Djokovic now indisputedly a better grasscourtplayer than Nadal.....

[Riotbeard]

This is true, had him as one even before winning yesterday seeing as how he destroyed Nadal in the final in 2011.

I beg to differ. If I recall correctly , Novak was on the ATP in 2006-2010; what was his results on grass during this period( I am on my smartphone so I will leave it to someone else to research) but Rafa was clearly the world's 2nd best grasscourt player and was the only player who could go toe to toe with Roger, the player with the best grasscourt results during that period. Rafa made the proper adjustments to defeat and ultimately dethroned Roger however someone has planted the moronic notion that Roger defeats was because he was stubborn, it complete insanity, Roger lost because he was outplayed not only on grass but every surface they met.Back to Novak, he got taken to the woodshed and to a pulp by Marat who was making his close to or last stance at SW19. Was Satin a "great " grasscourt player with numerous Wimbledon or even Queen titles, no.But what he did was take the fight to the Serbian. What happened to Novak , was it his breathing problems that was enhanced by his love for gluten centric food, no It was the fact that he was overwhelmed by another player who was the aggressor.e.g. Stan win at RG

Now let's address assertion that 2010 if Novak had beaten Berdych that he would have without a doubt would have beaten Rafa who was clearly at the top of his game, what a farce. Berdych beat Novak very similar to Safin and later Stan, he.was the aggressor. What happened when Novak played Rafa in the 2010 USO final , Rafa was the aggressor and used a beefed up serve to neutralize Novak 's aggressive service returns. Now, let's go revisit SW19 final, Novak changed his "diet" , breathe better and took advantage of Nadal who refused to make adjustments that he correct in 2013 USO. Every great champion have lost a grand slam final badly,( Sampras vs Safin & Hewitt ).Roger vs Rafa at RG 2008 so you see it happens. However,Sampras was able to turn it around vs his two previous USO finalists and Rafa has vs Novak.Also, there hasn't been a player on the ATP tour that lost so many matches to his primary rivals as Rafa did to Novak but turn it around as Rafa did in 2013 and at RG 2014.

So now the so called Rafa expert says Novak is a better grasscourt today than Rafa, no s#@t Sherlock. Today yes, historically , Hell no.

How is he not better historically too? It's 3>2 and Nole destroyed Rafa in the one final they've played. It's hard to argue that Rafa's been greater. Also by now Rafa's achievements on grass have been cheapened a bit by the fact he is losing to the blind, deaf and dumb the past 4 years at ages 26-29. Just be grateful the grass is what it is this era, if it hadn't changed Rafa would be sitting on 0 and there's no way Fed would "only" have 7.

This is the crux of it. You can't blame Novak for being about the same age and not as good on grass from 2006-2010 and not take responsible that Rafa has been a joke on grass for the last four years, when a number of those were even really strong years for Rafa on other surfaces.

I think greater than conversations are kind of dumb in general, but in the most basic, sense Novak should get the nod on 3>2. The context of each final etc. is really complicated. There is no doubt Nadal's 2008 victory was a great achievement, but then again Novak has beaten Roger twice in the final and Rafa once (a Rafa in great form too).

 

[Federberg]

Continue
And 2003-2007. Fed

I'm not so sure about that! But we're straying in to fantasy land.

I am not .. Its a question for DarthFed to finished. I want him to tell us how good this 28 year old Djoker is because he was able to defeat 33-34 year old Roger. I want him to explain how and why what Rafa had to face in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in the Wimbledon final wasn't Federer at his best.

Fair enough. For my part I find these sorts of comparisons taxing. Primarily because match up is such a huge issue. I would agree with DF that Novak is a superb baseliner. Where I have a very difficult time agreeing with him is what that would mean if we were somehow to transport current Novak back in time, or peak Roger to the present. The most decisive difference is Roger doesn't have the same speed and stamina that he used to. Some posters might disagree with me, but I think peak Roger had a much much stronger mentality than current Novak. The fact that an old man has been able to take it to the trenches against peak Novak shouldn't be underestimated. It's saddens me that we can so quickly forget what an animal Roger used to be, and why Rafa as well was so extraordinarily good at that time as well. That said, I do agree with DF that Novak has definitely done enough to get the nod over Rafa now... in my view

 

[the AntiPusher]

I'm not so sure about that! But we're straying in to fantasy land.

I am not .. Its a question for DarthFed to finished. I want him to tell us how good this 28 year old Djoker is because he was able to defeat 33-34 year old Roger. I want him to explain how and why what Rafa had to face in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in the Wimbledon final wasn't Federer at his best.

