Will Novak pass Rafa?

[calitennis127]

It is well past time for the Rafa haters to accept that he's a great player on hards and grass. Is he as good as Roger and Novak on those surfaces? No, but he's still great and better than almost everyone in history.

Does Nadal having a great hardcourt resume compared to most other players mean that he should have more US Opens than a player he is 7-20 against on hardcourts and who has 16 more Masters Series titles than him on hardcourts (25 to 9)?

I hate this debate tactic of going from a specific issue to getting all mushy and maudlin about what someone's place in history is. I am talking about whether Nadal has overachieved at the US Open and somehow this becomes a sentimental family reunion atmosphere where we compare Nadal to the average ATP pro and talk about how much better he is. That is not the issue.

Can we please stay on topic?

 

[calitennis127]

Just FYI 50% of Nadal's US Open wins came by beating Djokovic in the final. Now, you can talk about Novak's level and pretend he stunk up the joint in those finals, which of course is bullshit but to say he "underachieved" when he actually reached a final is ridiculous.

Djokovic is 20-7 overall against Nadal on hardcourts (20-5 if you take out the two US Open flukes) and has 16 more Masters Series titles on hardcourts than Nadal does (25 to 9).

Suggesting that Djokovic has underachieved at the US Open when he has less titles there than someone he is 20-7 against on hardcourts (19-5 outside the US Open) is hardly an outlandish suggestion, except to Nadal fans such as yourself.

 

[El Dude]

That's not what I have said. Don't be ridiculous.

I never said Nadal has no talent. What I said is that the scale of success he has had does not correspond to how his tennis ability matches up.

Is Nadal an excellent clay court tennis player? Without a doubt.

Should he have 13 French Opens to only 1 for Djokovic and 1 for Federer? I don't think so.

Why are you so allergic to the idea of considering that possibility?

Does Nadal having a great hardcourt resume compared to most other players mean that he should have more US Opens than a player he is 7-20 against on hardcourts and who has 16 more Masters Series titles than him on hardcourts (25 to 9)?

I hate this debate tactic of going from a specific issue to getting all mushy and maudlin about what someone's place in history is. I am talking about whether Nadal has overachieved at the US Open and somehow this becomes a sentimental family reunion atmosphere where we compare Nadal to the average ATP pro and talk about how much better he is. That is not the issue.

Can we please stay on topic?

I'm questioning your whole notion of "overachievement" and how it applies to Rafa's accomplishments and greatness. To me it is a fallacious argument.

First of all, in your above post to Moxie you wildly understate his clay court greatness - I mean, kudos to you for recognizing that he is "without a doubt...an excellent clay court player." But that's like saying that Michael Jordan was, "without a doubt" a very good basketball player. Rafa is the greatest clay court player of all time, and it isn't particularly close. The gap between him and the next greatest is far larger than Roger and second best on grass, or Roger and Novak on hards (in whatever order you prefer them). This is mostly telling because it illustrates just how skewed your underlying view is on Rafa, how biased you are.

And of course we all know you for your assertions about David Nalbandian's unsurpassed talent. You are hung up on this idea that a player's true ability is what they "should" have done rather than what they actually accomplished. That would be like saying that a former Heismann Trophy winning college quarterback who blew out his knee and become the town drunk was the greatest quarterback ever.

A further point: if indeed Rafa "overachieved" at the US Open it may be that he just has certain abilities or qualities that you don't recognize as being part of his profile of greatness. Rafa is widely recognized for his fighting spirit, which could explain him "overachieving," but why don't you acknowledge this or recognize it as part of his greatness? I think it is more than fighting spirit, that he has actual subtle qualities to his profile that set him apart, but if you could at least acknowledge this and recognize it as an essential component of any player's ability?

I think what you miss is that there are a variety of paths to greatness, and number of qualities that make up how good a player is on court. You like to emphasize the pretty things a player can do with a racquet, but there are also mental factors, contextual factors. To say that Rafa overachieved at the US Open is to narrow tennis to a kind of exhibition display of finesse. To make a comparison to baseball, scouts account for the fact that certain players are better hitters in batting practice--with greater contact and/or power--than they are in an actual game. This isn't only about pressure and mental fortitude, but the ability to adapt and adjust to a living, organic context. I think this is part of Rafa's greatness that is actually understated, and why he's not merely a great clay courter who is pretty good on grass and hards, but the clay GOAT and a truly great player off clay.

