Fedalovic Wars

[Nadalfan2013]

 

[britbox]

Nobody's diminishing Novak's achievements. He set that bar for most majors two days ago. His first time passing his rivals. You could give it a second.

Do you send birthday cards a month late?

I'll take the "wink" as your "tell."

Because you presumed the reasons that I didn't spend much time on the tennis boards as solely to do with Roger Federer's retirement.

I really don't need you to explain to me, again, that Most Majors is what casual sports fans and sports writers spilling virtual ink respond to. We all know that. I thought we liked to dig into the finer points around here, is all. I can see you're not interested. All good.

Sure, so as said earlier - fire away. You keep saying you want a discussion on the finer points - so start a thread about it. Maybe you could share your insight into why we shouldn't mention Djoker's achievements for fearing of being labelled some sort of cult, or at the very least wait for a few months before we dare mention it in hushed whispers.

 

[Moxie]

Do you send birthday cards a month late?

Good one. At least I still send birthday cards. But, as I have said, it's not my job to buff up Novak. The achievements are well-documented, on this thread, and others.

Because you presumed the reasons that I didn't spend much time on the tennis boards as solely to do with Roger Federer's retirement.

Well, if he shoe fits. And most fans of Roger have basically moved away from posting here. Everyone has a life, I get that, and you're entitled to post when and how you like. I'm not trying to be a pill. (Though, knowing me all these years, you know I sometimes can't help myself. )

Sure, so as said earlier - fire away. You keep saying you want a discussion on the finer points - so start a thread about it. Maybe you could share your insight into why we shouldn't mention Djoker's achievements for fearing of being labelled some sort of cult, or at the very least wait for a few months before we dare mention it in hushed whispers.

This is a perfectly good thread, and I DID fire away. As I said above, everyone has mentioned all of Novak's achievements. You don't need me to reiterate them. But I'm not a fan, and I don't have to celebrate them. I have never said he's not a great tennis player. An ATG. I don't happen to believe in a One-and-True-GOAT. So we discuss.

 

[Moxie]

To be fair, Novak reached peak level in 2011 while Rafa was in the middle of his very best span (2008-13). As I've pointed out several times over the years, Rafa in 2010 and 11 had pretty much exactly the same results, sans Novak. It is just that Novak jumped an octave, and Rafa didn't know how to play him at his new level. Otherwise, Rafa was every bit as good in 2011 as he was in 2010.

Now Rafa did adjust, at least on clay. But he hasn't beaten Novak off clay in ten years, since the 2013 US Open final, and his clay record vs Novak since then hasn't been hugely dominant - he definitely has the edge, but it isn't huge.

Here's a problem that I have with this argument, and you're far from the only one to make it: that Novak didn't reach peak level until 2011, when he was 23/24. As if that's an excuse. The matches that came before his peak matter as much as the ones that have come since. I have never said there was anything wrong with Rafa's level in 2011. Only that his strategy with his nearest rival, for years, and been to attack the BH, and suddenly, his new biggest rival not only had a 2-hander, but he was was taller, and the BH was his best shot. Sure, that took time to adjust to, and as you say, Rafa did.

You, yourself, say that Rafa's highest ELO was in 2010, which I get, because he won 3 Majors. I will say, and I think @PhiEaglesfan712 also said it: the highest level I ever saw him play was the 2008 clay season. A friend and colleague, also a Nadal fan, who hadn't been able to watch the first week of RG that year, asked me how Rafa was playing. I said, "He's playing like he invented a new sport, and he didn't tell anyone else the rules." Injury issues were still mostly in front of him, and he played like a kid with nothing to lose.

Federer fans can relate to that, I think. Even though Roger did a lot after his peak year, (2006, I think,) his fans say he came more down to earth after that. If you buy into that, and your ELO intel, you can't scoff at the notion that Rafa was off-peak after 2010, anyway.

Yes, Nadal and Novak coincided across a few prime years, and Nadal did adjust. He had two big wins over Novak at Majors in 2013. So you make the point that Rafa hasn't beaten Novak on HCs since that USO win. But what about all that went before 2011? It still counts. Your point above is only about what has happened since Novak 2.0. As I pointed out, the H2H only has Novak leading by 1 match. If the 2nd half of the rivalry were so stark, wouldn't that be worse? I hate to quote an obvious stat, but Nadal leads the H2H in Majors 11-7, and in Major finals 5-4.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Here's a problem that I have with this argument, and you're far from the only one to make it: that Novak didn't reach peak level until 2011, when he was 23/24. As if that's an excuse. The matches that came before his peak matter as much as the ones that have come since. I have never said there was anything wrong with Rafa's level in 2011. Only that his strategy with his nearest rival, for years, and been to attack the BH, and suddenly, his new biggest rival not only had a 2-hander, but he was was taller, and the BH was his best shot. Sure, that took time to adjust to, and as you say, Rafa did.

