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

[calitennis127]

Buddy, learn to read: "in 2010."

Buddy, learn to think: Nadal's level "in 2010" was hardly any different than it was in 2012 or in 2013. He very nearly lost two 5-set matches in 2010. Stop mythologizing that run as if his level was higher than it was.

Compare Nadal's 5-set wins over Petzschner and Haase to his 5-set loss to Rosol. Not that big a difference in level.

Oh brother. :cover

So...Nadal in a Wimbledon final is the same as he is in the early rounds. :cover

For a player of Djokovic's caliber, yes.

You really think that? No, you don't.

Does anybody think this? :Nono

Your Nadal buddy Broken Shoelace does, which is why he picked Djokovic twice to beat Nadal in French Open finals based on form. That isn't my line of thinking, but yes, there are people who think that way.

And although Darcis and Rosol happened two or three years later, in 2010 he was in his fourth final, to be followed by a fifth final in 2011.

Novak, on the other hand, wasn't...

Nor was Novak very experienced in Wimbledon finals in 2011 when he was sitting on a measly two majors and coming off a surprising/devastating loss to Federer at the French. Yet he somehow managed to beat Nadal with ease.

You also refuse to address, in tennis terms, how or why Nadal's form in 2010 against Haase and Petzschner in 5-setters was so much better or different than his form in 2012 against Rosol in a 5-setter.

 

[Kieran]

For a start, he beat Petzcher. But he wasn't far away from beating Rosol, either. You ever see Borg play Victor Amaya at Wimbledon? Or Vijay Amritraj? I bet you didn't. Both of these boys almost turfed him out. He went on to win the tournament both times, playing (guess what) much better in the second week both times.

Now, if you can't see a difference between Rafa in week 1, and Rafa in a GS final, then that's between you and your optician, but if you also can't see the diff between Nole in 2010 and Nole in 2011, then sorry buddy, but as a man once said, you ain't been paying attention... :nono

 

[Moxie]

Nor was Novak very experienced in Wimbledon finals in 2011 when he was sitting on a measly two majors and coming off a surprising/devastating loss to Federer at the French. Yet he somehow managed to beat Nadal with ease.

You also refuse to address, in tennis terms, how or why Nadal's form in 2010 against Haase and Petzschner in 5-setters was so much better or different than his form in 2012 against Rosol in a 5-setter.

You're also conveniently forgetting that Djokovic was having problems with his serve in the first half of 2010, and he himself has credited the SF win over Federer at the USO in 2010 with getting him over the hump of believing that he could beat Rafa and Roger in the big moments. Not sure when the gluten-free diet kicked in that year, but it's not unreasonable to say that Djokovic wasn't ready to beat Nadal at the 2010 Wimbledon had he reached that final, which he didn't. This is partly by Novak's own admission.

 

[Kirijax]

 

[GameSetAndMath]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djokovic%E2%80%93Nadal_rivalry


Rafa first lost to Novak in a final was 2011 in IW.. This should put the rest the notion that he would have defeated Rafa at Wimbledon 2010.. Novak's recent major adjustments to Nadal game didn't come until late 2010 at the WTF.

You realize Rafa scraped that title by the skin of his teeth resorting to some seriously dodgy MTOs against Petzschner who was handing him his behind till Rafa took the said timeouts and he was also fighting a serious losing battle to Haase the round before. That tournament win was not one bit convincing so there's every chance Djokovic could've beaten him if Haase and Petzschner gave him so much grief and in the case of the latter he had to cheat his way to beat him.

After that act I was done with Nadal! If he can't win the old fashion way, he resorts to other tactics! No one else "offends" me as much as Rafa; esp. with his sycophants like McEnroe touting him as "THE GOAT!" :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

JMac has pleaded Mea Culpa about Rafa being GOAT recently.

 

[Fiero425]

You realize Rafa scraped that title by the skin of his teeth resorting to some seriously dodgy MTOs against Petzschner who was handing him his behind till Rafa took the said timeouts and he was also fighting a serious losing battle to Haase the round before. That tournament win was not one bit convincing so there's every chance Djokovic could've beaten him if Haase and Petzschner gave him so much grief and in the case of the latter he had to cheat his way to beat him.