 

[Moxie]

Correct on all counts. That said, I think you should take into consideration that Djokovic's overall record on hardcourts against Nadal (20-7) now exceeds Nadal's record against Djokovic on clay (17-7). Outside of the two US Open final losses, Djokovic's record against Nadal on hardcourts is 20-5 (or 19-5 outside of the US Open). When you take that into consideration, it is definitely arguable that Nadal has overachieved in his US Open finals record against Djokovic.

If Nadal had a 20-5 record against someone on a certain surface and that the same player beat him in 2 of 3 Grand Slam finals on that surface, would the thought cross your mind that Nadal's opponent had overachieved in those particular matches?

We all know the answer to that one.

In fact, you emphatically reject the suggestion that Djokovic has underachieved at the French Open despite having a better record against Nadal on clay than Nadal has against Djokovic on hards (and at the French the discrepancy is not 4 to 3 but 13 to 1).

That doesn't address the question of whether Nadal has overachieved at the US Open (winning 4 titles to Djokovic's 3) as someone who has never won Shanghai, Paris, World Tour Finals, or Miami and has only won Cincinnati once while having a 7-20 record against Djokovic.

I have to thank @El Dude for already making some arguments I would have made. To your points above: You have been making the same argument since when Rafa beat Novak at the USO 2013 final in real time. You make much of their comparative records on HCs and the H2H, but you've always ignored that the player with the best record on HCs that year was Nadal. He won the USO series that year, by winning Canada, Cincy and the USO. And he was the undefeated player on HCs to that point, when he beat Novak in that final. You keep trying to make it about H2H overall, or resumes, but you ignore the reality on the ground of that year. You're gaming that "statistically" Djokovic should have won the 2013 USO final, and that "statistically" he should have more USO titles than Nadal. But this ignores the reality of specific years, and what happened. It's a bad argument because it specifically ignores what went down that year, or any of those years.

You ask me, in a completely theoretical, how I would have felt if "Nadal had a 20-5 record against someone on a certain surface and that the same player beat him in 2 of 3 Grand Slam finals on that surface, would the thought cross your mind that Nadal's opponent had overachieved in those particular matches?" Firstly, there is no example of that person. Secondly, I don't subscribe to the notion of "over-achieve" or "under-achieve" in the same way that you do. I wouldn't use those terms at all, other than to debate the likes of you and Darth and others that use them. But I will give you a not-theoretical example: Wawrinka d Nadal, AO 2014 final. Wawrinka had never even taken a set off of Nadal. He came out hot, and then Nadal's back went, early in the 2nd set. (Everyone saw that in live action, so it's not debatable.) A lot of particularly Fedfans have argued for years that Wawrinka was going to win that match anyway, and they hate that Nadal fans even offer the option that, had Nadal's back not gone, he...at least conceiveably, could have won that match. Their H2H is still 19-3 in favor of Nadal, and all of Wawrinka's wins came with that bad back one, and in 2015, Nadal's worst year on tour. So I ask you: Do you think that Wawrinka won that match fair and square, or did he "over-achieve" in that moment? Look at the H2H and their relative achievements. These seem to be your criteria. Did Stan "over-achieve" at that moment? Didn't Rafa "under-achieve" in that AO final? By your strictures, it seems that the answer to both is "yes."

That's not what I have said. Don't be ridiculous.

I never said Nadal has no talent. What I said is that the scale of success he has had does not correspond to how his tennis ability matches up.

Is Nadal an excellent clay court tennis player? Without a doubt.

Should he have 13 French Opens to only 1 for Djokovic and 1 for Federer? I don't think so.

Why are you so allergic to the idea of considering that possibility?

 

[Moxie]

That's not what I have said. Don't be ridiculous.

I never said Nadal has no talent. What I said is that the scale of success he has had does not correspond to how his tennis ability matches up.

Is Nadal an excellent clay court tennis player? Without a doubt.

Should he have 13 French Opens to only 1 for Djokovic and 1 for Federer? I don't think so.

Why are you so allergic to the idea of considering that possibility?

