Will Novak pass Rafa?

[calitennis127]

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.

Lol.....funny how you never mention Nadal's losses in Canada (Murray) and Cincinnati (Baghdatis) in 2010 but talk up this pre-US Open run of 2013. Why is that? I think we all know why. You are at least as biased as everyone else while pretending not to be. When discussing 2010, we never hear about how Nadal flamed out of both Canada and Cincinnati.

It is also hilarious - based on this 2013 pre-US Open context argument - for you to omit in all these conversations how Djokovic had beaten Nadal twice on clay IN STRAIGHT SETS in MS finals before the 2011 French Open and that the CONSENSUS (which you are talking about regarding 2010 at the US Open) was that Djokovic would beat Nadal in the final that year. Why are you not talking about that CONTEXT and that CONSENSUS from the clay court season of 2011? At least Djokovic went through Nadal twice to win Madrid and Rome. Nadal in the 2013 hardcourt season lucked out by avoiding Djokovic in Cincinnati, where Djokovic had straight-setted him in both 2008 and 2009.

So it is quite possible that Federer saved Nadal's ass from a beating in the 2011 French Open final, which would have seriously changed the trajectory of their rivalry on clay going forward. But because you are so biased toward Nadal, this 2011 Federer bailout of Nadal at Roland Garros doesn't even come to mind for you.

Here comes some Broken rationalizing in 3, 2, 1......

 

[El Dude]

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 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?

Good point about over/under-achieving. The terms have merit, and I get where you're coming from with Nadal. But at some point, "over-achieving" has to diminish in meaning when it becomes the consistent norm.

Take David Ferrer, for instance. On one hand, he's an over-achiever. He was the "other guy" in the top 5 for a bit, sort of taking over from Davydenko. But there was never really any point in his career that anyone thought he might win a Slam. That is unusual for a player who has spent as much time in the top 5 as he has: 190 weeks, more than multi-Slam winners Lleyton Hewitt, Stan Wawrinka, Jim Courier, Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, and Patrick Rafter. In that sense, Ferrer "over-achieved" based upon his generally agreed upon limited peak performance level.

But to address your last point, in my mind what you point out is not that Rafa over-achieved, but that Slam titles don't mean everything - especially when you're talking about the difference of a single Slam. No reasonable person will say that Rafa is a better hardcourt player than Novak because of his USO results. I mean, consider their USO results, QF or better:

Rafa: W, W, W, W, F, SF, SF, QF
Novak: W, W, W, F, F, F, F, F, SF, SF, SF

Here's how they stack up in terms of number of times they've reached that level:
Wins: 4-3 Rafa
Finals: 8-5 Novak
SF: 11-7 Novak
QF: 11-8 Novak

I guess this supports your notion that Rafa "over-achieved" at the US, but only relative to Novak. The operative number is that in final matches at the USO, Rafa is 4-1 and Novak 3-5. Is that Rafa over-achieving or is it, maybe, because he is able to perform in the clutch?

 

[britbox]

Lol.....funny how you never mention Nadal's losses in Canada (Murray) and Cincinnati (Baghdatis) in 2010 but talk up this pre-US Open run of 2013. Why is that? I think we all know why. You are at least as biased as everyone else while pretending not to be. When discussing 2010, we never hear about how Nadal flamed out of both Canada and Cincinnati.

It is also hilarious - based on this 2013 pre-US Open context argument - for you to omit in all these conversations how Djokovic had beaten Nadal twice on clay IN STRAIGHT SETS in MS finals before the 2011 French Open and that the CONSENSUS (which you are talking about regarding 2010 at the US Open) was that Djokovic would beat Nadal in the final that year. Why are you not talking about that CONTEXT and that CONSENSUS from the clay court season of 2011? At least Djokovic went through Nadal twice to win Madrid and Rome. Nadal in the 2013 hardcourt season lucked out by avoiding Djokovic in Cincinnati, where Djokovic had straight-setted him in both 2008 and 2009.

So it is quite possible that Federer saved Nadal's ass from a beating in the 2011 French Open final, which would have seriously changed the trajectory of their rivalry on clay going forward. But because you are so biased toward Nadal, this 2011 Federer bailout of Nadal at Roland Garros doesn't even come to mind for you.

Here comes some Broken rationalizing in 3, 2, 1......

Nobody is beating Nadal at the USO in 2010 Cali. I remember coming away from that final thinking Djokovic never beats an on-song Nadal in a major final again. OK, I was very wrong on that front... but it was a hugely impressive performance at the time. It took a mammoth effort and serious redlining on Djoker's part to even grab a set.