After that act I was done with Nadal! If he can't win the old fashion way, he resorts to other tactics! No one else "offends" me as much as Rafa; esp. with his sycophants like McEnroe touting him as "THE GOAT!" :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

JMac has pleaded Mea Culpa about Rafa being GOAT recently.

Really? I need to go look that up! He has been so sure for so long that Rafa was the best ever! Thanks! :clap

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You can look it up here.

Roger, not Rafa, is the GOAT says JMac.

 

[Fiero425]

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/07/roger-federer-greatest-player-wimbledon-ever-john-mcenroe-/rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic - From 12 days ago (7/10/15)

In a move that was a little like the sun setting in the east, John McEnroe admitted he was wrong in saying Rafael Nadal was the best tennis player of all time. Roger Federer deserves that honor, the tennis great said on ESPN on Friday.

McEnroe made his grand U-turn minutes after Federer played one of the best matches of his career, a 7-5, 7-5, 6-4 annihilation of Andy Murray, in the Wimbledon semifinal. Afterward, McEnroe, needled by his brother Patrick about his longtime support of Rafa as the tennis G.O.A.T., said, “I was wrong,” something many a chair umpire wouldn’t have minded hearing about 35 years ago.

The 33-year-old Federer who appears to be peaking once again, is McEnroe’s obvious new choice, supplanting Nadal, who kept McEnroe’s support even after his shock first-round loss to Steve Darcis at Wimbledon in 2013. Here’s what McEnroe had said when he started “leaning” toward Rafa as the best ever.

“This guy is to me, I think you can make an argument right here and now, the greatest player that ever lived,” McEnroe said. “If you look at his record against [Andy] Murray, [Roger] Federer, and [Novak] Djokovic, it’s way better than that. He won the Olympics. He’s got Davis Cups, which Roger doesn’t have.”

Federer does have that Davis Cup now and he also has the longevity that Nadal will almost inevitability lack. And after that sublime effort against Murray, it’s no surprise Johnny Mac is backing Federer, a player he said would never win another Slam. McEnroe is now on the right side of history, because win or lose on Sunday, Roger Federer is still the greatest to ever play the game, and Friday’s semifinal will forever be on his highlight reel.

 

[calitennis127]

For a start, he beat Petzcher. But he wasn't far away from beating Rosol, either.

Exactly, the form of 2010 v. 2012 was not any different. It is only exaggerated by Nadal fans to make it sound like in 2010, Nadal was untouchable, while in 2012 the poor guy was hurt.

Now, if you can't see a difference between Rafa in week 1, and Rafa in a GS final,

So how does this explain Nadal getting massacred in the Australian Open final in 2008? Were the lights too bright for him at that time? How does it explain Nadal getting trounced in the 2011 Wimbledon final to a player who had never been to a Wimbledon final while he had been there 4 times previously?

You are, as usual, oversimplifying things and over-generalizing.

but if you also can't see the diff between Nole in 2010 and Nole in 2011, then sorry buddy, but as a man once said, you ain't been paying attention... :nono

Of course Djokovic was better in 2011, but it wasn't going to take anything special or out of the ordinary to beat Nadal on grass. In case you don't recall, Djokovic actually had beaten Nadal on numerous occasions prior to 2011.

 

[calitennis127]

You're also conveniently forgetting that Djokovic was having problems with his serve in the first half of 2010,

So what? He would not have needed to hit 15 aces and play perfect to beat Nadal in the final.

and he himself has credited the SF win over Federer at the USO in 2010 with getting him over the hump of believing that he could beat Rafa and Roger in the big moments. Not sure when the gluten-free diet kicked in that year, but it's not unreasonable to say that Djokovic wasn't ready to beat Nadal at the 2010 Wimbledon had he reached that final, which he didn't. This is partly by Novak's own admission.

Again - so what?

He is only saying that because he didn't make the 2010 Wimbledon final. If he had beaten Berdych and was up against Nadal in the heat of battle in a Wimbledon final, he would have certainly believed he could have won the match. He had already beaten Nadal numerous times before, and he had actually beaten them in their three previous matches at the time. Why would he not have been confident?

Most significantly, however, we have all seen numerous occasions - as Kieran won't stop reminding us about Nadal in the second week of Wimbledon - when a player is not particularly great for a match or two, but finds a way to survive and then plays an outstanding match the next round. Look at Djokovic in the 2011 US Open. He frankly should have lost to Federer in the semifinal but saved multiple match points. Then he walked out in the final and for the most part really outplayed Nadal in the final.