The bolded above is complete BS. You have refused to acknowledge Rafa's talent over the years, even when I've asked you point blank. You have moved the goal posts in order to not be even more ludicrous than you are, in terms of Nadal. You have copped to him being a good athlete, I think, and to have a certain mental toughness. And I think stamina is something that you're also willing to give him. Other than that, don't pretend that you've ever given him credit for talent in tennis. Like El Dude said, your conceding that Nadal is "an excellent clay court player" is laughable in its understatement. And I appreciate your giving Rafa already the #13 at RG. (He has won 12 to date.) You think Roger and Novak have "underachieved" at RG, though. They are both great champions. If they'd been able to beat Rafa there, or at his best, they'd have done it before. I'm not "allergic" to the notion that it couldn't have gone differently. What I'm allergic to is reinventing the past. Nadal is (I think,) 93-02 at the French Open. Why is it that you quote Novak's statistics on HCs, as a kind of proof, but Nadal's numbers on clay, which are basically obscene, tell you only that Roger and Novak have "underachieved" at the French?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Djokovic is 20-7 overall against Nadal on hardcourts (20-5 if you take out the two US Open flukes) and has 16 more Masters Series titles on hardcourts than Nadal does (25 to 9).

Suggesting that Djokovic has underachieved at the US Open when he has less titles there than someone he is 20-7 against on hardcourts (19-5 outside the US Open) is hardly an outlandish suggestion, except to Nadal fans such as yourself.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

There is soooooooooo much wrong with this and it shows why nobody takes you seriously when it comes to Nadal. It's not that you don't offer valid points about his game, because you do, it's that you try to come off like you're being objective and that everyone else is just a blind fanboy, while you simultaneously spew shit like the above. Imagine actually saying what a H2H record would look like if you take out literally two of the most important matches they ever played. Why would I take them out? Was Novak hurt? Was the match rigged?

In 2010, Nadal was the better player, by far. Not even close. Novak hadn't done shit since 2008 at majors and Nadal was HEAVILY favored to win that match, and he did. Nobody expected Djokovic to win. In fact, it was you who made a thread after Roger beat Nadal at the WTF in 2010 that Nadal was so lucky he didn't play Roger at the US Open...clearly implying you didn't think much of Djokovic at the time. Speaking of which, Nadal straight setted Djokovic at the WTF in 2010...indoors. So clearly, the US Open final was far from a fluke as Nadal outplayed Djokovic pretty thoroughly and backed it up at the WTF. You can't retroactively apply someone's future level to matches played earlier.

In 2013, Nadal was the best hard court player in the world that year. In fact, he was undefeated on hard courts until AFTER the US Open. And, he and Djokovic had played a few weeks earlier in Montreal with Nadal winning. So what's so fluky about this? If you imply someone being better than someone else on a surface means they should NEVER lose to them otherwise it's a fluke, then allow me to use some wonderful Cali logic on you:

Nadal is 17-7 against Djokovic on clay (17-6 if you take out the 2015 FO fluke where Nadal had his worst season ever) and has 16 more Masters 1000 titles (25 to 9) and 11 more Grand Slams (12 to 1).

Suggesting that Novak has underachieved against Nadal on clay (which you continuously do) IS an outlandish suggestion, except to a Nadal hater like yourself.

(Cali tapdancing with weird arguments in 3...2...1)

 

[El Dude]

Another way to look at this is that even saying that Novak (or Roger) have underperformed vs. Rafa on clay just supports how dominant Rafa is on clay. The dude is outlandish on clay. In any other era and against almost any other clay player--with the possible exception of Ivan Lendl and Bjorn Borg--Novak and Roger would have dominated clay. At worst they would have held their own against the Wilanders and Vilases of the world, and easily edged out the Kuertens and Musters, but I think would have been clearly overall better, especially considering consistency and longevity.

I think you could also say the same thing for Rafa on hards and grass, with the possible exception of faster eras. But even then, considering how one of Rafa's greatest attributes is his adaptability, I find it likely that he would have adjusted and at least held his own vs. top hardcourt and even grass players in other eras.

 

[Ricardo]

Lendl should have been a 10+ slam winner if he didn’t ditch playing on clay for a few years...and still fell short at Wimbledon.

 

[calitennis127]

Imagine actually saying what a H2H record would look like if you take out literally two of the most important matches they ever played. Why would I take them out? Was Novak hurt? Was the match rigged?

Well, first of all, even if you don't take them out, the record is still 20-7 in Djokovic's favor, which doesn't exactly leave Nadal in a position of power in the overall argument, does it?

Now one reason we could separate those two matches (and, to be fair, the USO final Djokovic did win as well as the two Australian Open finals) is that Nadal more than any other player tends to put his best foot forward in the Slams and play much better (especially in New York) than he does the vast majority of the year on hardcourts. So, if you want me to be fair, I will cut out 3 of Djokovic's wins in hardcourt Slam finals in addition to Nadal's 2 wins. Where does that leave us?

17-5 Djokovic - a record that is still better than Nadal's current record against Djokovic on clay.