Nadal's whole tournament run was dominant. As for Federer, Nadal was so embedded in his psyche at the time, it would take a long break for Federer to reset that relationship. He was never going to be a favourite going into that final at the time.

I agree on the 2011 French Open to some degree - Nadal was there for the taking. There was probably too much scar tissue from previous encounters that held Federer back. It would have been even fresher at the 2010 US Open.

 

[Jelenafan]

I agree on the 2011 French Open to some degree - Nadal was there for the taking. There was probably too much scar tissue from previous encounters that held Federer back. It would have been even fresher at the 2010 US Open.

TBH, in all of Nadal’s FO finals it’s never even gone 5 sets, so hard to see how 2011 was there for Federer to grab. Granted the titanic SF with Novak in 2013 was a different can of worms, Novak came very close. Federer never came that close.

 

[Front242]

TBH, in all of Nadal’s FO finals it’s never even gone 5 sets, so hard to see how 2011 was there for Federer to grab. Granted the titanic SF with Novak in 2013 was a different can of worms, Novak came very close. Federer never came that close.

Rome 2006 was 5 sets same as RG and Federer had 2 match points. Novak never came close to beating absolute prime Nadal on clay in a 5th set. The version of Nadal he beat in 2015 was a complete mickey mouse Nadal. He was losing to everyone that year everywhere.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Nadal at RG: 93-2 (12 titles)
Djokovic at AO: 75-8 (8 titles)

Compared to Nadal at RG, Djokovic can’t even be considered “great” at the AO.

93-2 vs 75-8

In a few months Nadal will be 100-2 with 13 titles.

 

[Bonaca]

Nadal is less successful on all surfaces off clay compared to Novak and Roger. Roger still the most slam wins. Losing record against Novak, got dominated by him in the last 10 years overall.
Not even near the no 1weeks record.
How could this guy be called single GOAT

 

[El Dude]

I don't think there's a singular GOAT anymore, but one argument against Roger and in favor of both Rafa and Novak is that the latter two have overall better performances per Slam appearance.

Roger: 79 Slams, 20 Wins (25.3%), 31 finals (39.2%), 46 semifinals (58.2%), 57 quarterfinals (72.2%)
Rafa: 59 Slams, 19 Wins (32.3%), 27 finals (45.8%), 33 semifinals (55.9%), 41 quarterfinals (69.5%)
Novak: 60 Slams, 17 Wins (28.3%), 26 finals (43.3%), 37 semifinals (61.7%), 46 quarterfinals (76.7%)

Now a Roger fan might argue that this is mostly because Roger has played more Slams, and once you add 20 to Rafa's and Novak's docket--if, indeed, they actually play that many more, the percentages will be closer.

Here's how Roger looks through 2014, the year he turned 33 - and thus about the same age as Rafa and Novak now:

Roger (through 2014): 62 Slams, 17 Wins (27.4%), 25 finals (40.3%), 36 semifinals (58.1%), 43 quarterfinals (69.4%)

A bit closer, but still not as good.

Now I'm not saying that this definitively proves that Roger is an inferior player than Rafa and Novak as there are many other factors, but it is a data point worth considering.

 

[Jelenafan]

Rome 2006 was 5 sets same as RG and Federer had 2 match points. Novak never came close to beating absolute prime Nadal on clay in a 5th set. The version of Nadal he beat in 2015 was a complete mickey mouse Nadal. He was losing to everyone that year everywhere.

Not disagreeing with you but just pointing out the topic had been pointed toward French Open so i was referring to those matches.

Now the 2006 FO final was probably the closest Roger got to Rafa at Roland Garos, losing 7-6 in the 4th but it was a weird match to say the least. Methuselah blasted Rafa off the court in the 1st set, 6-1, the only time i believe he ever led Rafa at the FO, but then proceeded to lose 6-1 the second set and then dug himself into a 2-1 set deficit.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Lol.....funny how you never mention Nadal's losses in Canada (Murray) and Cincinnati (Baghdatis) in 2010 but talk up this pre-US Open run of 2013. Why is that? I think we all know why. You are at least as biased as everyone else while pretending not to be. When discussing 2010, we never hear about how Nadal flamed out of both Canada and Cincinnati.

It's very simple actually. Despite having a stellar year up until Canada, Nadal didn't play well in either tournament. Then the US Open comes along and he shows up with his new and improved serve, almost magically. There very few signs yet all of a sudden he's serving bombs. In fact, it was so unexpected that people here will legit accusing him of PEDs (you know because your serve magically improves by 5 mph if you take steroids). There's no comparison between Nadal's levels at those tournaments and Nadal at the US Open. I mean, how difficult is that?

