Will Novak pass Rafa?

[Moxie]

Let's look at what you originally said, idiot. Your argument here is just a biased, super-partisan joke that it's hard to take it even slightly seriously. This isn't about me wanting to score points so much as me pointing out clear holes in your arguments because they are glaringly obvious. What's funny is that, as always, you feign objectivity but reveal yourself to be absurdly biased. Here is the post of yours that I was responding to:

"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."

Now what is your main argument for Nadal's hardcourt resume putting the clay resume of Djokovic and Federer to shame?

His (bullshit) US Open wins. Without those, you would have zero case. Nadal has 10 MS hardcourt titles to Djokovic's 9 clay MS titles, despite there being twice as many hardcourt MS events as clay court MS events every year (6 to 3), meaning Nadal has gotten far, far, far more cracks at MS hardcourt titles than Djokovic has at MS clay court titles.

By the same token - to be fair - Nadal has a higher winning percentage at the clay MS events than Djokovic does at the MS hardcourt events. I can point this out because unlike you (or especially Moxie) I am capable of evenhandedness.

But as to the original point of contention: without the 4 US Open titles, Nadal's hardcourt resume would not even come close to measuring up to Djokovic's clay resume. Hence my point that if there was a second clay court Slam, it is entirely conceivable that Djokovic would have 4 at it like Nadal does at the US Open. We know from Djokovic's run at the Australian Open that dominating at one hardcourt Slam does not mean you will dominate at another.

What if the second clay court Slam played more like Madrid and less like Roland Garros/Rome? It is entirely conceivable that Djokovic would have 4 titles at it, especially given Nadal's struggles at Madrid over the yeas. But I am thinking creatively, outside the box, which is something you clearly struggle with. You're welcome for expanding your horizons with such an obviously evenhanded post.

This one really made me laugh. You call (all FOUR) of Nadal's US Open wins "bullshit," and then you congratulate yourself for your "evenhanded post." That's rich.

I'm not sure how you think you get to eliminate 4 Majors off of Nadal's HC resume and then say, "See? The comparison to Novak's clay resume practically dissolves." At least not with a straight face.

And you may forget that Nadal took off 2 1/2 months after RG due to injury, then came back in N.Am HC season to promptly pull an abdominal. And I know you declared nothing surprising about some of Nadal's losses that fall, but the scoreline to DelPo at USO absolutely was. That's just your bias.

 

[Moxie]

OK, Cali, here it is. You want to talk Nadal's resume on HC v. Djokovic's and Roger's on clay? Without extractions or asterisks:

Nadal on HC:

Majors: 5
MS1000: 10
Others: 7

Total: 22
Win pct: .781
Total matches: 481-135

Djokovic on Clay:

Majors: 1
MS1000: 9
Others: 5
Win pct: .796
Total matches: 214-55

Federer on Clay:

Majors: 1
MS1000: 5
Others: 5
Win pct: .761
Total matches: 223-70

_______________________________

Within those numbers:

* Djokovic has a great win percentage on clay, but look how few he's played, compared to Nadal on HC
* Neither Djokovic nor Federer won RG by going through Nadal. Nadal, however won Wimbledon defeating Roger, won USO defeating Novak twice, won AO beating Roger
* Roger has beaten Nadal 2x on clay (both MS 1000); Novak has beaten Nadal 6x on clay (more than anyone else, by far - All MS 1000)
* Rafa has beaten Roger 8x on HC, Novak 5x on HC; and he has beaten each on his way to or in the finals of some of those HC wins, even beside the Major ones.

 

[El Dude]

Why is so hard for some people to accept that Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic are all truly great players? Why is it so important to undermine some of their accomplishments? I just don't get it.

I mean, I get wanting to angle for your guy as the best of the group. I personally don't feel a strong urge to do so, but I understand why some people find it important for them. I even get disliking aspects of another's game for aesthetic reasons, or simply because of sour grapes. But to actively and consistently try to diminish their greatness? Why?

 

[Moxie]

Why is so hard for some people to accept that Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic are all truly great players? Why is it so important to undermine some of their accomplishments? I just don't get it.

I mean, I get wanting to angle for your guy as the best of the group. I personally don't feel a strong urge to do so, but I understand why some people find it important for them. I even get disliking aspects of another's game for aesthetic reasons, or simply because of sour grapes. But to actively and consistently try to diminish their greatness? Why?

Thank you for this. There are actually a lot of posters that are starting to say that we've got 3 all-time-greats, and there's not much between them. I know I'm guilty of getting into the weeds with the likes of a hater such as Cali, who keeps trying to reinvent the past. But, yes...when all is said and done, at the end of this era, will there be one GOAT? At least in this era, it will be about the 3 of them, at the very least in a complicated conversation.