You, yourself, say that Rafa's highest ELO was in 2010, which I get, because he won 3 Majors. I will say, and I think @PhiEaglesfan712 also said it: the highest level I ever saw him play was the 2008 clay season. A friend and colleague, also a Nadal fan, who hadn't been able to watch the first week of RG that year, asked me how Rafa was playing. I said, "He's playing like he invented a new sport, and he didn't tell anyone else the rules." Injury issues were still mostly in front of him, and he played like a kid with nothing to lose.

Federer fans can relate to that, I think. Even though Roger did a lot after his peak year, (2006, I think,) his fans say he came more down to earth after that. If you buy into that, and your ELO intel, you can't scoff at the notion that Rafa was off-peak after 2010, anyway.

Yes, Nadal and Novak coincided across a few prime years, and Nadal did adjust. He had two big wins over Novak at Majors in 2013. So you make the point that Rafa hasn't beaten Novak on HCs since that USO win. But what about all that went before 2011? It still counts. Your point above is only about what has happened since Novak 2.0. As I pointed out, the H2H only has Novak leading by 1 match. If the 2nd half of the rivalry were so stark, wouldn't that be worse? I hate to quote an obvious stat, but Nadal leads the H2H in Majors 11-7, and in Major finals 5-4.

I have to agree with your post regarding Rafa, to me his 2008 clay season was the best I have seen form Rafa, I was there live at RG in 2008, Rafa just took his clay prowess to another level.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Tennis Abstract has Rafa's peak ELO as 2009 Madrid. In my opinion, Rafa's best French Open performances were 2008 and 2010, but the only years he swept the clay titles were 2005 and 2010. That automatically makes 2010 his best clay season. Rafa's 2nd round loss in Rome removes 2008 from contention as his best clay season. (I just looked at Rafa's career stats on Wikipedia, and I was surprised to find that 2005 was the year he won the most titles. His 2nd most was 2013, so I'll say those years bookend Rafa's peak.)

Federer's peak years were obviously 2004-2007. He won 11 titles in 2004 and 2005, 12 titles in 2006, and had his peak ELO in 2007. Federer fell back down to earth in 2008, only winning 4 titles.

 

[El Dude]

Here's a problem that I have with this argument, and you're far from the only one to make it: that Novak didn't reach peak level until 2011, when he was 23/24. As if that's an excuse. The matches that came before his peak matter as much as the ones that have come since. I have never said there was anything wrong with Rafa's level in 2011. Only that his strategy with his nearest rival, for years, and been to attack the BH, and suddenly, his new biggest rival not only had a 2-hander, but he was was taller, and the BH was his best shot. Sure, that took time to adjust to, and as you say, Rafa did.

You, yourself, say that Rafa's highest ELO was in 2010, which I get, because he won 3 Majors. I will say, and I think @PhiEaglesfan712 also said it: the highest level I ever saw him play was the 2008 clay season. A friend and colleague, also a Nadal fan, who hadn't been able to watch the first week of RG that year, asked me how Rafa was playing. I said, "He's playing like he invented a new sport, and he didn't tell anyone else the rules." Injury issues were still mostly in front of him, and he played like a kid with nothing to lose.

Rafa's peak overall Elo was in 2013, not 2010 - at least according to UTS. His peak clay Elo was also 2013 (2669), but he had pretty much reached a new level in 2008.

But in terms of a per-match level, peak Elo shouldn't be confused with play level. As we have discussed, it is accumulative over time, or really more like consistent level of relatively recent play. This is why a player's peak Elo is often just before decline starts (whether small or large), and even when a player declines steeply, it takes awhile for Elo to catch up (see, "Murray, Andy"...Andy didn't fall below 2300 Elo until mid-2018, when he barely played and was a shadow of himself).

So my interpretation of what you say in 2008 was that Rafa had already established himself as a clay great in 2005-07, but then reached a new level in 2008 - one that had never really been seen before on clay, with the possible exception of Borg at his best.

