Who can beat Nadal at RG 2019?

[Federberg]

Yes, there is no other explanation as to why we might favour Djokovic in that scenario other than blind wishful thinking... you got me.

He's 7 and 7 in the last 14 encounters between the two on clay, beat Nadal in straight sets at Roland Garros the last time they met there, has beaten him in the last two slam finals, including a shellacking in Australia, is clearly deep in Nadal's head... If he adds insult to injury by winning in Rome or Monte Carlo... then yes, he would be my favourite to win in Paris. Favourite as in expecting him to win... rather than ever rooting for the guy.

Now here is the problem with your summary... if it was just wishful thinking from one or two of us Feddies to somehow protect Federer's legacy, then Djokovic winning in Paris would actually be a worse scenario... He's far more of a threat to Federer's 20 slam count than Nadal if that happens, given his superiority on other surfaces.

Maybe some of us actually do think Djokovic would be favourite in that scenario.. it's not like it's wildly far-fetched.

^This....

 

[Moxie]

Yes, there is no other explanation as to why we might favour Djokovic in that scenario other than blind wishful thinking... you got me.

He's 7 and 7 in the last 14 encounters between the two on clay, beat Nadal in straight sets at Roland Garros the last time they met there, has beaten him in the last two slam finals, including a shellacking in Australia, is clearly deep in Nadal's head... If he adds insult to injury by winning in Rome or Monte Carlo... then yes, he would be my favourite to win in Paris. Favourite as in expecting him to win... rather than ever rooting for the guy.

Now here is the problem with your summary... if it was just wishful thinking from one or two of us Feddies to somehow protect Federer's legacy, then Djokovic winning in Paris would actually be a worse scenario... He's far more of a threat to Federer's 20 slam count than Nadal if that happens, given his superiority on other surfaces.

Maybe some of us actually do think Djokovic would be favourite in that scenario.. it's not like it's wildly far-fetched.

I don't think you guys are hoping for someone other than Rafa to win at RG because you're Fed fans and it's about Roger's legacy. I think it's rather because looking for someone besides Nadal to win it has been part of the game every years for ages now, unless you're a Rafa fan. I'm surprised how much weight you give to the 2/3 events, without blinking. Especially given Rafa's record in 3/5 on clay. (Something like 103-2.) And his h2h v Djokovic at RG, which is 7-1. I find it surprising that you'd make him a favorite, is all.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

I don't think you guys are hoping for someone other than Rafa to win at RG because you're Fed fans and it's about Roger's legacy. I think it's rather because looking for someone besides Nadal to win it has been part of the game every years for ages now, unless you're a Rafa fan. I'm surprised how much weight you give to the 2/3 events, without blinking. Especially given Rafa's record in 3/5 on clay. (Something like 103-2.) And his h2h v Djokovic at RG, which is 7-1. I find it surprising that you'd make him a favorite, is all.

Agree Re: b03 and b05,

IMO even if Djokovic wins both their matches in Madrid and Rome(Djokovic is only playing these 2 before RG) this year Nadal will still be favored at RG.

Djokovic will find it tough to exploit Nadals movement on PC.

However, that 7-1 is kinda misleading since his first four losses were before he found his groove.
It's 3-1 since 2011 and the 3 losses were,
2012,2013-Djokovic was up a break in 4th and 5th set respectively.
2014-Djokovic was sick.
1 win against 2015 Nadal

 

[Front242]

^ Roger is generally damn good at Wimbledon but he's had some lousy losses too so the fact that Player X has won the title so many times only counts for so much. Likewise with Nadal at RG. An in form Djokovic may well have his number everywhere but then again who knows. Going by the theory above though, Federer shouldn't lose to Anderson on grass and he did so Nadal could lose to Djokovic at RG and it'd be no surprise either.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think you guys are hoping for someone other than Rafa to win at RG because you're Fed fans and it's about Roger's legacy. I think it's rather because looking for someone besides Nadal to win it has been part of the game every years for ages now, unless you're a Rafa fan. I'm surprised how much weight you give to the 2/3 events, without blinking. Especially given Rafa's record in 3/5 on clay. (Something like 103-2.) And his h2h v Djokovic at RG, which is 7-1. I find it surprising that you'd make him a favorite, is all.