 

[El Dude]

On a different note, Moxie, what do you think about the idea that while all three are GOATs because they all dominated their own contexts in different, meaningful ways, and have similarly great resumes...but at the same time, Rafa has a slight edge over Roger, and Novak a slight edge over Rafa due to surpassing the former GOAT and taking the mantle as overall premier player on tour?

Meaning, they're all GOATs because they dominated in a way that no other player has dominated before, all in different ways, but there's also the natural and inevitable increase in skill level. I have no doubt that plopping Michael Jordan into today's NBA would still yield a truly great player and maybe even the best in the game, but we can't deny the fact that every player after Jordan built upon what he brought to the game. Part of Roger's claim to GOATness that Rafa and Novak can never equal is that he established a new kind of dominance that we hadn't seen before. Yet at the very same time, Rafa and then Novak came along and took the crown from him, and brought their own brands of unsurpassed greatness to the table.

As difficult as it is to imagine, someday we'll see a player arise who takes flavors of the Holy Trinity and adds something new. Maybe it is one of the teenagers currently on tour, or maybe it is a kid in middle school who we don't know about yet, or maybe they're picking up a tennis racket for the first time. But it is inevitable, and their legacy will be built upon what came before.

 

[El Dude]

Meaning, Roger has already carved a legacy that is uniquely his own, but so have Rafa and Novak, even if in different ways. Roger was so singular in his dominance of his own era, and his ability to remain an elite player for such a long time. But Rafa dominated clay like we've never seen before, and was able to expand that dominance across the whole tour, even if for shorter spells than Roger and Novak. And Novak, the younger upstart, came along and took the crown from both of them. All are GOATs, and barring one of them far surpassing the others in the most important statistical categories, will maintain their legacy as one of a three-headed, "Cerberean" GOAT.

 

[El Dude]

Hey, at least we can say that none of Nalbandian's Slam titles were bullshit.

 

[Moxie]

When you talk about this era down the road, or any of the 3 of them, I don't see how you can completely extract the others. I suppose that says it all.

 

[calitennis127]

This one really made me laugh. You call (all FOUR) of Nadal's US Open wins "bullshit," and then you congratulate yourself for your "evenhanded post." That's rich.

What I was referencing when I said I was being evenhanded was that I acknowledged Nadal has a higher winning percentage at clay Masters events than Djokovic does at hardcourt Slams. This is something you would never do in reverse. And that was my point. Your omission of how Djokovic was the best player on clay in 2011 before Roland Garros is a perfect example, as is your omission of Nadal's unexceptional 2010 summer before the 2010 US Open.

I'm not sure how you think you get to eliminate 4 Majors off of Nadal's HC resume and then say, "See? The comparison to Novak's clay resume practically dissolves." At least not with a straight face.

Moxie are you really this slow? And were you actually following the debate before you decided to interject? The topic at hand, in case you missed it, is that there are two hardcourt Slams, not one. The point I was making is that Nadal has had far more cracks at getting HC Slams than Djokovic has at winning clay court Slams. I also noted that if the second clay Slam was more like Madrid and less like Rome or Roland Garros then Djokovic almost certainly would have 3 or 4 of them. But that is where my balance came in to play and I mentioned that Nadal has won a higher percentage of events on clay overall than Djokovic has won on hards overall - again, the kind of thing you would never mention in reverse.

And you may forget that Nadal took off 2 1/2 months after RG due to injury, then came back in N.Am HC season to promptly pull an abdominal. And I know you declared nothing surprising about some of Nadal's losses that fall, but the scoreline to DelPo at USO absolutely was. That's just your bias.

Yeah sure, but you have no bias in dismissing every one of Nadal's 2009 losses as the result of injury, even though he was consistently getting to the semis or better of every event he played except two events (Canada where he lost to Delpo in the quarters and World Tour Finals where he has always been subpar). Nadal lost to Djokovic three times (2 MS semis and London RR), Delpo twice (MS quarterfinal and US Open semi), and Davydenko twice (MS final and London RR). There is nothing about that sequence that is out of step with his typical playing history. In fact, the end of 2009 was far closer to Nadal's typical HC performance than his run in 2013, and it's not even close. All Nadal did at the end of 2009 was repeatedly reach hardcourt semis and finals and then lose. What is unusual about that?

Also, Nadal had a much tougher US Open draw in 2009 than he did in 2010. And he got through his 2009 draw dropping only 2 sets en route to the semis (1 to Kiefer and 1 to Monfils). Other than that he straight-setted everyone. His total sets won going into the semi with Del Potro was 15 to 2. This myth you and Broken prop up of the battered, shell-of-himself 2009 Nadal that lost to Del Potro is the biggest load of bullshit imaginable. He actually had gotten through one of the toughest hardcourt Slam draws of his career in pretty decisive fashion in order to reach Del Potro.

