Fedalovic Wars

[Moxie]

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

Accepted. Thanks!

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.

I see you around here complaining that I, and others are discounting Novak's accomplishments. Fine, if you want to be the keeper of them, but don't misrepresent my position, please. See bolded above. You have called me out for making a straw man argument on you. Look what you put in ONE sentence. I've never said that Novak "vultured" anything. (And we both know that's a rather trollish word around here, so I would never use it.) And what I said was "a bit spent," which you quoted, then paraphrased into "shadows of themselves." I did not say that, either. I know you pride yourself on being even-handed around here.

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:

View attachment 8305

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.

I promise to look at the chart tomorrow. And the bit I deleted. I just wanted to make the point above, for now.

And yes, I think we all agree that 2012 was a bit special, in that it was poetic that each of the Big Four won a Major, and just where they were expected to.

You still don't like my argument on the H2H. What about the fact that their H2H numbers pre-2011, and post-2013 are nearly the mirror image? I understand why you want to keep making the argument for Novak, but it's not really a conversation, though, is it? When I make points, and you ignore them? And then you just keep reinforcing your own points. And then insert a graph....

It's all good fun, but you are really working hard to make your points about Novak, and you're not that interested in a discussion.

 

[El Dude]

Accepted. Thanks!

I see you around here complaining that I, and others are discounting Novak's accomplishments. Fine, if you want to be the keeper of them, but don't misrepresent my position, please. See bolded above. You have called me out for making a straw man argument on you. Look what you put in ONE sentence. I've never said that Novak "vultured" anything. (And we both know that's a rather trollish word around here, so I would never use it.) And what I said was "a bit spent," which you quoted, then paraphrased into "shadows of themselves." I did not say that, either. I know you pride yourself on being even-handed around here.


I promise to look at the chart tomorrow. And the bit I deleted. I just wanted to make the point above, for now.

And yes, I think we all agree that 2012 was a bit special, in that it was poetic that each of the Big Four won a Major, and just where they were expected to.

You still don't like my argument on the H2H. What about the fact that their H2H numbers pre-2011, and post-2013 are nearly the mirror image? I understand why you want to keep making the argument for Novak, but it's not really a conversation, though, is it? When I make points, and you ignore them? And then you just keep reinforcing your own points. And then insert a graph....

It's all good fun, but you are really working hard to make your points about Novak, and you're not that interested in a discussion.

The H2H shows that over the course of their entire careers, Novak and Rafa have been close to even against each other. In fact, it is quite remarkable how closely they mirror each other: 20-8 on clay for Rafa, 20-7 on hards for Novak, 2-2 on grass. But that doesn't equate with overall GOATness, nor with peak relative level. H2H has to be contextualized: not only how the game style matches up, but also their respective career arcs (that is, when they were in their primes and peaks) and also where they met (e.g. Rafa and Novak played 47% of their matches on Rafa's "home turf," clay - which implies that Novak was generally going deeper on clay than Rafa was on hards/grass, at least in terms of regularity).

But we can nit-pick the various aspects of their respective records endlessly. I think my "two views" post best represents my overall view. Each of the Big Three have their unique shine of greatness, and from a qualitative and almost mythic level, there is no singular GOAT - just different "avatars" of greatness. But from an analytic and quantitative view, it is pretty hard to deny that Novak's career resume gives him the edge over the other two. I don't think finding a narrow lens view on some particular aspect of their respective records is going to change that.

 

[Kieran]

The H2H shows that over the course of their entire careers, Novak and Rafa have been close to even against each other. In fact, it is quite remarkable how closely they mirror each other: 20-8 on clay for Rafa, 20-7 on hards for Novak, 2-2 on grass. But that doesn't equate with overall GOATness, nor with peak relative level. H2H has to be contextualized: not only how the game style matches up, but also their respective career arcs (that is, when they were in their primes and peaks) and also where they met (e.g. Rafa and Novak played 47% of their matches on Rafa's "home turf," clay - which implies that Novak was generally going deeper on clay than Rafa was on hards/grass, at least in terms of regularity).