In 2010, Nadal was the better player, by far. Not even close. Novak hadn't done shit since 2008 at majors and Nadal was HEAVILY favored to win that match, and he did. Nobody expected Djokovic to win.

There were a variety of reasons for that. One of them was that Djokovic had just surprisingly won a 5-set marathon over Federer in the semifinal on Super Saturday (not Friday), so people were wondering about Djokovic's condition heading into the final. Another reason was that it had been over 2 years since Djokovic had won a Slam. A third reason was that Nadal - despite the fact that his draw was like that of an ATP 250 event - appeared to be playing the best hardcourt tennis of his life.

But, that is not the whole story - and you know that. In their prior three hardcourt matches (all in the second half of 2009), Djokovic straight-setted Nadal. And only 1 of those 6 sets went to a tiebreak.

2009 Cincinatti semifinal: 6-1, 6-4 Djokovic
2009 Paris semifinal: 6-2, 6-3 Djokovic
2009 London RR: 7-6, 6-2 Djokovic

Djokovic was also 7-3 overall on hardcourts against Nadal with 1 of those 3 losses being at the Olympics (another big stage event, which raises the question why Nadal needs the adrenaline of the big stage to beat Djokovic on hardcourts. Isn't it funny how when they are just playing a regular match without massive pressure of a Slam final or Olympic match Djokovic is almost guaranteed to dust the floor with Nadal?)

So for you to talk like Djokovic's chances against Nadal in that final were so miniscule is preposterous. He had a winning record against Nadal and had won their last 3 matches on hardcourts. Yes, Nadal was in a groove, and yes, his semifinal was much easier. But Djokovic was given an extra day of rest with the rain on Sunday and it was his second US Open final. Both players had factors running in their favor and against it.

In fact, it was you who made a thread after Roger beat Nadal at the WTF in 2010 that Nadal was so lucky he didn't play Roger at the US Open...clearly implying you didn't think much of Djokovic at the time.

More precisely, that I think Federer was better at his best on hardcourts at the time and would have been a more difficult match-up for Nadal in the US Open final - not that I think Djokovic was bad on hardcourts or that he couldn't have played better in the US Open final.

Speaking of which, Nadal straight setted Djokovic at the WTF in 2010...indoors. So clearly, the US Open final was far from a fluke as Nadal outplayed Djokovic pretty thoroughly and backed it up at the WTF.

So are you perhaps suggesting that Federer would have spanked Nadal in the US Open final the way he did at World Tour Finals that year? I think you're on to something there.

You can't retroactively apply someone's future level to matches played earlier.

Please, don't be ridiculous. My argument is based as much on what had occurred PRIOR to the 2010 US Open final as on what happened after it. Like I just said, Djokovic's hardcourt record against Nadal was 7-3 heading into that final and he had just won the last 3 matches they played on hards in straight sets - 2 in Masters Series events and 1 at World Tour Finals (all at the end of 2009).

You can act like those matches meant nothing but that is preposterous. If you think Nadal wasn't thinking about that losing streak before the match, you are dreaming.

Again - Djokovic was 7-3 against Nadal on hardcourts heading into the 2010 US Open final, including a 3-match winning streak of straight wins at the end of 2009. You can pretend like none of that happened but it did.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Nadal leads 19-17 in slam titles.

Nadal leads 9-6 in slam h2h.

Everything else is secondary.

 

[Fiero425]

Nadal leads 19-17 in slam titles.

Nadal leads 9-6 in slam h2h.

Everything else is secondary.

With plenty of time to change things! It's not and can't be a definitive "result" until all's said and done! The only thing that's certain for sure is Fed's H2H record is underwater to Nadovic and that can't be changed! It's a done deal! When it concerns the final record, we'll have to wait a few years! I can't imagine the #'s not changing significantly so Fed might wind up being a footnote in a few years even with recognition of his style, grace, and winning era!

 

[Bonaca]

With plenty of time to change things! It's not and can't be a definitive "result" until all's said and done! The only thing that's certain for sure is Fed's H2H record is underwater to Nadovic and that can't be changed! It's a done deal! When it concerns the final record, we'll have to wait a few years! I can't imagine the #'s not changing significantly so Fed might wind up being a footnote in a few years even with recognition of his style, grace, and winning era!

They are becoming more and more nervous , are you recognizing that too?

 

[Fiero425]

They are becoming more and more nervous , are you recognizing that too?

They should; "be afraid, be very afraid!"