I think you're putting a lot of weight into matches that are 5 or more years old and simply ignoring that a few things have changed. Djokovic getting the monkey off his back by beating Nadal there in 2015 and by winning the tournament a year later shouldn't be overlooked. And then frankly it seems Novak is even more in Nadal's head than back in early 2012. At least Nadal was close at the 2012 AO final. And then Nadal beat Djoker easily in MC and Rome that year before their RG match so something similar this year seems extra important for Nadal. I think in retrospect Novak would've been better off losing before those finals at the warmup tournaments as he had clearly lost some steam as was.

Also that Wimbledon match has to be wearing on him a bit, losing against a guy that was way way far from his best was a bad sign and I think that had an effect on the recent match.

I've said for awhile that Rafa's movement on clay hardly even matters anymore and I believe that's the case against everyone except Novak. Against Thiem and anyone else he doesn't need to move well as he ends up doing all the dictating and no one else can hope to handle his rally forehand on clay. Of course moving great will help but he is hardly put on the defensive on clay. Against Djokovic it is different. It's clear Nadal's forehand on clay bothers even Novak, unlike other surfaces, but it is still a battle and Rafa has to be moving well to withstand it.

 

[El Dude]

I don't think you guys are hoping for someone other than Rafa to win at RG because you're Fed fans and it's about Roger's legacy. I think it's rather because looking for someone besides Nadal to win it has been part of the game every years for ages now, unless you're a Rafa fan. I'm surprised how much weight you give to the 2/3 events, without blinking. Especially given Rafa's record in 3/5 on clay. (Something like 103-2.) And his h2h v Djokovic at RG, which is 7-1. I find it surprising that you'd make him a favorite, is all.

I want Rafa to lose only insofar as he's the favorite, year after year. If my favorite player/team is not involved, I tend to root for either a secondary favorite or the underdog. Rafa has been the top dog on clay for 15 years or so, so he's the guy to root against. Sort of like the Patriots .

So it isn't personal, at least for me. I don't hate Rafa. I know some Fedfans to, but not all.

 

[Ricardo]

Agree Re: b03 and b05,

IMO even if Djokovic wins both their matches in Madrid and Rome(Djokovic is only playing these 2 before RG) this year Nadal will still be favored at RG.

Djokovic will find it tough to exploit Nadals movement on PC.

However, that 7-1 is kinda misleading since his first four losses were before he found his groove.
It's 3-1 since 2011 and the 3 losses were,
2012,2013-Djokovic was up a break in 4th and 5th set respectively.
2014-Djokovic was sick.
1 win against 2015 Nadal

So every time he lost to Rafa, there is an asterisk (not finding his groove, up a break so let it get away, or not healthy etc), yet no asterisk in 2015, when Nadal was losing left and right and definitely wasn’t himself. Just remember, it’s 7-1 for Christ’s sake.

 

[Moxie]

I think you're putting a lot of weight into matches that are 5 or more years old and simply ignoring that a few things have changed. Djokovic getting the monkey off his back by beating Nadal there in 2015 and by winning the tournament a year later shouldn't be overlooked. And then frankly it seems Novak is even more in Nadal's head than back in early 2012. At least Nadal was close at the 2012 AO final. And then Nadal beat Djoker easily in MC and Rome that year before their RG match so something similar this year seems extra important for Nadal. I think in retrospect Novak would've been better off losing before those finals at the warmup tournaments as he had clearly lost some steam as was.

Also that Wimbledon match has to be wearing on him a bit, losing against a guy that was way way far from his best was a bad sign and I think that had an effect on the recent match.

I've said for awhile that Rafa's movement on clay hardly even matters anymore and I believe that's the case against everyone except Novak. Against Thiem and anyone else he doesn't need to move well as he ends up doing all the dictating and no one else can hope to handle his rally forehand on clay. Of course moving great will help but he is hardly put on the defensive on clay. Against Djokovic it is different. It's clear Nadal's forehand on clay bothers even Novak, unlike other surfaces, but it is still a battle and Rafa has to be moving well to withstand it.