Now if he had lost that semifinal to Federer - which he was mere millimeters from doing - and Nadal had beaten Federer, you and Kieran would undoubtedly be sitting here saying "there is NO WAY that Djokovic was beating Nadal in a US Open final in 2011. He wasn't ready. No way. Nada."

I am not making the case that Djokovic was in great form at Wimbledon in 2010. All I am saying is that had he survived Berdych, he could have very easily raised his level against Nadal, and it's not like he was going to have to play out of his mind to beat Nadal, because Nadal's level really wasn't all that special. If it was, he would not have taken 5 sets to beat Petzschner and Haase, something Federer never needed in his best runs at Wimbledon to beat anyone.

It is the height of silly arrogance to think that Djokovic beating Nadal on grass in 2010 was somehow unrealistic. Djokovic had just straight-setted Nadal three times at the end of 2009 and has always been a better player on the faster surfaces. Both players would have had their demons to fight in that match-up, and Djokovic's chances would have been at least 50/50. No one has had more success breaking Nadal than Djokovic, and I don't see why that wouldn't have applied in that match.

 

[Moxie]

You're also conveniently forgetting that Djokovic was having problems with his serve in the first half of 2010,

So what? He would not have needed to hit 15 aces and play perfect to beat Nadal in the final.

and he himself has credited the SF win over Federer at the USO in 2010 with getting him over the hump of believing that he could beat Rafa and Roger in the big moments. Not sure when the gluten-free diet kicked in that year, but it's not unreasonable to say that Djokovic wasn't ready to beat Nadal at the 2010 Wimbledon had he reached that final, which he didn't. This is partly by Novak's own admission.

Again - so what?

He is only saying that because he didn't make the 2010 Wimbledon final. If he had beaten Berdych and was up against Nadal in the heat of battle in a Wimbledon final, he would have certainly believed he could have won the match. He had already beaten Nadal numerous times before, and he had actually beaten them in their three previous matches at the time. Why would he not have been confident?

Most significantly, however, we have all seen numerous occasions - as Kieran won't stop reminding us about Nadal in the second week of Wimbledon - when a player is not particularly great for a match or two, but finds a way to survive and then plays an outstanding match the next round. Look at Djokovic in the 2011 US Open. He frankly should have lost to Federer in the semifinal but saved multiple match points. Then he walked out in the final and for the most part really outplayed Nadal in the final.

Now if he had lost that semifinal to Federer - which he was mere millimeters from doing - and Nadal had beaten Federer, you and Kieran would undoubtedly be sitting here saying "there is NO WAY that Djokovic was beating Nadal in a US Open final in 2011. He wasn't ready. No way. Nada."

I am not making the case that Djokovic was in great form at Wimbledon in 2010. All I am saying is that had he survived Berdych, he could have very easily raised his level against Nadal, and it's not like he was going to have to play out of his mind to beat Nadal, because Nadal's level really wasn't all that special. If it was, he would not have taken 5 sets to beat Petzschner and Haase, something Federer never needed in his best runs at Wimbledon to beat anyone.

It is the height of silly arrogance to think that Djokovic beating Nadal on grass in 2010 was somehow unrealistic. Djokovic had just straight-setted Nadal three times at the end of 2009 and has always been a better player on the faster surfaces. Both players would have had their demons to fight in that match-up, and Djokovic's chances would have been at least 50/50. No one has had more success breaking Nadal than Djokovic, and I don't see why that wouldn't have applied in that match.

You are the king of matches that never happened. You say that you're "not making the case that Djokovic was in great form at Wimbledon in 2010," and yet, well, you are. If only he'd survived Berdych. And as far as your double riposte of "so what?" Excellent comeback! Way to respond to cogent points made against you.

I don't know how hard anyone was hitting the notion that Djokovic couldn't have beaten Nadal in that final, had they met, but calling it "silly arrogance" takes it a bit far. You gave it 50/50. But you also claim that Novak would have raised his level. And that's what Broken and Kieran have said about Nadal, who has proven that he raises his level at Major finals, including against Djokovic, more often than Djokovic has raised his own level to beat Nadal in major finals. For that reason, and because Djokovic had not yet reached Nole 2.0, I would think the chances he would have beaten Nadal in that final, had they met, would have been more like 20/80. I will give you, though, that he'd have had a better chance than Berdych.