Rafa was also a "surge" player. He played really well for a shortish period of time, maybe a third to a half year, then cooled off, usually later in the year. You can see that in his Elo patterns - they spike during clay season, then go down, then spike again in the following year's clay season. We also see larger drop-offs when he missed time due to injury, then a slow build as he warms up, then a spike as he finds his level. Those peaks are, to some extent, dependent upon his down-turns, so it isn't totally accurate to compare peaks and say, "this one was a higher peak Elo, so he was playing better."

But certainly he reached a new level in 2008 - that's when he went from great to GOAT level. And it wasn't just clay - it was the first year he won a Slam off clay, as he didn't wilt in July, and not really until the end of the year.

Federer fans can relate to that, I think. Even though Roger did a lot after his peak year, (2006, I think,) his fans say he came more down to earth after that. If you buy into that, and your ELO intel, you can't scoff at the notion that Rafa was off-peak after 2010, anyway.

As for Rafa's Elo, he did slump in late 2009, but then surged back in 2010-11. But you're right in that his peak of 2008 into early 2009 was actually higher than 2010-11. But he reached his absolute peak in 2013, perhaps mostly because he was nigh unbeatable for about half the year. After losing to Zeballos in Vin del Mar in early February, he only lost two matches - one to Novak, the other to Steve Darcis - until September! He was demolishing everyone and, I think, played the best tennis of his life that year. Elo has him peaking in September, after winning the US Open.

Anyhow, back to 2010-11, I've posted this before, but think it is relevant:

Rafa's W-L Record in 2010-11
2010: 71-10 | 2-0 vs Novak, 69-10 vs everyone else
2011: 69-15 | 0-6 vs. Novak, 69-9 vs everyone else

His 10 losses in 2010: Murray x2, Federer, Melzer, Garcia Lopez, Baghdatis, Lopez, Roddick, Ljubicic, Davydenko

His 15 losses in 2011: Novak x6, Tsonga x2, Federer, Ferrer, Davydenko, Murray, F Mayer, Fish, Dodig

So it is a similar mix of losses - a mixture of elite, second tier, and a few upsets by journeymen.

So again, in terms of results, Rafa in 2010 = Rafa in 2011...except for Novak. Actually, he had one more loss in 2010 vs non-Serbs! But the obviously difference was Novak. Without Novak in the mix, or with Novak v. 2010, Rafa's 2011 would likely have been every bit as good as his 2010 was.

Or to put it another way, Rafa was 6-1 in big title finals in 2010, but 2-6 in 2011...so he even made one more final! And who did he lose to in those six finals? Well, Novak of course -- all six times.

Yes, Nadal and Novak coincided across a few prime years, and Nadal did adjust. He had two big wins over Novak at Majors in 2013. So you make the point that Rafa hasn't beaten Novak on HCs since that USO win. But what about all that went before 2011? It still counts. Your point above is only about what has happened since Novak 2.0. As I pointed out, the H2H only has Novak leading by 1 match. If the 2nd half of the rivalry were so stark, wouldn't that be worse? I hate to quote an obvious stat, but Nadal leads the H2H in Majors 11-7, and in Major finals 5-4.

Rafa adjusted, but then Novak re-adjusted and had the edge from 2014 on, though with a bit of back-and-forth. In fact, their rivalry has been characterized by back-and-forths, with each holding sway, though a broad trend of Rafa dominating early on and Novak holding the overall edge later.

And I'm not saying that 2006-10 doesn't count, but pointing out that Rafa was already in peak form for most of that time, while Novak was still developing. They shared peak levels in 2011-14 when Rafa was 7-11 vs Novak. Before that, Novak was still v1.0. After that, Rafa really struggled for a couple years, losing 7 matches in a row to Novak at his best, then he beat a gimpy Novak in late 2017 and early 2018; from 2018 Wimbledon on, they've were 4-4, probably the closest in level of their careers, though with a clear clay and hard/grass split.

And yes, Rafa has the edge in Slams. But part of that is because such a high percentage were at Roland Garros, where he was 7-3 against him. But 10 out of 18 GS matches is 56%...and RG is just 25% of Slams. They were 4-4 at other Slams, and 2-4 at other Slam finals.