But we can nit-pick the various aspects of their respective records endlessly. I think my "two views" post best represents my overall view. Each of the Big Three have their unique shine of greatness, and from a qualitative and almost mythic level, there is no singular GOAT - just different "avatars" of greatness. But from an analytic and quantitative view, it is pretty hard to deny that Novak's career resume gives him the edge over the other two. I don't think finding a narrow lens view on some particular aspect of their respective records is going to change that.

Wait. Bolded. They played 28 matches on clay and 27 on hards. That’s 47% on clay, and what percent on hards? They’re virtually identical.

 

[El Dude]

Wait. Bolded. They played 28 matches on clay and 27 on hards. That’s 47% on clay, and what percent on hards? They’re virtually identical.

My point was that they played 47% on clay, but only about 30-35% of all tournaments have been played on clay during their careers. Their Slam H2H is even more clay-centered: 10 of 18 matches, or 56%, compared to 25% of Slams of Slams being played on clay. Meaning, their match-ups were distributed more towards clay than the total tour. That has obviously benefited Rafa, in terms of the H2H record.

 

[Moxie]

The H2H shows that over the course of their entire careers, Novak and Rafa have been close to even against each other. In fact, it is quite remarkable how closely they mirror each other: 20-8 on clay for Rafa, 20-7 on hards for Novak, 2-2 on grass. But that doesn't equate with overall GOATness, nor with peak relative level. H2H has to be contextualized: not only how the game style matches up, but also their respective career arcs (that is, when they were in their primes and peaks) and also where they met (e.g. Rafa and Novak played 47% of their matches on Rafa's "home turf," clay - which implies that Novak was generally going deeper on clay than Rafa was on hards/grass, at least in terms of regularity).

But we can nit-pick the various aspects of their respective records endlessly. I think my "two views" post best represents my overall view. Each of the Big Three have their unique shine of greatness, and from a qualitative and almost mythic level, there is no singular GOAT - just different "avatars" of greatness. But from an analytic and quantitative view, it is pretty hard to deny that Novak's career resume gives him the edge over the other two. I don't think finding a narrow lens view on some particular aspect of their respective records is going to change that.

Yes, I noticed that when I looked up the breakdown of their H2H distribution by surface, and posted it above. Look, just as Rafa was a bad match up for Roger, Novak has always been a tough one for Rafa. When Toni scouted him at Wimbledon, many years ago, and before he and Rafa had ever played, I believe, so, 2005? Toni came back and said, "We're in trouble."

 

[Kieran]

My point was that they played 47% on clay, but only about 30-35% of all tournaments have been played on clay during their careers. Their Slam H2H is even more clay-centered: 10 of 18 matches, or 56%, compared to 25% of Slams of Slams being played on clay. Meaning, their match-ups were distributed more towards clay than the total tour. That has obviously benefited Rafa, in terms of the H2H record.

Yes, but Rafa wins the clay matches at the same proportion as Novak wins on hards. The H2H is based only on matches played. Rafa has played a lot of successful hard court tournaments and not faced Novak..

 

[El Dude]

Yes, I noticed that when I looked up the breakdown of their H2H distribution by surface, and posted it above. Look, just as Rafa was a bad match up for Roger, Novak has always been a tough one for Rafa. When Toni scouted him at Wimbledon, many years ago, and before he and Rafa had ever played, I believe, so, 2005? Toni came back and said, "We're in trouble."

Yeah, I remember that - or someone quoting him.

Though to be fair to Rafa, Roger had a much tougher time against him than Rafa had against Novak - at least overall. Roger fans will always be left wondering: What if he had made the adjustments he did in 2017 earlier on? We'll never know. Maybe it would have made a difference, maybe not.

Matchups are a funny thing. We can look at Rafa's difficulty with Nikolay Davydenko. He was 4-0 vs him on clay, but 1-6 on hards. And it isn't like those were when he wasn't yet great: actually, all of his losses to Davydenko were in 2008-11, some of his best years, and his only win on hard was indoor - he was 0-4 outdoors. They never played at a Slam, but I'm curious as to why he had such a hard time with Davydenko, who was a really good player but not that good. Any thoughts on that?