Meanwhile, in 2013 he was brilliant on hard courts all year and kept it up. Not sure where you're going with this really.

It is also hilarious - based on this 2013 pre-US Open context argument - for you to omit in all these conversations how Djokovic had beaten Nadal twice on clay IN STRAIGHT SETS in MS finals before the 2011 French Open and that the CONSENSUS (which you are talking about regarding 2010 at the US Open) was that Djokovic would beat Nadal in the final that year. Why are you not talking about that CONTEXT and that CONSENSUS from the clay court season of 2011? At least Djokovic went through Nadal twice to win Madrid and Rome. Nadal in the 2013 hardcourt season lucked out by avoiding Djokovic in Cincinnati, where Djokovic had straight-setted him in both 2008 and 2009

Djokovic would have absolutely smashed Nadal at the FO in 2011. I've always maintained that. I love when you think you've come up with the GOTCHA point but it's something I've always admitted to. But the fact that you're bringing this up means you really have nothing to offer as far as why you think Nadal's wins over Djokovic in the US Open are flukes.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal is less successful on all surfaces off clay compared to Novak and Roger. Roger still the most slam wins. Losing record against Novak, got dominated by him in the last 10 years overall.
Not even near the no 1weeks record.
How could this guy be called single GOAT

By the same token, how could either Djokovic or Federer be considered GOATS with their pathetic single French Open each? Or is clay not a surface? Once you go down that path it's easy for biased arguments to be torn apart under the merest hint of examination. Nadal's record on other surfaces is better than theirs on clay. For instance, his hard court resume puts Novak and Roger's clay resumes to shame.

 

[Fiero425]

By the same token, how could either Djokovic or Federer be considered GOATS with their pathetic single French Open each? Or is clay not a surface? Once you go down that path it's easy for biased arguments to be torn apart under the merest hint of examination. Nadal's record on other surfaces is better than theirs on clay. For instance, his hard court resume puts Novak and Roger's clay resumes to shame.

Neither Fedovic were inept on clay as the past GOAT Sampras who didn't even play a FO final! They own some clay Masters, played quite a few Paris finals, winning one each! They were just as unlucky as those past players who had to deal with the likes of Borg, Wilander, Lendl, now Nadal who hogged the RG titles when they competed!

 

[Bonaca]

By the same token, how could either Djokovic or Federer be considered GOATS with their pathetic single French Open each? Or is clay not a surface? Once you go down that path it's easy for biased arguments to be torn apart under the merest hint of examination. Nadal's record on other surfaces is better than theirs on clay. For instance, his hard court resume puts Novak and Roger's clay resumes to shame.

I said it multiple times, for me there is no single GOAT. Not Novak, Roger or Nadal.
By the way my post was referred to a certain Nadaltroll.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Neither Fedovic were inept on clay as the past GOAT Sampras who didn't even play a FO final! They own some clay Masters, played quite a few Paris finals, winning one each! They were just as unlucky as those past players who had to deal with the likes of Borg, Wilander, Lendl, now Nadal who hogged the RG titles when they competed!

Sampras isn't in the GOAT conversation anymore so the above is completely irrelevant. When we're discussing GOATS, we're talking Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, so yes, when someone points out to Nadal's record on say, hards, then it only makes sense to discuss their resume on clay. And no, it's not that they're unlucky, it's that they're not nearly as good as he is on clay. Not even close. Hence his 12 clay majors to their combined 2. Otherwise I can say Nadal is unlucky to deal with Djokovic on hards otherwise he'd have a bunch of extra slams on that surface. It's shocking how silly this is since the argument works both ways but you guys are too biased to see it.

 

[Fiero425]

Sampras isn't in the GOAT conversation anymore so the above is completely irrelevant. When we're discussing GOATS, we're talking Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, so yes, when someone points out to Nadal's record on say, hards, then it only makes sense to discuss their resume on clay. And no, it's not that they're unlucky, it's that they're not nearly as good as he is on clay. Not even close. Hence his 12 clay majors to their combined 2. Otherwise I can say Nadal is unlucky to deal with Djokovic on hards otherwise he'd have a bunch of extra slams on that surface. It's shocking how silly this is since the argument works both ways but you guys are too biased to see it.