My point being, the differences in age and peak are far less stark than with Novak and Roger. Roger was still very good in 2011 and beyond, but not as good as he was in 2004-09. We can't really say that that we ever saw Roger at his best play Novak at his best. We saw some matches where they both played at very high levels, of course. But again, the point is that there's actual shared peak levels with Novak and Rafa.

None of this reveals anything new, of course. Rafa was a better clay player, and Novak better on hards and grass.

 

[Moxie]

And I'm not saying that 2006-10 doesn't count, but pointing out that Rafa was already in peak form for most of that time, while Novak was still developing. They shared peak levels in 2011-14 when Rafa was 7-11 vs Novak. Before that, Novak was still v1.0. After that, Rafa really struggled for a couple years, losing 7 matches in a row to Novak at his best, then he beat a gimpy Novak in late 2017 and early 2018; from 2018 Wimbledon on, they've were 4-4, probably the closest in level of their careers, though with a clear clay and hard/grass split.

So much palaver to get to my point. I'll address the rest of yours tomorrow, but for now, let's get to mine. You say "Novak was still developing," as if that's an excuse. Rafa peaked earlier. So, good for him. They're not that far off in age, but they are quite far off in when they peaked, though they coincided in some prime years. I know you understand peak v. prime. And I have made some points about Nadal's "peak" and I'm not going to take your Elo as the only answer. I've got the eye test, as do others.

I'm also going to challenge you on the comment that Rafa beat a "gimpy" Novak in late 2017/early 2018. Wow, huh? Amongst the Big 3, Rafa is arguably the gimpiest, so that is, once again, an excuse. I know you're not going to make an excuse for Novak's walkabout, and yet not give credit to Nadal's actual many injury lay-offs. Surely you wouldn't. If you were going to weigh one against the other??

I will just say, once again, I don't see how you give so little credit to the first half of their rivalry. If Rafa was the more dominant player in that period of time, and Novak couldn't reach his level, that matters, right? Because it really just can't be only about half of their rivalry. I'm sure Federer fans would love to make much of the late run that Roger made on Rafa in 2017. But does that tell the whole story? Can you really just break off a H2H where you want to, and because you want to?

And yes, Rafa has the edge in Slams. But part of that is because such a high percentage were at Roland Garros, where he was 7-3 against him. But 10 out of 18 GS matches is 56%...and RG is just 25% of Slams. They were 4-4 at other Slams, and 2-4 at other Slam finals.

Rafa has the edge in Slams. Look how hard you're tap dancing. That old "if we leave off clay" gambit. Been hearing that one for years.

My point being, the differences in age and peak are far less stark than with Novak and Roger. Roger was still very good in 2011 and beyond, but not as good as he was in 2004-09. We can't really say that that we ever saw Roger at his best play Novak at his best. We saw some matches where they both played at very high levels, of course. But again, the point is that there's actual shared peak levels with Novak and Rafa.

Oh, here we go. Novak only ever saw geriatric Roger. Nadal played in his prime/peak against peak Novak. Oh, except for when Novak was gimpy. Oh, and too many times he had to play him at Roland Garros. Other than that, it would have been better. It's just that it wasn't better, but you go ahead and talk around that.

None of this reveals anything new, of course. Rafa was a better clay player, and Novak better on hards and grass.

Oh, no, it's rather revealing.

 

[BratSrbin]

If there was no doctor Igor Chetojevic, the question is whether we would be talking about No1e as the best tennis player of all time today. Had No1e won a Grand Slam before meeting this expert, he would certainly have won several more even if he hadn't met him, but the big question is whether he would have achieved this kind of dominance.

In 2010, Chetojevic removed gluten from No1e's diet, thereby eliminating the allergies that were causing him problems, and No1e developed into an incredible winning machine.

Before Chetojevic, he forfeit a lot of matches due to illness, after him, he no longer has any.

What if gluten intolerance at No1e had been discovered a few years earlier?

 

[Kieran]

If there was no doctor Igor Chetojevic, the question is whether we would be talking about No1e as the best tennis player of all time today. Had No1e won a Grand Slam before meeting this expert, he would certainly have won several more even if he hadn't met him, but the big question is whether he would have achieved this kind of dominance.

In 2010, Chetojevic removed gluten from No1e's diet, thereby eliminating the allergies that were causing him problems, and No1e developed into an incredible winning machine.

Before Chetojevic, he forfeit a lot of matches due to illness, after him, he no longer has any.

What if gluten intolerance at No1e had been discovered a few years earlier?