Fair enough. For my part I find these sorts of comparisons taxing. Primarily because match up is such a huge issue. I would agree with DF that Novak is a superb baseliner. Where I have a very difficult time agreeing with him is what that would mean if we were somehow to transport current Novak back in time, or peak Roger to the present. The most decisive difference is Roger doesn't have the same speed and stamina that he used to. Some posters might disagree with me, but I think peak Roger had a much much stronger mentality than current Novak. The fact that an old man has been able to take it to the trenches against peak Novak shouldn't be underestimated. It's saddens me that we can so quickly forget what an animal Roger used to be, and why Rafa as well was so extraordinarily good at that time as well. That said, I do agree with DF that Novak has definitely done enough to get the nod over Rafa now... in my view

I do agree with DF that Novak has definitely done enough to get the nod over Rafa now... in my view"

What is wrong with you people.. no one in their right mind would say present form Rafa is better than 2014-2015 Djoker on grass.. Maybe I should began another thread to asked" Are you saying that going by the premise of victories at one particular grand slam that Rafa is a superior tru hard court (US Open not AO) than Djoker because Rafa has 2 titles and Djoker has 1 to date. Damn.

 

[Federberg]

I am not .. Its a question for DarthFed to finished. I want him to tell us how good this 28 year old Djoker is because he was able to defeat 33-34 year old Roger. I want him to explain how and why what Rafa had to face in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in the Wimbledon final wasn't Federer at his best.

Fair enough. For my part I find these sorts of comparisons taxing. Primarily because match up is such a huge issue. I would agree with DF that Novak is a superb baseliner. Where I have a very difficult time agreeing with him is what that would mean if we were somehow to transport current Novak back in time, or peak Roger to the present. The most decisive difference is Roger doesn't have the same speed and stamina that he used to. Some posters might disagree with me, but I think peak Roger had a much much stronger mentality than current Novak. The fact that an old man has been able to take it to the trenches against peak Novak shouldn't be underestimated. It's saddens me that we can so quickly forget what an animal Roger used to be, and why Rafa as well was so extraordinarily good at that time as well. That said, I do agree with DF that Novak has definitely done enough to get the nod over Rafa now... in my view

I do agree with DF that Novak has definitely done enough to get the nod over Rafa now... in my view"

What is wrong with you people.. no one in their right mind would say present form Rafa is better than 2014-2015 Djoker on grass.. Maybe I should began another thread to asked" Are you saying that going by the premise of victories at one particular grand slam that Rafa is a superior tru hard court (US Open not AO) than Djoker because Rafa has 2 titles and Djoker has 1 to date. Damn.

For the record I have absolutely no problem stating that as things stand Rafa is the better player at Flushing Meadows, based on achievement. This was what I was saying in the beginning. We need to be careful about what people mean here... Current form versus historic achievement.

Absolutely as things stand Rafa's 2 at Flushing is > Novak's 1. No one can dispute this. You should create a retaliatory thread to that effect :laydownlaughing

 

[brokenshoelace]

Do you get ESPN in Lebanon?

Oh hey, an American who knows nothing of the world beyond the US. Shocking. Cable TV exists, even in 3rd world countries.

See, it's not difficult to take stupid shots. At least mine is closer to reality.

No, it's not. I was reinforcing the point that to say "This is literally based on nothing" when talking about Federer's refusal to make significant adjustments against Nadal, you need to a) have no memory or b) have been living in a hole. Hence the smart aleck question. Everyone at that time - especially the ESPN commentators - was talking about the adjustments Federer was refusing to make. For you to say "this is literally based on nothing" is just dumb.

I would also like to inform you that I am trying to become more informed on the menacing toughness of French male athletes. Players like Monfils are aggressive, hardcore, tough as nails, and of course Monfils himself also has outstanding stamina, with how he constantly puts his elbows on his knees to catch his breath in between points.

Gasquet too - that's another tough guy. As well as Christian Fournier of the Nuggets.

What's next? A French Kenyon Martin or Marshawn Lynch?

No, you should be informed about Zidane, Platini, and other French greats of whom you'd never heard of, and then for once, admitted to being wrong and ignorant. You don't want to bring that up. Your point about French athletes wasn't limited to tennis, and that's where I and others jumped in. If I recall correctly, and I do, your timeless post also suggested that France being good at Rugby means nothing because Rugby is a sport for wussies, before again, "asking a friend" and admitting, again, to being ignorant. So yeah, I wouldn't bring this up if I were you. You should also be informed about Vieira and Makelele and just how "soft" they were.

It's Evan Fournier by the way, not Christian, and he's a wimp, no arguments there.

 

[Federberg]

Oh hey, an American who knows nothing of the world beyond the US. Shocking. Cable TV exists, even in 3rd world countries.