 

[El Dude]

Yes, but Rafa wins the clay matches at the same proportion as Novak wins on hards. The H2H is based only on matches played. Rafa has played a lot of successful hard court tournaments and not faced Novak..

Yes, but my point is that their matchups have been disproportionately on clay relative to the tour. If they had been closer to the tour's configuration, the H2H gap would be larger. Especially with Slams. I mean, they played 10 times at Roland Garros - twice that of the AO and USO combined.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I remember that - or someone quoting him.

Though to be fair to Rafa, Roger had a much tougher time against him than Rafa had against Novak - at least overall. Roger fans will always be left wondering: What if he had made the adjustments he did in 2017 earlier on? We'll never know. Maybe it would have made a difference, maybe not.

Matchups are a funny thing. We can look at Rafa's difficulty with Nikolay Davydenko. He was 4-0 vs him on clay, but 1-6 on hards. And it isn't like those were when he wasn't yet great: actually, all of his losses to Davydenko were in 2008-11, some of his best years, and his only win on hard was indoor - he was 0-4 outdoors. They never played at a Slam, but I'm curious as to why he had such a hard time with Davydenko, who was a really good player but not that good. Any thoughts on that?

I think @tented pointed this out to me, years ago, re: Davydenko and match-ups, that, while Rafa beats Roger, at that point maybe 2:1, but Davydenko gave Nadal a hard time, and yet Roger's H2H v. Davydenko in the end was 19-2. Go figure. Davydenko took the ball really early, hit it super-flat and took all of Rafa's time away. As I said recently, I think he was, at least at the time of his retirement, the only player at that time with a positive h2h over Rafa, which he took into retirement with him.

 

[Kieran]

Yes, but my point is that their matchups have been disproportionately on clay relative to the tour. If they had been closer to the tour's configuration, the H2H gap would be larger. Especially with Slams. I mean, they played 10 times at Roland Garros - twice that of the AO and USO combined.

Actually not all of the results are relevant in telling us about the rivalry between them. A slam match is more important than the ATP Cup, or whatever it was they played in 2019. At GS matches, Rafa’s got a dominant lead of 11-7, and 5-4 in finals.

Then there’s stats that favour Novak, the WTF, he leads 3-2, MS 16-13, and in MS finals, they’re level.

As you pointed out elsewhere, Rafa was not ‘Rafa’ in 2015-6, and Novak racked up seven victories there.

These are great numbers but I’m not seeing any way to argue that Novak leading on hards 20-7 is substantially better than Rafa’s 20-8 lead on clay. If they played another 27 matches on hards, your argument goes, then Novak would increase his lead, but we might as well argue that if the tour was more fairly balanced on favoured surfaces, Rafa would increase his numbers.

Fact is, the only big disproportion in the stats is in 2015-6, when Novak got a lot of cheap results when Rafa was battling for fitness. This isn’t disputable, but it definitely gave Novak the edge in the final H2H tally..

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, I remember that - or someone quoting him.

Though to be fair to Rafa, Roger had a much tougher time against him than Rafa had against Novak - at least overall. Roger fans will always be left wondering: What if he had made the adjustments he did in 2017 earlier on? We'll never know. Maybe it would have made a difference, maybe not.

Matchups are a funny thing. We can look at Rafa's difficulty with Nikolay Davydenko. He was 4-0 vs him on clay, but 1-6 on hards. And it isn't like those were when he wasn't yet great: actually, all of his losses to Davydenko were in 2008-11, some of his best years, and his only win on hard was indoor - he was 0-4 outdoors. They never played at a Slam, but I'm curious as to why he had such a hard time with Davydenko, who was a really good player but not that good. Any thoughts on that?

I think we’d have to look at when those matches were played, I don’t remember ever dreading seeing Davydenko in Rafa’s half, yet he picked up some steady results against Rafa. I imagine that if they met in a USO final, Rafa would win in straights…

 

[tented]

I think @tented pointed this out to me, years ago, re: Davydenko and match-ups, that, while Rafa beats Roger, at that point maybe 2:1, but Davydenko gave Nadal a hard time, and yet Roger's H2H v. Davydenko in the end was 19-2. Go figure. Davydenko took the ball really early, hit it super-flat and took all of Rafa's time away. As I said recently, I think he was, at least at the time of his retirement, the only player at that time with a positive h2h over Rafa, which he took into retirement with him.