Interesting topic! Kind of like, how many slams would Rafa have if he never was injured? Well, he’d have won his 23rd last weekend if not for injury, and you wouldn’t be posting today. So we’ve got to be grateful for small mercies.

But was it really a gluten free diet that caused Novak to spike in 2011? Other people say other stuff but what we all could observe is that he was mentally fragile for many years, at an age when Rafa was doggedly fighting the good fight against Roger. I don’t remember Novak claiming he had a mysterious ailment when he chickened out of matches that required a bit more fortitude. I remember Roddick attributed it SARS but I think he was only mockingly highlighting the real condition Novak had then, which was a faint heart. He then changed that and became an occasional beast, with still some occasions of brittleness.

You should be glad!

 

[El Dude]

So much palaver to get to my point. I'll address the rest of yours tomorrow, but for now, let's get to mine. You say "Novak was still developing," as if that's an excuse. Rafa peaked earlier. So, good for him. They're not that far off in age, but they are quite far off in when they peaked, though they coincided in some prime years. I know you understand peak v. prime. And I have made some points about Nadal's "peak" and I'm not going to take your Elo as the only answer. I've got the eye test, as do others.

I'm also going to challenge you on the comment that Rafa beat a "gimpy" Novak in late 2017/early 2018. Wow, huh? Amongst the Big 3, Rafa is arguably the gimpiest, so that is, once again, an excuse. I know you're not going to make an excuse for Novak's walkabout, and yet not give credit to Nadal's actual many injury lay-offs. Surely you wouldn't. If you were going to weigh one against the other??

I will just say, once again, I don't see how you give so little credit to the first half of their rivalry. If Rafa was the more dominant player in that period of time, and Novak couldn't reach his level, that matters, right? Because it really just can't be only about half of their rivalry. I'm sure Federer fans would love to make much of the late run that Roger made on Rafa in 2017. But does that tell the whole story? Can you really just break off a H2H where you want to, and because you want to?


Rafa has the edge in Slams. Look how hard you're tap dancing. That old "if we leave off clay" gambit. Been hearing that one for years.


Oh, here we go. Novak only ever saw geriatric Roger. Nadal played in his prime/peak against peak Novak. Oh, except for when Novak was gimpy. Oh, and too many times he had to play him at Roland Garros. Other than that, it would have been better. It's just that it wasn't better, but you go ahead and talk around that.

Oh, no, it's rather revealing.

LOL, OK Moxie. I should have known better. Same old Moxie - ever the Fedal Warrior, and if what others say doesn't support your not-so-secret desire to put Rafa above everyone else, it is "rather revealing" (of what, exactly? LOL). Everyone out to get you and poor Rafa. It is a plot!

Anyhow, you clearly didn't understand what I was saying, instead filtering it through your Rafa defensiveness. I'm really not interested in re-explaining everything and correcting your mis-understandings of what I said, but will simply say you're misinterpreting quite a bit and presuming more about what you think I'm saying. I really wish you'd at least try to check your defensiveness and look at things from a less fangirlish perspective.

 

[BratSrbin]

Interesting topic! Kind of like, how many slams would Rafa have if he never was injured? Well, he’d have won his 23rd last weekend if not for injury, and you wouldn’t be posting today. So we’ve got to be grateful for small mercies.

But was it really a gluten free diet that caused Novak to spike in 2011? Other people say other stuff but what we all could observe is that he was mentally fragile for many years, at an age when Rafa was doggedly fighting the good fight against Roger. I don’t remember Novak claiming he had a mysterious ailment when he chickened out of matches that required a bit more fortitude. I remember Roddick attributed it SARS but I think he was only mockingly highlighting the real condition Novak had then, which was a faint heart. He then changed that and became an occasional beast, with still some occasions of brittleness.

You should be glad!

Anger, frustration, claptrap? What comes out of you?

 

[Kieran]

Anger, frustration, claptrap? What comes out of you?

Note that this ‘reply’ doesn’t actually answer anything I said. In reply to your assertion that “Before Chetojevic, he forfeit a lot of matches due to illness, after him, he no longer has any,” I asked did he ever forfeit due to a mysterious ailment? No, he gave specific excuses for not finishing each match. This is why Roddick mocked him by saying he might even have SARS.