 

[Riotbeard]

I just want to note and appreciate that this thread was not started nor pushed forward by Novak fans...

 

[calitennis127]

You are the king of matches that never happened. You say that you're "not making the case that Djokovic was in great form at Wimbledon in 2010," and yet, well, you are.

No I am not and my previous post makes this completely clear. I explicitly said that Djokovic would not have needed anything special to beat Nadal. He had beaten Nadal numerous times before and it was far from an impossible task for him.

If only he'd survived Berdych. And as far as your double riposte of "so what?" Excellent comeback! Way to respond to cogent points made against you.

You didn't have a problem when Kieran used that exact same reply against me about a month ago, but more to the point, I wrote four paragraphs after saying "so what?" to explain why I said it.

My point was that players survive tough matches all the time where their game is patchy, and then they play better in subsequent rounds. Often, those sorts of tight victories are actually confidence boosters because a player feels that he was good enough to win on a bad day.

Why are we allowed to say that Nadal gets better after beating Petzschner and Haase in 5-setters, but if Djokovic has struggles in a semifinal he is in irreparably poor form and could never play better in a subsequent match?

I don't know how hard anyone was hitting the notion that Djokovic couldn't have beaten Nadal in that final, had they met, but calling it "silly arrogance" takes it a bit far. You gave it 50/50.

Absolutely. Djokovic had beaten Nadal in their three previous matches and clearly had superior game on the surface, as has been proven in the last couple years when he has been winning Wimbledon while Nadal has been making his fans pout about how the first week is unfair for him because it is too fast.

But you also claim that Novak would have raised his level.

Yeah, what a radical notion. Novak Djokovic might have raised his level in a final or might have been a tough match-up for a player he had just beaten three times in a row. Why would any rational person ever contemplate this?

And that's what Broken and Kieran have said about Nadal, who has proven that he raises his level at Major finals, including against Djokovic, more often than Djokovic has raised his own level to beat Nadal in major finals.

No, to be more specific, Broken believes that Djokovic's form was not good enough to beat Nadal and his amazing form which helped him squeek out two five-setters in week 1, while Kieran does not think that Djokovic had the mental strength at the time to "rise to the occasion" against Nadal in a Grand Slam final. Where Broken is wrong is that Djokovic did not need any kind of special form by his standards to beat Nadal on grass, and where Kieran is wrong is that Djokovic has serious match-up advantages on Nadal on grass.

For that reason, and because Djokovic had not yet reached Nole 2.0, I would think the chances he would have beaten Nadal in that final, had they met, would have been more like 20/80. I will give you, though, that he'd have had a better chance than Berdych.

Okay, so let's clarify the logic here:

When Nadal barely wins 5-setters in week 1 of Wimbledon or loses in the first week of Wimbledon, it is only because he hasn't really picked up his form yet.

But when Djokovic struggles at Wimbledon, that means he could never play well in a subsequent round.

Double standard perhaps??

 

[calitennis127]

This was the last match Djokovic and Nadal had played prior to Wimbledon 2010.

How could anyone rationally think that Djokovic could have beaten Nadal in that final after watching this? Beats me.

Oh yeah, it was indoor hardcourt. What's funny about that is this match looked an awful lot like the 2011 Wimbledon final. And, oh yeah, Nadal was still hurt at the end of 2009, even though he had found a way to reach the Cincinnati semifinal, the US Open semifinal, the Shanghai final, and the Bercy semifinal before getting to the World Tour Finals.

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lxKs1bwq4c[/video]

 

[calitennis127]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djokovic%E2%80%93Nadal_rivalry


Rafa first lost to Novak in a final was 2011 in IW.. This should put the rest the notion that he would have defeated Rafa at Wimbledon 2010.. Novak's recent major adjustments to Nadal game didn't come until late 2010 at the WTF.

You realize Rafa scraped that title by the skin of his teeth resorting to some seriously dodgy MTOs against Petzschner who was handing him his behind till Rafa took the said timeouts and he was also fighting a serious losing battle to Haase the round before. That tournament win was not one bit convincing so there's every chance Djokovic could've beaten him if Haase and Petzschner gave him so much grief and in the case of the latter he had to cheat his way to beat him.