I'm not ignoring that some things have changed, I'm just weighting them differently than you do. You make perfectly good points above. I've never said I'm not concerned. We're merely drawing different conclusions. I only say that the surface and the format still favors Rafa at his best.

 

[Moxie]

I want Rafa to lose only insofar as he's the favorite, year after year. If my favorite player/team is not involved, I tend to root for either a secondary favorite or the underdog. Rafa has been the top dog on clay for 15 years or so, so he's the guy to root against. Sort of like the Patriots .

So it isn't personal, at least for me. I don't hate Rafa. I know some Fedfans to, but not all.

I absolutely understand this, and I know it. That's why I said to britbox that I don't think it's about Fed fans and the worries for Roger's legacy. I've even said over the last couple of years that I can understand why only a Nadal fan would still root for Rafa to win at RG. We are the only ones not tired of it. The only thing that was getting under my skin a bit was how quickly so many were willing to say that Novak should potentially be the favorite. (Yeah, yeah...depending on how the earlier part of the clay season goes.) It does rankle just a bit. He has gone into RG co-favored with Nadal, and I think that should be the maximum. It's a bit of a niggle, but you know that I spend effort around here combatting some actual Rafa haters, so to see how much everyone was prepared to knock Nadal out as favorite at RG got my nose a bit out of joint.

 

[Moxie]

^ Roger is generally damn good at Wimbledon but he's had some lousy losses too so the fact that Player X has won the title so many times only counts for so much. Likewise with Nadal at RG. An in form Djokovic may well have his number everywhere but then again who knows. Going by the theory above though, Federer shouldn't lose to Anderson on grass and he did so Nadal could lose to Djokovic at RG and it'd be no surprise either.

I'm sorry, but this is a meaningless and fannish comparison. Sure, Roger is great at Wimbledon, but he lost to Anderson at 36. Nadal is 32. And he's frankly been much better at his best Slam than Roger has at his. If Djokovic beats Nadal at RG, it's hardly like losing to Anderson at Wimbledon for Roger. Otherwise, what? Yes, everyone is susceptible to upset. Except mostly Rafa at RG. If anyone but Djokovic beats Rafa at RG, it would be an upset.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If Rafa loses to Novak at RG, it is nothing to be ashamed of. It won't even be technically an upset (considering Novak is #1), although in reality it should be considered a mild upset.

On the other hand if Rafa gets upset in 4th round by say an youngster like Coric or an oldster like Fog, it is a different story.

 

[Moxie]

If Rafa loses to Novak at RG, it is nothing to be ashamed of. It won't even be technically an upset (considering Novak is #1), although in reality it should be considered a mild upset.

On the other hand if Rafa gets upset in 4th round by say an youngster like Coric or an oldster like Fog, it is a different story.

As I said above, anything but losing to Djokovic would be an upset. And I'd say Major. Including to Roger.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

So every time he lost to Rafa, there is an asterisk (not finding his groove, up a break so let it get away, or not healthy etc), yet no asterisk in 2015, when Nadal was losing left and right and definitely wasn’t himself. Just remember, it’s 7-1 for Christ’s sake.

LOL you're really sensitive.

I mentioned that Djokovic is not the favorite but still you're getting your panties in a twist .


All 3 losses were closely contested is all I'm saying and the 4 before 2011 have no bearing on the matchup this year.

 

[Front242]

I'm sorry, but this is a meaningless and fannish comparison. Sure, Roger is great at Wimbledon, but he lost to Anderson at 36. Nadal is 32. And he's frankly been much better at his best Slam than Roger has at his. If Djokovic beats Nadal at RG, it's hardly like losing to Anderson at Wimbledon for Roger. Otherwise, what? Yes, everyone is susceptible to upset. Except mostly Rafa at RG. If anyone but Djokovic beats Rafa at RG, it would be an upset.

Personally, I wouldn't say Nadal has been much better at his best slam than Federer has simply because the margins are much smaller on grass. If you lose serve on grass, it's infinitely harder to get back on serve than it is on clay and that skews those stats completely in Nadal's favour. It's clearly much easier to get upset on grass than on clay as a result of how hard it is to recapture a break of serve.

Guys with a good return of serve will also break serve much more easily on clay as they have much more time to do so with the balls traveling much slower. It's far from clear that Nadal is much better on his best surface than Federer when you take all the above into consideration. The number of slam wins say he is but the degree of difficulty on grass says otherwise.