You ought to have praised Novak for toughening up his spine in 2011, rather than defend the myth. It was one of his most impressive feats. But instead you’re saying that a switch of diet stopped him getting these injuries? It’s observable that Novak was still occasionally brittle, still occasionally the Novak of pre-2011 after 2011, so it’s clear that his was a lack of mental fibre that made him run from tight situations while Rafa the young kid was wearing himself and Federer down in a classic dogfight at the top…

 

[BratSrbin]

 

[BratSrbin]

"An experienced practitioner of alternative medicine, Cetojevic told Gulf News in an exclusive interview how he made an instant and extraordinary diagnosis that would change Djokovic’s life forever. He said: “The television commentator repeatedly said, ‘Novak is struggling with his asthma again’. But from my observations and experience with Chinese traditional medicine, I could see that asthma was not the issue here. Every time the commentator mentioned it, I said aloud: ‘it’s not asthma!’ I know that generally most asthma symptoms appear in the morning – and Novak’s match was in the afternoon. Also, if he really had an asthmatic condition, he would not have been able to play two excellent sets before the breathing difficulties appeared."

Serbian doctor on how he cured ailing Djokovic

The sheer regularity of his body breaking down when the going got tough used to irk Djokovic’s peers

gulfnews.com

 

[Kieran]

"An experienced practitioner of alternative medicine, Cetojevic told Gulf News in an exclusive interview how he made an instant and extraordinary diagnosis that would change Djokovic’s life forever. He said: “The television commentator repeatedly said, ‘Novak is struggling with his asthma again’. But from my observations and experience with Chinese traditional medicine, I could see that asthma was not the issue here. Every time the commentator mentioned it, I said aloud: ‘it’s not asthma!’ I know that generally most asthma symptoms appear in the morning – and Novak’s match was in the afternoon. Also, if he really had an asthmatic condition, he would not have been able to play two excellent sets before the breathing difficulties appeared."

Serbian doctor on how he cured ailing Djokovic

The sheer regularity of his body breaking down when the going got tough used to irk Djokovic’s peers

gulfnews.com

None of that is a reply to what we’re talking about. The doctor giving himself a praising reference as the source of Novaks improvements isn’t addressing what we’re talking about - though I do commend Novak for his efforts to improve good health naturally. He’s open to ideas, which is great.

Aside from an extreme change in physical conditioning, the main reason why Novak spiked in 2011 was mental. He changed during the Davis Cup final in 2010, and I believe that his great coach Marjan Vajda warned him that unless he was willing to grow a pair, he’d forever be doing comedy routines on court, being liked as a clown by fans, and going home empty handed. The thing you ought to praise is that which is observable in him.

By the way, you ignored the fact that when you’re wondering what Novak might have won before he stopped eating food containing gluten, you shouldn’t be dismissive the obvious fact that it can also be wondered what Rafa’s might have won if he hadn’t been so affected by injuries - up to and including this year’s French open…

 

[Moxie]

LOL, OK Moxie. I should have known better. Same old Moxie - ever the Fedal Warrior, and if what others say doesn't support your not-so-secret desire to put Rafa above everyone else, it is "rather revealing" (of what, exactly? LOL). Everyone out to get you and poor Rafa. It is a plot!

Anyhow, you clearly didn't understand what I was saying, instead filtering it through your Rafa defensiveness. I'm really not interested in re-explaining everything and correcting your mis-understandings of what I said, but will simply say you're misinterpreting quite a bit and presuming more about what you think I'm saying. I really wish you'd at least try to check your defensiveness and look at things from a less fangirlish perspective.

Just because you don't like my response to you doesn't mean you have to be condescending about it. You didn't really respond to my post, (except to restate your position, which my post was responding to,) and I didn't condescend to you about that. For the record, your post was not actually above my comprehension level.

I appreciate your deep-dive into their H2H, but my post (which you were responding to) was to say that more than a few people act like 2006-2011 doesn't count, or for much. Your response was this: "And I'm not saying that 2006-10 doesn't count, but pointing out that Rafa was already in peak form for most of that time, while Novak was still developing." Which is basically what you'd already said. I'm not sure why that matters. I'm mean, in the closer-look, but you yourself make the point that they are near in age. So that matters, even when they were younger. Or, since Rafa peaked earlier, it matters that Novak cleaned up more wins in the latter parts of this rivalry. You can't have both.

2006-2011: 16-7 Nadal over Djokovic
2014-present: 15-7 Djokovic over Nadal
(I chose 2014 because you said 2013 was peak Nadal. We agree, I think, on pre-2011.)