Don't you think scrapping by Petschner and Haase is better than being straight setted by Berdych and going to 5 sets with Lu? Both of which happened to Djokovic during that tournament.

Absurd.

No, it is absurd to think that Nadal was in untouchable form in Wimbledon 2010.

This "it was the first week" excuse is really getting tiresome. Why have Federer and Djokovic in their best Wimbledon runs never had similar struggles in Week 1? Oh yeah, maybe it is because their games are more suited for the surface.

Djokovic did not need to be in excellent form to beat Nadal in a Wimbledon final.

 

[calitennis127]

Also, you realize the first week would have been over by the time Nadal would have played Djokovic in the final? You realize that in the second week, Nadal looked sensational against Soderling and Murray?

Again, absurd.

No, it is absurd to argue that beating Murray makes you untouchable. Since you overrate Murray as much as you do, you use Nadal beating him as some kind of evidence that he was sky-high.

Federer straight-setted Murray this year in the Wimbledon final but we all saw in the final that he wasn't as invincible as he looked against Murray - and 2015 Murray was a Murray with Slams under his belt and less self-doubt at Wimbledon than in 2010.

And we are also talking about an Andy Murray who got trounced in straight sets by Grigor Dimitrov in 2014. I do not see why beating him convincingly at Wimbledon makes you unbeatable.

 

[Moxie]

My point was that players survive tough matches all the time where their game is patchy, and then they play better in subsequent rounds. Often, those sorts of tight victories are actually confidence boosters because a player feels that he was good enough to win on a bad day.

Why are we allowed to say that Nadal gets better after beating Petzschner and Haase in 5-setters, but if Djokovic has struggles in a semifinal he is in irreparably poor form and could never play better in a subsequent match?

I believe we both said the same thing about both players.

For that reason, and because Djokovic had not yet reached Nole 2.0, I would think the chances he would have beaten Nadal in that final, had they met, would have been more like 20/80. I will give you, though, that he'd have had a better chance than Berdych.

Okay, so let's clarify the logic here:

When Nadal barely wins 5-setters in week 1 of Wimbledon or loses in the first week of Wimbledon, it is only because he hasn't really picked up his form yet.

But when Djokovic struggles at Wimbledon, that means he could never play well in a subsequent round.

Double standard perhaps??

There is no double-standard. I have said that both could raise their games as rounds progress. However, I gave you reasons that Djokovic was not prepared to beat Nadal at Wimbledon 2010, had he actually reached that final, and you choose not to address them.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This was the last match Djokovic and Nadal had played prior to Wimbledon 2010.

How could anyone rationally think that Djokovic could have beaten Nadal in that final after watching this? Beats me.

Oh yeah, it was indoor hardcourt. What's funny about that is this match looked an awful lot like the 2011 Wimbledon final. And, oh yeah, Nadal was still hurt at the end of 2009, even though he had found a way to reach the Cincinnati semifinal, the US Open semifinal, the Shanghai final, and the Bercy semifinal before getting to the World Tour Finals.

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lxKs1bwq4c[/video]

And this is what happened the next time they played after (2010 US Open final):

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

And this is what happened when they played the time after that, at the SAME tournament you took from your video from, just a year later, when Nadal was the best in the world, and not coming off an injury and in garbage form (2010 WTF):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnHkfRl6o1k

Nadal won both matches with ease. And oh hey, they're far more relevant due to taking place in the same year.

Oh, but you'll show me matches from 2011 when Novak won 6 straights, then I'll show you when Nadal won 6 out of 7 after that, and we'll keep going back and forth, because newflash, great players take turn beating each others, and they've played a million times, and last I checked, Nadal marginally leads the h2h, suggesting that their results are pretty evenly matched, and therefore, carefully selecting a match from a sample of 40 is so dumb only you would do that.

This level of argumentation is a joke that people who genuinely "like" your post should be embarrassed.

These are the same people who scold Nadal fans for making the case that Nadal might have won tournaments he was injured and missed. The very same people now making a case that Djokovic would have a won a tournament HE ACTUALLY PLAYED AT AND LOST, when nothing was wrong with him.

I swear the level of hypocrisy is increasing by the day, and it's all due to bias and hatred of a certain player as there's no way guys like Front, GSM and others are so oblivious since whenever they talk about non Nadal issues, they come off like reasonable people.

