! After that the USO was moved to Flushing Meadows on HC in '78! Most thought the place should be A-bombed! The courts were new and played like PANES of glass! They lost star players in the 4th round, led by #3 G. Vilas, taken out by someone called Butch Walts! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Our Nat'l clay chp. was also converted to HC with other warm up tourneys like the Canadian Open going the same route to attract the top stars! When it comes to the elite, the FO has a "who's who" of players that just couldn't be bothered! I always gave "the dig" that most were just trying to avoid losing to BORG again; he just owned RG back then! It's really only been the last decade or so where not too many people actually avoid Paris, but I still think of it as an endurance event; true skill is wasted when you can't put the ball away! That was one way of keeping Nadal at arm's length when discussion of "The GOAT" got ugly! lol! :nono :angel: :dodgy: = Does that help explain my thoughts on the matter? uzzled

 

[Riotbeard]

It's not that it makes me feel better. It's that it is better. Djokovic can have played more GSs and won more SFs/QFs, etc., but it's winning the title that matters. That's not about pandering to me. Suddenly you have even the likes of Darth trying to make stats about Feds SFs, and this one about Novak having won more actual matches at GSs. IMO, that is stat geekdom trying to downplay the impact of Nadal. And gin up Djoker. He doesn't really need it, as he's much proven himself, for the all-time status. But there is still "rubber meets the road," and Rafa has been better on that that some "pholks." :laydownlaughing

Regardless if you care for the stats or not, they exist and can be commendable! I'm sure you can SHADE Nadal's record to look more impressive than it really is if you try, but there are so many glaring deficiencies, I wouldn't try it while I'm out here to refute and undermine them! lol! :snicker :angel: :dodgy:

I don't think I have to "shade" Nadal's records. 14 Majors speak for themselves. It's this conversation about SFs and QFs and lots of wins without a title that are "shading," if you ask me. Think about it.

Could it be that your being a tad defensive. Of course (and everybody knows) Nadal is ahead in slam count, but this is just a random stat that works out for Novak. Was there a need to interject Rafa into it? I think Kirijax was presenting an interesting Stat that shows Novak's consistency. Why is Novak's success an attack on Rafa's? Their both going to have significant records to their name. Rafa's is not going to be most consistent appearances at the majors, so it is logical that he wouldn't have the most match wins.

 

[Moxie]

Regardless if you care for the stats or not, they exist and can be commendable! I'm sure you can SHADE Nadal's record to look more impressive than it really is if you try, but there are so many glaring deficiencies, I wouldn't try it while I'm out here to refute and undermine them! lol! :snicker :angel: :dodgy:

I don't think I have to "shade" Nadal's records. 14 Majors speak for themselves. It's this conversation about SFs and QFs and lots of wins without a title that are "shading," if you ask me. Think about it.

Could it be that your being a tad defensive. Of course (and everybody knows) Nadal is ahead in slam count, but this is just a random state that works out for Novak. Was there a need to interject Rafa into it? I think Kirijax was presenting an interesting Stat that shows Novak's consistency. Why is Novak's success an attack on Rafa's? Their both going to have significant records to their name. Rafa's is not going to be most consistent appearances at the majors, so it is logical that he wouldn't have the most match wins.

It was Kirijax that inserted Rafa. I just made a reasonable correction. I'm perfectly happy for Novak's consistency, as I am for Roger's. But where consistency doesn't rank over actual wins, I was just making that point.

 

[Riotbeard]

I don't think I have to "shade" Nadal's records. 14 Majors speak for themselves. It's this conversation about SFs and QFs and lots of wins without a title that are "shading," if you ask me. Think about it.

Could it be that your being a tad defensive. Of course (and everybody knows) Nadal is ahead in slam count, but this is just a random state that works out for Novak. Was there a need to interject Rafa into it? I think Kirijax was presenting an interesting Stat that shows Novak's consistency. Why is Novak's success an attack on Rafa's? Their both going to have significant records to their name. Rafa's is not going to be most consistent appearances at the majors, so it is logical that he wouldn't have the most match wins.

It was Kirijax that inserted Rafa. I just made a reasonable correction. I'm perfectly happy for Novak's consistency, as I am for Roger's. But where consistency doesn't rank over actual wins, I was just making that point.

But nobody would disagree with that and Kirijax wasn't saying otherwise. Don't you find it a little surprising that the guy tied for the second most slam title wins doesn't rank higher in match wins? Everybody knows the central measure of achievement is major wins not major match wins (I would this pretty far down the list), but it's still an interesting stat in regards to both Novak and Rafa. This is a branch where Djokovic has been better than most. That's all.

 

[Federberg]

While this is a Novak thread, and the discussion should focus on him, it is interesting to look at Novak and Rafa sometimes. Rafa is quite a bit ahead of Novak at the moment, but it's fair to say that Djokovic is catching up to Rafa at a furious rate. I was just looking at their big stats and noticed that Novak now has 54 titles to Rafa's 66. I didn't realise it was that close! So he's 12 titles behind and 5 slams behind. Both are certainly achievable, but that assumes Rafa stands still, I'm not ready to assume that just yet. My observation about the two would be that Rafa has had the more successful career to date, but Novak has shown considerably more singular dominance in his career than Rafa has. That said, I would actually argue that those years in 06 and 07 when Fedal were crushing all before them could be described as dual dominance, albeit with Roger first amongst almost equals. If you look at Rafa's achievements in that context then one could argue he's been much more dominant than a conventional assessment would indicate

 

[DarthFed]

^ Rafa only dominated clay until 2008. 2004-2007 was the Roger show aside from a couple months on clay each year and an inspired Safin performance at Oz.

 

[Federberg]

^ Rafa only dominated clay until 2008. 2004-2007 was the Roger show aside from a couple months on clay each year and an inspired Safin performance at Oz.

Yup. That's what I meant by dual dominance, but with Roger first among near equals

 

[DarthFed]

But they weren't near equals at that point, not to split hairs or anything

 

[Federberg]

But they weren't near equals at that point, not to split hairs or anything

:laydownlaughing
It's called diplomacy!