Also, here is the split in their H2H:

Clay: 20-8 Nadal over Djokovic
HC: 20-7 Djokovic over Nadal
Grass: 2-2

Your assessment says that Djokovic has the edge over Nadal on HC AND Grass. But we were talking about the H2H. Or, I was. I'm sure you meant that as a general point, but still, you were mixing H2H with general performance. Muddies things a bit.

 

[El Dude]

Just because you don't like my response to you doesn't mean you have to be condescending about it. You didn't really respond to my post, (except to restate your position, which my post was responding to,) and I didn't condescend to you about that. For the record, your post was not actually above my comprehension level.

I appreciate your deep-dive into their H2H, but my post (which you were responding to) was to say that more than a few people act like 2006-2011 doesn't count, or for much. Your response was this: "And I'm not saying that 2006-10 doesn't count, but pointing out that Rafa was already in peak form for most of that time, while Novak was still developing." Which is basically what you'd already said. I'm not sure why that matters. I'm mean, in the closer-look, but you yourself make the point that they are near in age. So that matters, even when they were younger. Or, since Rafa peaked earlier, it matters that Novak cleaned up more wins in the latter parts of this rivalry. You can't have both.

2006-2011: 16-7 Nadal over Djokovic
2014-present: 15-7 Djokovic over Nadal
(I chose 2014 because you said 2013 was peak Nadal. We agree, I think, on pre-2011.)

Also, here is the split in their H2H:

Clay: 20-8 Nadal over Djokovic
HC: 20-7 Djokovic over Nadal
Grass: 2-2

Your assessment says that Djokovic has the edge over Nadal on HC AND Grass. But we were talking about the H2H. Or, I was. I'm sure you meant that as a general point, but still, you were mixing H2H with general performance. Muddies things a bit.

My apologies for the condescension and I appreciate you not responding in kind.

I didn't reply to your post because you just re-iterated what you said and I already responded to. Note that this conversation started when you wrote:

"I don't believe in a GOAT. If Novak is putting "a bit of daylight" between himself and Rafa and Roger, isn't that because he's had the space, in the latter years? Where was he in the great years of the Federer-Nadal rivalry? He's only 11 months younger than Nadal. Handy for him to to keep his wick dry until the other two were rather a bit spent."

I pointed out that Novak wasn't at peak level until 2011, really in the waning years of the Fedal Era. In fact, his rise somewhat ended the Fedal Era, which was replaced by the Djokodal Era or, if I want to be charitable to Roger, the Big Three (or Four) Era.

Meaning, he jumped into the fray in 2011 - when Rafa was in the middle of his peak - and has been the overall best player since (and while Roger wasn't as good as he was in 2004-09, he was still pretty damn good). And yes, Rafa dominated him before then - I'm not discounting that at all - I was just replying to your notion that he wasn't present during the Fedal rivalry. He was still pretty good even earlier on, and played spoiler a few times.

In other words, I responded to what I felt like was you unnecessarily discounting Novak's accomplishments, as if he just vultured much of his career resume when Roger and Rafa were shadows of themselves ("a bit spent"). I don't see it that way, and my stats for 2011 back that up - as do the years after that. And Rafa wasn't "rather a bit spent" for most of the last decade. He has had remarkable longevity and has been a great player, apart from that 2015-16 period. Not the same guy as he was in 2008-14, just as Roger wasn't the same guy that he was in 2004-09, and Novak hasn't been the same guy that he'd been in 2011-16.

If Novak vultured at Rafa's expense, it was in 2015-16. That was the only period from 2011 on that both weren't playing at a "high elite" level or better. Novak stumbled a bit in 2017-18, but rebounded in the second half of 2018. From that point through 2022, both Rafa and Novak were playing at a very high level, though lower than before. I mean, Elo tells the tale quite well:

So I'm not sure how Novak "kept the wick dry until the other two were rather spent." That might be true of this year, but that's pretty much it.

The chart also shows that there's really no overlap with Roger's and Novak's very best years, which were separated by a period in which Roger dropped a notch before Novak's rise to stratospheric level. Roger was still really good when Novak jumped a level in 2011, but not as good as he had been before that - at least according to Elo.

All that aside, 2012 was really a special year. The Big Four each won a Slam, and were the closest they would ever be as a group. 2018 saw another convergence of the Big Three, but then Roger flamed out and it became the Djokodal show.