 

[calitennis127]

A further point: if indeed Rafa "overachieved" at the US Open it may be that he just has certain abilities or qualities that you don't recognize as being part of his profile of greatness. Rafa is widely recognized for his fighting spirit, which could explain him "overachieving," but why don't you acknowledge this or recognize it as part of his greatness? I think it is more than fighting spirit, that he has actual subtle qualities to his profile that set him apart, but if you could at least acknowledge this and recognize it as an essential component of any player's ability?

I have always said that Nadal displays a unique combination of persistence, mental constancy, and stamina - qualities largely related to what you are dubbing his "fighting spirit." But by your logic, the words "overachieve" and "underachieve" should not exist in dictionaries because there is no such thing as overachieving or underachieving. Everything is what it is and has only been what it could have been. We should not even discuss the concepts of "overachieving" and "underachieving" by this logic because they aren't really concepts in the first place.

I think what you miss is that there are a variety of paths to greatness, and number of qualities that make up how good a player is on court. You like to emphasize the pretty things a player can do with a racquet, but there are also mental factors, contextual factors. To say that Rafa overachieved at the US Open is to narrow tennis to a kind of exhibition display of finesse. To make a comparison to baseball, scouts account for the fact that certain players are better hitters in batting practice--with greater contact and/or power--than they are in an actual game. This isn't only about pressure and mental fortitude, but the ability to adapt and adjust to a living, organic context. I think this is part of Rafa's greatness that is actually understated, and why he's not merely a great clay courter who is pretty good on grass and hards, but the clay GOAT and a truly great player off clay.

I don't disagree at all that other factors go into winning beside elegant shots. I have always credited Nadal with having a multitude of qualities that contribute to winning.

But what does that have to do with whether he has overachieved at the US Open in winning more titles there than Djokovic?

 

[calitennis127]

Nadal leads 9-6 in slam h2h.

Djokovic leads 5-3 off clay, with 1 of those losses being a cheap one at Wimbledon 2007 where Djokovic retired.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Djokovic leads 5-3 off clay, with 1 of those losses being a cheap one at Wimbledon 2007 where Djokovic retired.

Those 5 wins include the 2012 AO and 2018 WB that could have gone either way. If Nadal capitalized a couple of points he would be the one leading 5-3 off clay and 11-4 overall.

Meanwhile...

Nadal leads 7-3 off hardcourt.

Nadal leads 8-4 off grass.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There were a variety of reasons for that. One of them was that Djokovic had just surprisingly won a 5-set marathon over Federer in the semifinal on Super Saturday (not Friday), so people were wondering about Djokovic's condition heading into the final. Another reason was that it had been over 2 years since Djokovic had won a Slam. A third reason was that Nadal - despite the fact that his draw was like that of an ATP 250 event - appeared to be playing the best hardcourt tennis of his life.

But, that is not the whole story - and you know that. In their prior three hardcourt matches (all in the second half of 2009), Djokovic straight-setted Nadal. And only 1 of those 6 sets went to a tiebreak.

2009 Cincinatti semifinal: 6-1, 6-4 Djokovic
2009 Paris semifinal: 6-2, 6-3 Djokovic
2009 London RR: 7-6, 6-2 Djokovic

Djokovic was also 7-3 overall on hardcourts against Nadal with 1 of those 3 losses being at the Olympics (another big stage event, which raises the question why Nadal needs the adrenaline of the big stage to beat Djokovic on hardcourts. Isn't it funny how when they are just playing a regular match without massive pressure of a Slam final or Olympic match Djokovic is almost guaranteed to dust the floor with Nadal?)

So for you to talk like Djokovic's chances against Nadal in that final were so miniscule is preposterous. He had a winning record against Nadal and had won their last 3 matches on hardcourts. Yes, Nadal was in a groove, and yes, his semifinal was much easier. But Djokovic was given an extra day of rest with the rain on Sunday and it was his second US Open final. Both players had factors running in their favor and against it.

Ah, textbook Cali, and it's why arguing with you using basic logic and using your own arguments against you is easy. You provided context...for Djokovic's losses. Nadal's 3 losses that you refer to? Zero context.

Well, while there can be no denying that Novak had ALWAYS been the better hard court player on average, you neglect to mention that those 3 back to back wins that you refer to came after Nadal's 2009 tendinitis, when his form was in free fall after the FO and he didn't beat A SINGLE TOP 10 PLAYER FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR until some random win over Tsonga in Paris. He lost all 3 of his 2009 WTF matches. More context, the Paris and London tournaments are played indoors, which is Nadal's worst surface, and have zero bearing on a match up in New York. More importantly, that US Open final happened a year later, where Nadal was playing infinitely better tennis and had his best season ever, winning 3 majors.