To be clear, Davydenko Syndrome only surfaced on hard courts. Rafa won their first encounter, but Davydenko won the other six. They played on clay four times, and you can guess who won those.

 

[Moxie]

Actually not all of the results are relevant in telling us about the rivalry between them. A slam match is more important than the ATP Cup, or whatever it was they played in 2019. At GS matches, Rafa’s got a dominant lead of 11-7, and 5-4 in finals.

Then there’s stats that favour Novak, the WTF, he leads 3-2, MS 16-13, and in MS finals, they’re level.

As you pointed out elsewhere, Rafa was not ‘Rafa’ in 2015-6, and Novak racked up seven victories there.

These are great numbers but I’m not seeing any way to argue that Novak leading on hards 20-7 is substantially better than Rafa’s 20-8 lead on clay. If they played another 27 matches on hards, your argument goes, then Novak would increase his lead, but we might as well argue that if the tour was more fairly balanced on favoured surfaces, Rafa would increase his numbers.

Fact is, the only big disproportion in the stats is in 2015-6, when Novak got a lot of cheap results when Rafa was battling for fitness. This isn’t disputable, but it definitely gave Novak the edge in the final H2H tally..

As I pointed out above, prior to 2011, Rafa won their encounters 16-7; after 2013 (which El Dude says was Rafa's peak year) Djokovic has won their encounters 15-7. Which is pretty even. However, while El Dude says he's not saying pre-2011 doesn't count, his argument is that Novak was still "developing." Let me just say that, even aside from winning a Major in 2008, Novak reached the Top 10 in March 2007, #3 in July 2007, and traded 3-4 with Murray until he got to #2 in Feb. 2010. So he certainly wasn't especially unformed, either. At that stage, they were both young, on the latter end, Rafa had a lot of wear on the body, for sure.

We can debate the usefulness of the results on either end of the H2H, but I don't think "what if's" in terms of had they played more on HCs is useful. Federer fans used to use that one in the H2H debate, too. One can assign percentage values to the numbers, relative to surface percentages on the tour, as a way showing that, while the numbers look evenly matched, they actually favor Novak, or that they're unfair to Novak, or whatever that is meant to show. It's worth remembering that Novak was the 2nd best clay player on tour for a lot of those years, so it's not like playing Rafa on clay was that unfair on him. Rafa has rarely been called the 2nd best player on HCs, though he was the best one in 2013.

I know we can do this forever. And we probably will.

 

[Kieran]

As I pointed out above, prior to 2011, Rafa won their encounters 16-7; after 2013 (which El Dude says was Rafa's peak year) Djokovic has won their encounters 15-7. Which is pretty even. However, while El Dude says he's not saying pre-2011 doesn't count, his argument is that Novak was still "developing." Let me just say that, even aside from winning a Major in 2008, Novak reached the Top top in March 2007, #3 in July 2007, and traded 3-4 with Murray until he got to #2 in Feb. 2010. So he certainly wasn't especially unformed, either. At that stage, they were both young, on the latter end, Rafa had a lot of wear on the body, for sure.

We can debate the usefulness of the results on either end of the H2H, but I don't think "what if's" in terms of had they played more on HCs is useful. Federer fans used to use that one in the H2H debate, too. One can assign percentage values to the numbers, relative to surface percentages on the tour, as a way showing that, while the numbers look evenly matched, they actually favor Novak, or that they're unfair to Novak, or whatever that is meant to show. It's worth remembering that Novak was the 2nd best clay player on tour for a lot of those years, so it's not like playing Rafa on clay was that unfair on him. Rafa has rarely been called the 2nd best player on HCs, though he was the best one in 2013.

I know we can do this forever. And we probably will.