You are showing a match that took place on indoor hards when Nadal hadn't beaten a top 10 player in 6 months and comparing to Nadal in Wimbledon winning form. Your "first week excuse has to stop" thing is dumb. First of all, you must have missed it when Djokovic was getting bounced out early in 2008 and 2009. But poor thing, he had the misfortune of drawing Safin and Haas, in the prime of their careers of course. Then a year later, he goes 5 sets with Lu, in the same tournament you're claiming he would have beaten Nadal at, then loses to Berdych in straights in what was an embarrassing display of someone playing on grass like 10 miles behind the baseline for a whole match (ironic, isn't it?) to where even Djokovic himself said that match was a wake-up call. But somehow, your infinite wisdom, coupled with GSM and Front think that is somehow better than going 5 sets with 2 huge servers on grass but actually winning the whole tournament.

Then, there's a reason Nadal is more vulnerable in the first week. The surface doesn't suit him. Or you think he's more likely to win against better players but just loses against crappy ones? FYI, that is 100% a knock on Nadal and is a limitation of his, but to claim that somehow blitzing past Soderling and Murray before destroying Berdych (you know, the same guy who mopped the floor with Djokovic 2 days earlier) is no indication, but two five setters in the first week are, is selective argumentation at its finest.

This is an absolute joke.

"Djokovic did not need to be in excellent form to beat Nadal in a Wimbledon final."

Well, whatever his form was, it wasn't enough to get him past Berdych and was barely enough to get him past Lu, so this level of stupid argumentation is dumbfounding.

In before Front and GSM don't respond, and Cali comes up with a super arbitrary post that wastes everyone's time and gets so dumb nobody can even agree with. That's every argument with Cali ever.

 

[Moxie]

This was the last match Djokovic and Nadal had played prior to Wimbledon 2010.

How could anyone rationally think that Djokovic could have beaten Nadal in that final after watching this? Beats me.

Oh yeah, it was indoor hardcourt. What's funny about that is this match looked an awful lot like the 2011 Wimbledon final. And, oh yeah, Nadal was still hurt at the end of 2009, even though he had found a way to reach the Cincinnati semifinal, the US Open semifinal, the Shanghai final, and the Bercy semifinal before getting to the World Tour Finals.

Yes, indoor HC. This does tell us that Djokovic was making ground on Nadal, and had the chops to get into his game, which is historically relevant, but doesn't say much about their relative games on grass in 2010, nor where they were in their careers then. Djokovic, as I pointed out, was suffering with his serve and his confidence. He had won only Dubai up until Wimbledon. You can see his 2010 activity here. He'd done a lot of losing in early rounds and some to not especially interesting players. He'd retired out of a match as recently as May, in Serbia, no less, his own tournament, so the gluten-free thing probably hadn't kicked in. In Queens just prior to Wimbledon, he'd lost to Malisse in the R16. You can keep arguing your Fantasy Tennis version of what might have happened in the 2010 Wimbledon, should Djokovic have gotten there, but you really are arguing for Djokovic 2011+, and, naturally, you don't give any credit to Nadal for where he was in 2010. There is an actual context for the time when these matches happened, and you really can't ignore it. Well, except that you do, and you will. Nadal won 3 Majors in 2010. That says something about his form, whether you like it, or not.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You realize Rafa scraped that title by the skin of his teeth resorting to some seriously dodgy MTOs against Petzschner who was handing him his behind till Rafa took the said timeouts and he was also fighting a serious losing battle to Haase the round before. That tournament win was not one bit convincing so there's every chance Djokovic could've beaten him if Haase and Petzschner gave him so much grief and in the case of the latter he had to cheat his way to beat him.

Also, you realize the first week would have been over by the time Nadal would have played Djokovic in the final? You realize that in the second week, Nadal looked sensational against Soderling and Murray?

Again, absurd.

You realize the 2nd week plays more like clay with all the bashed up earthy patches and complete lack of grass at the baseline and that he's well aware of this and will take whatever measures necessary to beat guys in week one? Again, even more absurd.

And you do realize he would have played Novak in the second week, on the surface you described above, and wouldn't go back in time and play it in the first since this is, despite Interstellar's best efforts, impossible?