 

[El Dude]

As I've said before, Moxie, I basically see two views both being correct:

1) There is no singular GOAT, with the Big Three being inseparable and expressing variations on the best tennis the sport has ever seen.

2) Looking at the statistics, there's a significantly better argument for Novak than Roger or Rafa, who are a bit behind him in most meaningful statistics.

I get flack from you when I emphasize 2, from Fiero when I emphasize 1. But the truth is that I think both are true, depending upon how you look at it. Like Niels Bohr said, "while the opposite of a fact is a falsehood, the opposite of one profound truth may be another profound truth."

Meaning, I feel that 1 is a more "holistic" view, one tied more to narrative and qualities of tennis, but 2 is more analytically true, in terms of quantity and furthermore, is the answer that one inevitably comes to if they look at the statistics as objectively as possible.

Consider that Novak now holds the lead in Grand Slams (the popular, casual fan's main criteria), GOAT points (possibly the best stat for total career accomplishments), and Peak Elo (the nerdy peak level rating). It isn't 2 or 1 of 3 - it is all three. Add on his weeks at #1, big titles, and other stats, and you have to really twist and turn to avoid the fact that he has the best resume of anyone. Both Roger and Rafa have some points that might shine a tad brighter, but Novak more than makes up for them. Barring a Spanish miracle, he has effectively won the statistical argument.

In other words, while the first lens hold validity, when you add the second lens it gets pretty hard not to give Novak the GOAT crown. I mean, if the answer comes down to "They're all GOATs, but Novak is a bit GOATier than the other two," then, well, Novak is the GOAT. Saying that doesn't negate the validity of the first perspective, but to not acknowledge it is to ignore the second perspective.

p.s. As for Roger vs. Rafa, I don't think that is answerable. I think they're too close to pick one over the other. Both shine in their own way over the other. I know some of the Rafa diehards don't agree, but I also know some others who give Roger the edge (like Jeff Sackmann). I just can't pick one over the other and think the first view above is more applicable to them, then it is to the three as a whole. Or to put it another way, it is a GOAT triangle, but it isn't quite equilateral - more of a slightly acute isosceles, with Novak at the apex.

 

[BratSrbin]

As I've said before, Moxie, I basically see two views both being correct:

1) There is no singular GOAT, with the Big Three being inseparable and expressing variations on the best tennis the sport has ever seen.

2) Looking at the statistics, there's a significantly better argument for Novak than Roger or Rafa, who are a bit behind him in most meaningful statistics.

I get flack from you when I emphasize 2, from Fiero when I emphasize 1. But the truth is that I think both are true, depending upon how you look at it. Like Niels Bohr said, "while the opposite of a fact is a falsehood, the opposite of one profound truth may be another profound truth."

Meaning, I feel that 1 is a more "holistic" view, one tied more to narrative and qualities of tennis, but 2 is more analytically true, in terms of quantity and furthermore, is the answer that one inevitably comes to if they look at the statistics as objectively as possible.

Consider that Novak now holds the lead in Grand Slams (the popular, casual fan's main criteria), GOAT points (possibly the best stat for total career accomplishments), and Peak Elo (the nerdy peak level rating). It isn't 2 or 1 of 3 - it is all three. Add on his weeks at #1, big titles, and other stats, and you have to really twist and turn to avoid the fact that he has the best resume of anyone. Both Roger and Rafa have some points that might shine a tad brighter, but Novak more than makes up for them. Barring a Spanish miracle, he has effectively won the statistical argument.

In other words, while the first lens hold validity, when you add the second lens it gets pretty hard not to give Novak the GOAT crown. I mean, if the answer comes down to "They're all GOATs, but Novak is a bit GOATier than the other two," then, well, Novak is the GOAT. Saying that doesn't negate the validity of the first perspective, but to not acknowledge it is to ignore the second perspective.

p.s. As for Roger vs. Rafa, I don't think that is answerable. I think they're too close to pick one over the other. Both shine in their own way over the other. I know some of the Rafa diehards don't agree, but I also know some others who give Roger the edge (like Jeff Sackmann). I just can't pick one over the other and think the first view above is more applicable to them, then it is to the three as a whole. Or to put it another way, it is a GOAT triangle, but it isn't quite equilateral - more of a slightly acute isosceles, with Novak at the apex.

I largely agree with you but I don't know to write and explain as well as you.
Congratulations on a wonderful observation and statement.