Well Novak was a long time in development, compared to Rafa. At 17, Rafa beat Roger for the first time, but this wasn’t a flash in the pan. At 18, then 19, Rafa had consigned Safin, Roddick and all the rest of Wodger’s generation to the dustbin. Novak didn’t reach this level until he was 23, by which time Rafa had been battling for overall supremacy in the sport for 6 years. And against a player from an older generation.

The point being often forgotten by non-Rafa fans is that Rafa’s longevity in fighting that battle, which seems only to be ending now, almost two decades later, shouldn’t be dismissed or held against him. Perhaps if he too took as long in the shade as Novak did before he exposed himself to bright burning lights, he too would have had a few years on easy street, picking off the burnouts.

Rafa’s longevity is the most extraordinary thing in the Big 3 narrative. Only last year he could have ended the season as number one for the third season out of the last six. It’s underestimated and overlooked, but Rafa is the only one of the Big 3 to contend on even ground with the other two at their best..

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Well Novak was a long time in development, compared to Rafa. At 17, Rafa beat Roger for the first time, but this wasn’t a flash in the pan. At 18, then 19, Rafa had consigned Safin, Roddick and all the rest of Wodger’s generation to the dustbin. Novak didn’t reach this level until he was 23, by which time Rafa had been battling for overall supremacy in the sport for 6 years. And against a player from an older generation.

The point being often forgotten by non-Rafa fans is that Rafa’s longevity in fighting that battle, which seems only to be ending now, almost two decades later, shouldn’t be dismissed or held against him. Perhaps if he too took as long in the shade as Novak did before he exposed himself to bright burning lights, he too would have had a few years on easy street, picking off the burnouts.

Rafa’s longevity is the most extraordinary thing in the Big 3 narrative. Only last year he could have ended the season as number one for the third season out of the last six. It’s underestimated and overlooked, but Rafa is the only one of the Big 3 to contend on even ground with the other two at their best..

Indeed, Rafa > Tennis > Fedovic.

 

[Jelenafan]

He’s the only player ro win 3 or more Majors in three different decades…

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Olympic champion claims Djokovic can't be GOAT because of his "better body"

Yet another opinion that argues Djokovic's has an unfair physical advantage.

www.tennisworldusa.org

 

[shawnbm]

These arguments will not cease unless Novak wins more of everything to put him statistically untouchable. He is practically there already, but I still don't know if he's the best I have ever seen. The most accomplished in big events over a long period? He likely is already that, to be candid. But, would I pick Novak or Pete pre-2010 Roger on grass? I don't think so. Pick him over Rafa on clay in the biggest of matches? I don't think so. Pick him over Roger during his halcyon days in 2003-2007 on hards in New York or maybe even Agassi or Pete there during their heyday? Tough one.

But, he is always right there, and what more can you say? Federer was the one I used to say was always right there, even when he got too far on clay to lose most every time against the best I have seen on that surface LOL. But, he made it to the dance seemingly every time or close to it. Nole has now done that more than even Roger did. It is enough to me to count Novak in the discussion and I--being a Federer fan--acknowledge it is hard to deny that most of his records have been eclipsed by a guy he played quite a few times and lost a few more than he won. But, they were great battles! The 2014 and 2019 SW19 finals between the two were great stuff.

 

[shawnbm]

and then ^ there is Nadal--I am still absolutely stunned he was even still around last year in light of injuries and whatnot. Yes, 14 of his 22 are on clay, but he won quite a few hard court titles much to my surprise. Grass has been the one he has had the least success on, not even making that many finals in London in the last decade. But, he is probably the first who comes to mind in terms of having a guy play with the family jewels on the line, especially on clay or slow hards. He is like Arnold Palmer was (according to Byron Nelson)--he willed himself to win. Love Rafa--a bigger, nicer version of my boyhood fave, Jimbo, back in the Seventies. I sure hope to get to see him hit it again next year in Miami. Hell, his practice sessions are better than most matches!

 

[Fiero425]

He’s the only player ro win 3 or more Majors in three different decades…

You had to be very specific there! I didn't think anyone would match Federer's 3 Majors in a season 3 times! Novak's on the verge of his 4th!