 

[Moxie]

LOL you're really sensitive.

I mentioned that Djokovic is not the favorite but still you're getting your panties in a twist .

All 3 losses were closely contested is all I'm saying and the 4 before 2011 have no bearing on the matchup this year.

They weren't that close, except for 2013 SF. And I'm not sure about Novak being sick in 2014. Neither he nor his team have ever said what was wrong with him. Could have been the heat and humidity. He never claimed anything else, other than being pissed off at the crowd. But it does get rather irritating that we never get to talk about anything prior to 2011, vis-a-vis Djokovic. Then there are the Federer fans who insist that Roger wasn't really "prime" after 2007. So everything Nadal did to him was "post-prime," and a lot to do with clay. And then, anything he did to flummox Djokovic doesn't count, before 2011. Apparently you even have asterisks for losses at RG post 2011.

I think you begin to sense the source of a certain vitriol. It's the monotonous thrum of "whatever Nadal has done doesn't count." Too much clay. Roger post-prime. Djokovic's record means nothing before 2011. And apparently the walkabout for 2 years doesn't count, either. It does get a bit tedious.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

They weren't that close, except for 2013 SF. And I'm not sure about Novak being sick in 2014. Neither he nor his team have ever said what was wrong with him. Could have been the heat and humidity. He never claimed anything else, other than being pissed off at the crowd. But it does get rather irritating that we never get to talk about anything prior to 2011, vis-a-vis Djokovic. Then there are the Federer fans who insist that Roger wasn't really "prime" after 2007. So everything Nadal did to him was "post-prime," and a lot to do with clay. And then, anything he did to flummox Djokovic doesn't count, before 2011. Apparently you even have asterisks for losses at RG post 2011.

I think you begin to sense the source of a certain vitriol. It's the monotonous thrum of "whatever Nadal has done doesn't count." Too much clay. Roger post-prime. Djokovic's record means nothing before 2011. And apparently the walkabout for 2 years doesn't count, either. It does get a bit tedious.

I can understand your thoughts.

We've spoken about this before as well(I agreed with you that most probably Djokovic is not going to defeat a well-playing Nadal at RG).
But the 7-1 just isn't indicative of the punchers chance he has.

 

[Ricardo]

They weren't that close, except for 2013 SF. And I'm not sure about Novak being sick in 2014. Neither he nor his team have ever said what was wrong with him. Could have been the heat and humidity. He never claimed anything else, other than being pissed off at the crowd. But it does get rather irritating that we never get to talk about anything prior to 2011, vis-a-vis Djokovic. Then there are the Federer fans who insist that Roger wasn't really "prime" after 2007. So everything Nadal did to him was "post-prime," and a lot to do with clay. And then, anything he did to flummox Djokovic doesn't count, before 2011. Apparently you even have asterisks for losses at RG post 2011.

I think you begin to sense the source of a certain vitriol. It's the monotonous thrum of "whatever Nadal has done doesn't count." Too much clay. Roger post-prime. Djokovic's record means nothing before 2011. And apparently the walkabout for 2 years doesn't count, either. It does get a bit tedious.

One might say Rafa owns Roger, and another might say he doesn’t, and he only owns Roger on clay and neither would be wrong.

 

[Ricardo]

I can understand your thoughts.

We've spoken about this before as well(I agreed with you that most probably Djokovic is not going to defeat a well-playing Nadal at RG).
But the 7-1 just isn't indicative of the punchers chance he has.

No but you can’t put asterisk on every loss he had.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

No but you can’t put asterisk on every loss he had.

I didn't do that.
I just said the losses especially since he matured as a player were competitive so that 7-1 h2h is a poor indicator of Djokovics chances in a potential meeting this year.

 

[Andy22]

Djokovic is more a hard court player he's not going to beat nadal if they play in the final of RG Nadal going to destroy everyone this clay court season even djokovic +federer. Look how nadal played the last two seasons on clay useing everyone as a door mat even djokovic do you really think his not going to win just because he had one bad match at Australian open no way he's taking out everyone. Anyone whos says no is jealousy of him or a hater.