 

[calitennis127]

Why is so hard for some people to accept that Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic are all truly great players? Why is it so important to undermine some of their accomplishments? I just don't get it.

Since you are directing your questions at me, I will answer directly: I think Nadal's achievements on paper do not reflect his actual tennis prowess vis-à-vis the competition, particularly Federer and Djokovic. Does this mean I think he is no good? No. But it does mean that I think his overall record, particularly at the French Open and the US Open, is highly distorted due to the failures of his top opponents.

And what got the ball rolling with that trend was Federer's mind-numbingly stupid approach to Nadal on clay. So Federer is mostly to blame for what I am talking about.

 

[calitennis127]

OK, Cali, here it is. You want to talk Nadal's resume on HC v. Djokovic's and Roger's on clay? Without extractions or asterisks:

Nadal on HC:

Majors: 5
MS1000: 10
Others: 7

Total: 22
Win pct: .781
Total matches: 481-135

Djokovic on Clay:

Majors: 1
MS1000: 9
Others: 5
Win pct: .796
Total matches: 214-55

Federer on Clay:

Majors: 1
MS1000: 5
Others: 5
Win pct: .761
Total matches: 223-70

_______________________________

And since you are slow to the debate, how many more hardcourt Slams has Nadal played than the other two have played clay Slams?

It is also notable that Djokovic has a better winning percentage on clay than Nadal does on hardcourts.

* Djokovic has a great win percentage on clay, but look how few he's played, compared to Nadal on HC

Lol.....THAT WAS EXACTLY MY POINT DING-DONG. That's why I said it isn't fair to compare Nadal's hardcourt Slam total to Djokovic's RG total in absolute terms when Nadal has had so many more cracks at hardcourt slams overall than Djokovic has at clay slams.

* Neither Djokovic nor Federer won RG by going through Nadal. Nadal, however won Wimbledon defeating Roger, won USO defeating Novak twice, won AO beating Roger

To Nadal's credit. But at least two of those wins were clear cases of his opponent playing very poorly.

* Roger has beaten Nadal 2x on clay (both MS 1000);

It should have been far more. Too bad Federer couldn't close out a 5-1 first set lead in a final in Hamburg.

Novak has beaten Nadal 6x on clay (more than anyone else, by far - All MS 1000)

Incorrect. He has beaten him 7 times. You are omitting the Roland Garros victory. That was a nice little extraction from your list. Keep in mind that Djokovic has a better record against Nadal on clay than Nadal does against Djokovic on hardcourts at this point (7-17 versus 7-20).

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Hardcourt slams h2h: Djokovic 3-2
Clay slams h2h: Nadal 6-1
It’s not even close!

 

[britbox]

There are also two hardcourt Slams as opposed to one clay slam. That has given Nadal far more opportunities on hardcourts than the other two had on clay. And Nadal does have a dud Slam: the Australian Open. Amazing how you could omit that.

I'm curious to why you think Nadal's overall slam count would be reduced if they swapped a hard court major out for an extra clay one. It doesn't make any logical sense.

Sure, his peers might get more opportunities to beat him on clay... but opportunity just means they'd play him more often... conversion is what counts.

If you asked Federer or Djokovic where they'd rather play Nadal, I doubt clay would feature too highly in the survey responses.

 

[El Dude]

Since you are directing your questions at me, I will answer directly: I think Nadal's achievements on paper do not reflect his actual tennis prowess vis-à-vis the competition, particularly Federer and Djokovic. Does this mean I think he is no good? No. But it does mean that I think his overall record, particularly at the French Open and the US Open, is highly distorted due to the failures of his top opponents.

And what got the ball rolling with that trend was Federer's mind-numbingly stupid approach to Nadal on clay. So Federer is mostly to blame for what I am talking about.

Two things. One, every single player has had tournaments in which they had relatively easy draws, as well as opponents who struggled with how to match their game. Federer's "stupid approach" is the result of Rafa's greatness, how he was able to neutralize Federer's strengths. It takes nothing away from Rafa; if anything, it supports his case for being one of the GOATs.

Two, I suspect that based on your Nalbandian fetish, your whole argument is another weak attempt of trying to justify the greatness of your favorite player on some dubious notion that a player's true talent level isn't accurately reflected by their results, but how good they are in specific moments, or on the practice courts. It is well past time to accept that David Nalbandian was as good as his results say he was. A player's greatness is not only how pretty his shots are or what he can do with a tennis racket. It is also tenacity, fitness, grit, tactics, flexibility, competiveness, intelligence, and so much more.