See, it's not difficult to take stupid shots. At least mine is closer to reality.

No, it's not. I was reinforcing the point that to say "This is literally based on nothing" when talking about Federer's refusal to make significant adjustments against Nadal, you need to a) have no memory or b) have been living in a hole. Hence the smart aleck question. Everyone at that time - especially the ESPN commentators - was talking about the adjustments Federer was refusing to make. For you to say "this is literally based on nothing" is just dumb.

I would also like to inform you that I am trying to become more informed on the menacing toughness of French male athletes. Players like Monfils are aggressive, hardcore, tough as nails, and of course Monfils himself also has outstanding stamina, with how he constantly puts his elbows on his knees to catch his breath in between points.

Gasquet too - that's another tough guy. As well as Christian Fournier of the Nuggets.

What's next? A French Kenyon Martin or Marshawn Lynch?

No, you should be informed about Zidane, Platini, and other French greats of whom you'd never heard of, and then for once, admitted to being wrong and ignorant. You don't want to bring that up. Your point about French athletes wasn't limited to tennis, and that's where I and others jumped in. If I recall correctly, and I do, your timeless post also suggested that France being good at Rugby means nothing because Rugby is a sport for, before again, "asking a friend" and admitting, again, to being ignorant. So yeah, I wouldn't bring this up if I were you. You should also be informed about Viera and Makelele and just how "soft" they were.

It's Evan Fournier by the way, not Christian, and he's a wimp, no arguments there.

Cali.. seriously?? You said that? As a former winger, I take exception. At least we don't wear helmets and all that girly padding! :snicker I mean come on man! If you said that, it's incredibly ignorant of you :cover

 

[DarthFed]

I am not .. Its a question for DarthFed to finished. I want him to tell us how good this 28 year old Djoker is because he was able to defeat 33-34 year old Roger. I want him to explain how and why what Rafa had to face in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in the Wimbledon final wasn't Federer at his best.

Fair enough. For my part I find these sorts of comparisons taxing. Primarily because match up is such a huge issue. I would agree with DF that Novak is a superb baseliner. Where I have a very difficult time agreeing with him is what that would mean if we were somehow to transport current Novak back in time, or peak Roger to the present. The most decisive difference is Roger doesn't have the same speed and stamina that he used to. Some posters might disagree with me, but I think peak Roger had a much much stronger mentality than current Novak. The fact that an old man has been able to take it to the trenches against peak Novak shouldn't be underestimated. It's saddens me that we can so quickly forget what an animal Roger used to be, and why Rafa as well was so extraordinarily good at that time as well. That said, I do agree with DF that Novak has definitely done enough to get the nod over Rafa now... in my view

I do agree with DF that Novak has definitely done enough to get the nod over Rafa now... in my view"

What is wrong with you people.. no one in their right mind would say present form Rafa is better than 2014-2015 Djoker on grass.. Maybe I should began another thread to asked" Are you saying that going by the premise of victories at one particular grand slam that Rafa is a superior tru hard court (US Open not AO) than Djoker because Rafa has 2 titles and Djoker has 1 to date. Damn.

Bro, we are saying Nole gets the nod over Rafa presently on grass (that's obvious) AND historically. And yes, I have no problem saying Rafa has been greater on fast hards than Nole for his career. Rafa has 2 slams, and Olympics, and a bunch of MS events on it. The truth is Nole to date is not a stand out player on fast hards unless we give a lot of credit for ugly USO final losses. Plenty of time to rectify that and I expect he will.

 

[DarthFed]

The Djokovic the past two years probably beats 2008 Federer IMO. Roger in the 2014 Wimbledon final served considerably better than the 2008 version and was still broken 4 times. The present Nole would also be winning the baseline battle more likely than not.

Continue
And 2003-2007. Fed

I think Roger of 2003-2006 would have the clear edge over Nole on grass but after that things would be a lot tighter. Nole really is a stand alone player on grass in one huge way...his ROS is so ridiculously good that he can break the seemingly unbreakable with surprising ease even on grass.

So Roger's serve improved from his prime days but his baseline game took a step back starting in 2007, this would make him more vulnerable vs. Nole. Note that I'm just talking about that matchup, but clearly Roger is greater than Nole historically and I think over the course of their careers, if their primes had intersected, Roger would win more of those matchups than Nole would.

 

[Kieran]

DarthBuddy, you still haven't gotten over Rafa beating your boy at Wimbo in 2008, that's what your post is telling me...

 

[DarthFed]

What's my posts have to do with that?

 

[Kieran]

Because next you'll be telling us, Roddick would have beaten Roger in 2008, so Rafa's win? Meh!