But it wasn't Djokovic that stopped Nadal from winning more HC tourneys as it was his own body betraying him; esp. in the 2nd half of the season! His Summer and Fall records suck in comparison to his usual dominance early on during the clay season in the Spring! Then there have been the upsets over the years at the USO which had nothing to do with Fedovic; Pouille, F3, Blake, Youzney, Ferrer (didn't see it), Murray, & of course Del PO twice! The same is true at the YEC where he's only played a couple finals, often not even making it out of the RR!

 

[brokenshoelace]

But it wasn't Djokovic that stopped Nadal from winning more HC tourneys as it was his own body betraying him; esp. in the 2nd half of the season! His Summer and Fall records suck in comparison to his usual dominance early on during the clay season in the Spring! Then there have been the upsets over the years at the USO which had nothing to do with Fedovic; Pouille, F3, Blake, Youzney, Ferrer (didn't see it), Murray, & of course Del PO twice! The same is true at the YEC where he's only played a couple finals, often not even making it out of the RR!

First of all, we're clearly mainly talking about majors, which you'd get if you were less sleepy, judging by that emoticon, but then again, I've read your posts - unfortunately - so I wouldn't completely bank on it.

But, since we're playing that game, allow me to show you how dumb your logic is:

Kohlschreiber. Melzer. Wawrinka. Thiem. Cecchinato. Thiem again.

You know what they have in common? They've all beaten Novak at the French Open.

Now, let's name some more players:

Horna, Soderling, Tsonga, Gulbis, Wawrinka,...

Those are some of the names who have beaten Federer at the French Open.

So, does that shut down your dumbass point or you want to come up with more nonsense?

 

[Fiero425]

First of all, we're clearly mainly talking about majors, which you'd get if you were less sleepy, judging by that emoticon, but then again, I've read your posts - unfortunately - so I wouldn't completely bank on it.

But, since we're playing that game, allow me to show you how dumb your logic is:

Kohlschreiber. Melzer. Wawrinka. Thiem. Cecchinato. Thiem again.

You know what they have in common? They've all beaten Novak at the French Open.

Now, let's name some more players:

Horna, Soderling, Tsonga, Gulbis, Wawrinka,...

Those are some of the names who have beaten Federer at the French Open.

So, does that shut down your dumbass point or you want to come up with more nonsense?

You poor thing! You're really beggin'! Sorry your interpretive skills are so lacking & you're miserable to need to go there!

 

[Moxie]

You poor thing! You're really beggin'! Sorry your interpretive skills are so lacking & you're miserable to need to go there!

Not sure your post makes any sense, but do note that your examples of players that have beat Rafa at the USO have all at one point been in the top 10, and 2 have won the USO. Broken's list of players who beat Novak and Roger at FO: a couple in there have (eventually) won the event, but not all have ever made it to top 10.

 

[Moxie]

Not disagreeing with you but just pointing out the topic had been pointed toward French Open so i was referring to those matches.

Now the 2006 FO final was probably the closest Roger got to Rafa at Roland Garos, losing 7-6 in the 4th but it was a weird match to say the least. Methuselah blasted Rafa off the court in the 1st set, 6-1, the only time i believe he ever led Rafa at the FO, but then proceeded to lose 6-1 the second set and then dug himself into a 2-1 set deficit.

Still, I don't think @Front242 was wrong to point out that match...the 2006 Rome final. That, with the 2005 Rome v. Coria were the closest Nadal came to going down in 5 sets on clay. Rome 2005 v. Coria: 6-4, 3-6, 6-3, 4-6, 7-6 (6.) Rome 2006 v. Fed: 6/7(0), 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5). The SF v. Novak in 2013 wasn't nearly this tight. And Roger wasn't exactly "Methulelah" when he lost to Rafa in 2011. He was still a spritely 29.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Still, I don't think @Front242 was wrong to point out that match...the 2006 Rome final. That, with the 2005 Rome v. Coria were the closest Nadal came to going down in 5 sets on clay. Rome 2005 v. Coria: 6-4, 3-6, 6-3, 4-6, 7-6 (6.) Rome 2006 v. Fed: 6/7(0), 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5). The SF v. Novak in 2013 wasn't nearly this tight. And Roger wasn't exactly "Methulelah" when he lost to Rafa in 2011. He was still a spritely 29.

Nadal was down 4-2 in the fifth set to Novak in that match. I agree that the match didn't necessarily feel this close coming into the fifth as Nadal thoroughly outplayed him and won sets and 3 with complete ease, while twice being up a break in the fourth and even serving for the match that set before blowing it. Definitely shouldn't have gone to five but that final set was as tight as they come, score wise (Nadal played a lot better than Novak in that set and showed that, when he's playing like this on clay, nobody can beat him).