All that said, it does seem to me that Rafa has been unusually blessed with his routes through the US Open, at least in his last two wins (if memory serves -- too lazy to look). But you can't point this out in good faith without pointing to at least several Roger wins early in his career. When you play as many Slams as these three have done, you'll face every possible scenario and configuration. All three have won relatively "easy" Slams, but also very difficult ones.

The bottom line: Regardless of how you nitpick specific tournaments, over the course of such long and prolific careers, it tends to even out. For the most part, players are what their results say they are, especially when you are talking about such long careers. And to be honest, part of the fun of tennis is that you have players like Gaston Gaudio and Thomas Johansson sneaking through and winning Slam titles, while more talented players like Miroslav Mecir and David Nalbandian never find a way. This is one of the reasons why I don't see Slam count as the single defining factor in ranking players.

 

[El Dude]

In baseball, scouts differentiate between raw and in-game power. Some hitters are able to loft the ball with more power in batting practice than they can in games. Why? Well in batting practice you are not only facing a pressure-free environment, but the pitches tend to be relatively flat and straight forward. And predictable. But a player's true power is best represented by how it shows up in an actual game, with a diversity of pitchers, pitches, and situations.

You seem to miss this in the context of tennis. Raw power is pretty and fun to watch, but all that matters is how it transfers to the actual games.

 

[Jelenafan]

In baseball, scouts differentiate between raw and in-game power. Some hitters are able to loft the ball with more power in batting practice than they can in games. Why? Well in batting practice you are not only facing a pressure-free environment, but the pitches tend to be relatively flat and straight forward. And predictable. But a player's true power is best represented by how it shows up in an actual game, with a diversity of pitchers, pitches, and situations.

You seem to miss this in the context of tennis. Raw power is pretty and fun to watch, but all that matters is how it transfers to the actual games.

In football the pure natural passers rarely are the great Quarterbacks, the ones who can read/analyze the defense in a split second and think and react with options A,B, C or D while defensive linemen are breathing down his neck. So many college star QB’s are a bust in the pros because their football acumen is limited whereas lower drafted QB’s like Montana, Brady and Rogers flourished because they worked hard and honed that sixth sense in tight situations.

 

[calitennis127]

Clay slams h2h: Nadal 6-1

If there was a second clay Slam played at Madrid or a surface like that, do you think the clay record would be 6-1 Nadal?

 

[calitennis127]

I'm curious to why you think Nadal's overall slam count would be reduced if they swapped a hard court major out for an extra clay one. It doesn't make any logical sense.

And I never said that would happen. I was simply saying that if there was a second clay Slam it is entirely conceivable that Djokovic could have won 4 of them the way Nadal has won 4 titles at the US Open. Why is that such an outrageous suggestion given that Djokovic has won 9 Masters titles on clay and has a near-80% winning percentage on clay?

 

[calitennis127]

In baseball, scouts differentiate between raw and in-game power. Some hitters are able to loft the ball with more power in batting practice than they can in games. Why? Well in batting practice you are not only facing a pressure-free environment, but the pitches tend to be relatively flat and straight forward. And predictable. But a player's true power is best represented by how it shows up in an actual game, with a diversity of pitchers, pitches, and situations.

You seem to miss this in the context of tennis. Raw power is pretty and fun to watch, but all that matters is how it transfers to the actual games.

And what does this have to do with Djokovic being up 2-0 in the third set of the 2013 US Open final with all the momentum on his side and missing a straightforward CC backhand on AD point as he is about to get the double break?

What does this have to do with Federer flopping against Delpo in 2017 and Dimitrov in 2019?

What does this have to do with Djokovic losing to Nishikori and Federer losing to Cilic in 2014?

What does this have to do with Federer frankly not putting Delpo away in the 2009 final?

What does this have to do with Djokovic losing to Wawrinka in the 2016 US Open final in the exact same way he did in the 2015 Roland Garros final?

All of these questions I just listed have to do with why Nadal has 4 US Opens to Djokovic's 3 and Federer's 5. You are not addressing any of those questions by simply pointing out the obvious that players who look good in practice don't always carry it over into the games. I think we can all agree that these three players have surpassed that particular challenge, so why are you bringing it up in a discussion about them?

I don't think Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal are cases of players who are too timid to carry over their practice prowess into the official matches.

 

[calitennis127]

This is El Dude's argument:

Practice stars don't always carry over their prowess into games. Therefore, it makes total sense that Roger Federer (a 20-time Grand Slam champion who at least some of the time appears to have been able to overcome this mental hurdle of carrying his practice level into official matches) lost matches to Marin Cilic and Grigor Dimitrov (among others) at the US Open. Not only that, but it could not have been any other way. Suggesting that Federer underachieved in those matches makes no sense.