So yeah, that's some context for you.

More precisely, that I think Federer was better at his best on hardcourts at the time and would have been a more difficult match-up for Nadal in the US Open final - not that I think Djokovic was bad on hardcourts or that he couldn't have played better in the US Open final.

Again, this is where I bring my buddy @britbox to back me up: the consensus at the time was that Nadal was going to absolutely smash Federer in the final. Yes, smash. And Britbox will 100% confirm this. At the time, Roger was still Nadal''s whipping boy, and continued to be for years to come. Further, Roger was playing like shit since the AO. So honestly I have no idea what you're talking about. A match between them at a major at the time had only one outcome, regardless of the surface, an they played enough times for this to be proven true. Or should I give you some context by providing results?

Now, notice the "Cali special": Ignoring my argument about Nadal vs. Novak on clay because it shows how inconsistent and biased his reasoning is. Cali to tap-dance and provide some more weird arguments that get likes by the same biased people even though they fall apart under the merest hint of examination in 3..2..1... (hint: there's going to be a lot of arbitrary bullshit about how, despite losing a million times and being Nadal's bitch on clay for the most part, Novak clearly has better shots, better talent, etc...which means that he should win. hint #2: that argument will fail to explain why all of that wasn't enough for Novak to perform better vs. Nadal on clay, even though for the most part, he was beating everyone else prior to 2017 and that for the most part, he was getting the better of Nadal on every other surface).

 

[brokenshoelace]

Djokovic leads 5-3 off clay, with 1 of those losses being a cheap one at Wimbledon 2007 where Djokovic retired.

Ah yes, those super legit Novak retirements at the time...that should put a huge asterisk. The guy retired out of the Wimbledon semi final due to fucking blisters. If that win is cheap blame it on the pussy who couldn't tough it out.

 

[Fiero425]

Ah, textbook Cali, and it's why arguing with you using basic logic and using your own arguments against you is easy. You provided context...for Djokovic's losses. Nadal's 3 losses that you refer to? Zero context.

Well, while there can be no denying that Novak had ALWAYS been the better hard court player on average, you neglect to mention that those 3 back to back wins that you refer to came after Nadal's 2009 tendinitis, when his form was in free fall after the FO and he didn't beat A SINGLE TOP 10 PLAYER FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR until some random win over Tsonga in Paris. He lost all 3 of his 2009 WTF matches. More context, the Paris and London tournaments are played indoors, which is Nadal's worst surface, and have zero bearing on a match up in New York. More importantly, that US Open final happened a year later, where Nadal was playing infinitely better tennis and had his best season ever, winning 3 majors.

So yeah, that's some context for you.





Again, this is where I bring my buddy @britbox to back me up: the consensus at the time was that Nadal was going to absolutely smash Federer in the final. Yes, smash. And Britbox will 100% confirm this. At the time, Roger was still Nadal''s whipping boy, and continued to be for years to come. Further, Roger was playing like shit since the AO. So honestly I have no idea what you're talking about. A match between them at a major at the time had only one outcome, regardless of the surface, an they played enough times for this to be proven true. Or should I give you some context by providing results?

Now, notice the "Cali special": Ignoring my argument about Nadal vs. Novak on clay because it shows how inconsistent and biased his reasoning is. Cali to tap-dance and provide some more weird arguments that get likes by the same biased people even though they fall apart under the merest hint of examination in 3..2..1... (hint: there's going to be a lot of arbitrary bullshit about how, despite losing a million times and being Nadal's bitch on clay for the most part, Novak clearly has better shots, better talent, etc...which means that he should win. hint #2: that argument will fail to explain why all of that wasn't enough for Novak to perform better vs. Nadal on clay, even though for the most part, he was beating everyone else prior to 2017 and that for the most part, he was getting the better of Nadal on every other surface).

I couldn't even read all this blather! As soon as I read extenuating circumstances concerning Nadal losses, I lost interest! No one want to be bothered with Nole's injuries or physical nature where gluten might drag him down! I can't be bothered with Nadal's BS either! Why can't we all just get along?

 

[Bonaca]

Djokovic leads 5-3 off clay, with 1 of those losses being a cheap one at Wimbledon 2007 where Djokovic retired.

Novak leads 29:26 overall and 15:11 in all finals they played. Still counting. Nothing to add.