 

[the AntiPusher]

The Djokovic the past two years probably beats 2008 Federer IMO. Roger in the 2014 Wimbledon final served considerably better than the 2008 version and was still broken 4 times. The present Nole would also be winning the baseline battle more likely than not.

Continue
And 2003-2007. Fed

I think Roger of 2003-2006 would have the clear edge over Nole on grass but after that things would be a lot tighter. Nole really is a stand alone player on grass in one huge way...his ROS is so ridiculously good that he can break the seemingly unbreakable with surprising ease even on grass.

So Roger's serve improved from his prime days but his baseline game took a step back starting in 2007, this would make him more vulnerable vs. Nole. Note that I'm just talking about that matchup, but clearly Roger is greater than Nole historically and I think over the course of their careers, if their primes had intersected, Roger would win more of those matchups than Nole would.

Darth my Brotha, If I am reading this correctly..You are willing to diminish your man Roger just to disparage the accomplishments of Rafa.:nono

 

[Front242]

After reading Darth's quoted post above multiple times I fail to see the words Rafa or Nadal anywhere. It's not all about Rafa. He was discussing Novak.

 

[the AntiPusher]

After reading Darth's quoted post above multiple times I fail to see the words Rafa or Nadal anywhere. It's not all about Rafa. He was discussing Novak.

Are familiar with the terms, subliminal messages

 

[Front242]

After reading Darth's quoted post above multiple times I fail to see the words Rafa or Nadal anywhere. It's not all about Rafa. He was discussing Novak.

Are familiar with the terms, subliminal messages

Like he needs to use subliminal messages when he freely admits he can't stand Wafa :laydownlaughing Maybe he was actually just talking about Novak as his post actually reads?!

 

[DarthFed]

Because next you'll be telling us, Roddick would have beaten Roger in 2008, so Rafa's win? Meh!

Well id say the fact Roddick almost won one year later and outplayed Roger from the baseline shows the trend im talking about. From 03-05 Roddick only made a small match out of one of the 3.

Of course anything short of saying Roger and his 1-12 bp's and astronomic error count played brilliantly in 2008 won't be suffice for you.

 

[Kieran]

Because next you'll be telling us, Roddick would have beaten Roger in 2008, so Rafa's win? Meh!

Well id say the fact Roddick almost won one year later and outplayed Roger from the baseline shows the trend im talking about. From 03-05 Roddick only made a small match out of one of the 3.

Of course anything short of saying Roger and his 1-12 bp's and astronomic error count played brilliantly in 2008 won't be suffice for you.

This is the re-attributing of history, kinda like the silly thread last year which fed fans couldn't wait to subscribe to and co-sign - remember the one that said the 2014 final was better than the GOAT match of 2008? Djoker, struggling to defy an octogenarian and going to five?

And it was better than the 2008 match? :laydownlaughing

Why? Because Rafa won that one.

"The re-attributing of history." It's a new phrase, I just made it up. Feel free to use it...

 

[the AntiPusher]

After reading Darth's quoted post above multiple times I fail to see the words Rafa or Nadal anywhere. It's not all about Rafa. He was discussing Novak.

Are familiar with the terms, subliminal messages

Like he needs to use subliminal messages when he freely admits he can't stand Wafa :laydownlaughing Maybe he was actually just talking about Novak as his post actually reads?!

No ,, Its what's needed for you because you are the only who is mentioning that he isn't talking about Rafa

 

[kskate2]

Surely all of our adult posters can freely debate without using words like idiot, ignorant, stupid and/or deliberately circumventing the language filter.

The mods and admins expect better so let's all make a concerted effort to be better.

Thank you.

 

[DarthFed]

Because next you'll be telling us, Roddick would have beaten Roger in 2008, so Rafa's win? Meh!

Well id say the fact Roddick almost won one year later and outplayed Roger from the baseline shows the trend im talking about. From 03-05 Roddick only made a small match out of one of the 3.

Of course anything short of saying Roger and his 1-12 bp's and astronomic error count played brilliantly in 2008 won't be suffice for you.

This is the re-attributing of history, kinda like the silly thread last year which fed fans couldn't wait to subscribe to and co-sign - remember the one that said the 2014 final was better than the GOAT match of 2008? Djoker, struggling to defy an octogenarian and going to five?

And it was better than the 2008 match? :laydownlaughing

Why? Because Rafa won that one.

"The re-attributing of history." It's a new phrase, I just made it up. Feel free to use it...

There was a thread on whether it was a higher quality match, not whether it was greater which it clearly wasn't. The 2014 final was way better if you only go on stats which is of course misleading. 2008 had major ups and downs from both players which is part of what made it so great.